UK Muslim protest group banned - supporters could face 10 years - Polidicks

In other news, 172 English Defence Leauge members were arrested today for 'breaching the peace' [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15697632[/url]

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33234186]"glorifying terrorism" isn't ties to terrorists[/QUOTE] Alright wrong word but the point remains that this isn't some case of the British Government going 'hey let's ban this because we don't like muslims' like you seem to think.

[QUOTE=matt.ant;33234427]In other news, 172 English Defence Leauge members were arrested today for 'breaching the peace' [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15697632[/url][/QUOTE] I don't think I know who those are, can you inform me?

[QUOTE=shadowsX;33234169]Well they should at least not burn the poppies down and chant horrible words about soldiers who risk their life i hope they get a good beating from prisoners[/QUOTE] You're saying you wish violence upon them because you hate their ideology? Wow that almost sounds like [b]exactly what they're doing.[/b]

[QUOTE=hoodoo456;33234466]I don't think I know who those are, can you inform me?[/QUOTE] Basically far-right Nationalists.

[QUOTE=ThisGuy0;33234449]Alright wrong word but the point remains that this isn't some case of the British Government going 'hey let's ban this because we don't like muslims' like you seem to think.[/QUOTE] no that's exactly why they banned this group. unless they are supporting terrorist groups with materials or sensitive information or actively threatening a specific person with death, they should be allowed to say what they want. it should not be legislated that you HAVE to be respectful to people.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;33234495]unless they are supporting terrorist groups with materials or sensitive information or actively threatening a specific person with death, they should be allowed to say what they want. it should not be legislated that you HAVE to be respectful to people.[/QUOTE] I agree with you, but banning a group on the shaky grounds that they may be dangerous and banning a group because you don't like what they say are entirely different things.

[QUOTE=ThisGuy0;33234525]I agree with you, but banning a group on the shaky grounds that they may be dangerous and banning a group because you don't like what they say are entirely different things.[/QUOTE] but you can't ban a group because they "may" be dangerous. that's the kind of thinking that got the communist party outlawed and why we put japanese and german-americans in internment camps.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;33234562]but you can't ban a group because they "may" be dangerous. that's the kind of thinking that got the communist party outlawed and why we put japanese and german-americans in internment camps.[/QUOTE] Hence why I agree with you that it's not a good thing. I'm just trying to make the point that it has some degree of legitimacy as an argument and isn't the same as just banning the group because people don't like it.

Finally. It's good to see the British taking a stand. I respect freedom of speech, but this is our country and if they don't like it they can just get the fuck out. You don't move somewhere then complain about it when you have the freedom to move somewhere else.

Have you looked at the list of their previously used names? They're a splinter group of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muhajiroun]Al-Muhajiroun[/url].

[QUOTE=shadowsX;33233827]They should do it in the uk as a convict tried to escape through a airport in one[/QUOTE] I find this so hard to belive for so many reasons, the main one being that people wearing veils are taken aside at security checkpoints and have their identities checked by a women in private.

[QUOTE=matt.ant;33234427]In other news, 172 English Defence Leauge members were arrested today for 'breaching the peace' [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15697632[/url][/QUOTE] well at least britain is consistent when it tramples on people's rights

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33235170]well at least britain is consistent when it tramples on people's rights[/QUOTE] They were planning to cause trouble, only problem is the thing they were going to counter protest didn't happen.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33233941]Really, so you'd base it on things like that? Well let's dissect this here: 1. Let's ban [veils] because a criminal used it in their actions! What if that logic applied for anything else? Like this: 2. Let's ban [metal pipes] because a criminal used it in their actions! See the problem here?[/QUOTE] wow do you post that often I just had massive deja vu [editline]12th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ViralHatred;33234989]Finally. It's good to see the British taking a stand. I respect freedom of speech, but this is our country and if they don't like it they can just get the fuck out. You don't move somewhere then complain about it when you have the freedom to move somewhere else.[/QUOTE] They are British too, you know. [editline]12th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=pvt.meh;33235020]Have you looked at the list of their previously used names? They're a splinter group of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muhajiroun]Al-Muhajiroun[/url].[/QUOTE] Is that supposed to convince me? Most governments in the world benefited from 9/11, allowing them to bring in waves of legislation which eroded the rights of the citizenry. Also, no shit people in it may become terrorists. I don't imagine there are too many hardline political islam groups in the UK. [editline]12th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Jsm;33219485]Are you being dense on purpose? The CIA did not help Al Qaeda (as an enitity in its own right), it did not exist until after that period of time. Not to mention it is [B]a UK law[/B]. Unlike certain countries we don't go around trying to be world police.[/QUOTE] The CIA supported the mujahideen which disseminated terrorism throughout the Islamic world, including Al-Qaeda [quote]Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987: It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan.[/quote] I mean, both Islamists and American officials obviously want to dispute any support from the US, but do you really think the US would stand idly by and do nothing to hinder the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? Oh you don't try to world police, then? So you weren't involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the Falklands, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Iraq the first time around, the 1998 bombing of Iraq...?

I was giving more information to shed light on the situation, it wasn't even a reply to anyone.

[QUOTE=Contag;33235958] Oh you don't try to world police, then? So you weren't involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the Falklands, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Iraq the first time around, the 1998 bombing of Iraq...?[/QUOTE] You suggested that the British legal system should be used to bring charges against the US government, that is the literal definition of "world police". Something the UK doesn't do. It does not go pulling people around the world to face justice. The things you listed are not "world policing" (when used for the other meaning) anyway, four (technically 5) of the things you mentioned were in response to various UN resolutions, one in response to an attack on a NATO country and one in response to a direct attack on the UK itself. With the exception of Libya I do not see how you could class any of that as world policing.

[QUOTE=ViralHatred;33234989]Finally. It's good to see the British taking a stand. I respect freedom of speech, but this is our country and if they don't like it they can just get the fuck out. You don't move somewhere then complain about it when you have the freedom to move somewhere else.[/QUOTE] "I respect freedom of speech but if you say something I don't like get out"

[QUOTE=Jsm;33236306]You suggested that the British legal system should be used to bring charges against the US government, that is the literal definition of "world police". Something the UK doesn't do. It does not go pulling people around the world to face justice. The things you listed are not "world policing" (when used for the other meaning) anyway, four (technically 5) of the things you mentioned were in response to various UN resolutions, one in response to an attack on a NATO country and one in response to a direct attack on the UK itself. With the exception of Libya I do not see how you could class any of that as world policing.[/QUOTE] yup you're right I was legitimately demanding you bring charges against the CIA under British law my point was the government supports terrorism when it is the right kind of terrorism

[QUOTE=thisispain;33219083]thanks UK police state. "We cannot be bothered to solve the issue of extremism in the UK or even understand why extremism exists in our country. Therefor, we'd much rather forget about the whole thing. What protest group? I don't know any muslim protest group." [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] hahah because of freedom of speech? you'd be an excellent daily mail scaremonger. IF WE DON'T BAN THIS GROUP WE WILL FIND BOMBS IN OUR HOUSES, EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE, JESUS CHRIST OPEN YOUR EYES![/QUOTE] All of your posts are complete bullshite. Please do not fill threads that you know about or have even heard of with your utter bullshit heckling.

Who am I supposed to support? The government censorship of freedom of speech or the Islamic radicals who want death to British soldiers?

wow next time our government gloats about human rights and freedom of speech I'm going to fire an arrow at Camerons massive forehead with a note on it saying "NOPE". Probably would kill him, but I reckon he's got a pretty thick skull already.

[QUOTE=JamesRaynor;33242685]Who am I supposed to support? The government censorship of freedom of speech or the Islamic radicals who want death to British soldiers?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Vasili;33243383]wow next time our government gloats about human rights and freedom of speech I'm going to fire an arrow at Camerons massive forehead with a note on it saying "NOPE". Probably would kill him, but I reckon he's got a pretty thick skull already.[/QUOTE] This has fuck all to do with freedom of speech, they are banning a group that is associated with terrorists and is another name of a known terrorist group. Their members could carry on preaching whatever they want in the street if they wanted to. They just cannot be associated with Muslims against crusades.

[QUOTE=Jsm;33244957]This has fuck all to do with freedom of speech, they are banning a group that is associated with terrorists and is another name of a known terrorist group. Their members could carry on preaching whatever they want in the street if they wanted to. They just cannot be associated with Muslims against crusades.[/QUOTE] You know what, how about I take a little 'ol trip back to 1919, a little event called the Palmer Raids. Let's see if we can't match up, eh? "This has fuck all to do with freedom of speech, they are cracking down on a group that is associated with Communists and is another name of a known Communist group. Their members could carry on preaching whatever they want in the street if they wanted to. They just cannot be associated with Radicals against Capitalism." Oh my, that looks quite awful now, doesn't it?

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;33236391]"I respect freedom of speech but if you say something I don't like get out"[/QUOTE] Just because we have freedom of speech, doesn't mean you can't be pissed off at someone who express their opinions. Even if they're in their full right to do so, you're can still tell them that you think they should GTFO. Self-censorship is mostly harmful to freedom of speech.

[QUOTE=TehMentos;33250486]Just because we have freedom of speech, doesn't mean you can't be pissed off at someone who express their opinions. Even if they're in their full right to do so, you're can still tell them that you think they should GTFO. Self-censorship is mostly harmful to freedom of speech.[/QUOTE] You're completely within your right to be pissed at them, but they are also within their right to say what they have been saying.

[QUOTE=thisispain;33219083]thanks UK police state. "We cannot be bothered to solve the issue of extremism in the UK or even understand why extremism exists in our country. Therefor, we'd much rather forget about the whole thing. What protest group? I don't know any muslim protest group." [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] hahah because of freedom of speech? you'd be an excellent daily mail scaremonger. IF WE DON'T BAN THIS GROUP WE WILL FIND BOMBS IN OUR HOUSES, EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE, JESUS CHRIST OPEN YOUR EYES![/QUOTE] Except --- Except guess what! These "protesters" support the use of muslamic ray guns against civilians!

[QUOTE=TehMentos;33250486]Just because we have freedom of speech, doesn't mean you can't be pissed off at someone who express their opinions. Even if they're in their full right to do so, you're can still tell them that you think they should GTFO. Self-censorship is mostly harmful to freedom of speech.[/QUOTE] I never said he couldn't, but he's a hypocrite for saying he respects freedom of speech but then turns around and says "if you don't like it leave."

Read the title and interpreted it as a protest group against Muslims. this is about as bad

Police state!! 1984!!! or not really to be honest