Britain First threatens to target London Mayor Sadiq Khan with 'direct action'

The group say they consider all Muslim elected officials 'occupiers'

The far-right group Britain First has threatened to target where Sadiq Khan “lives, works and prays” as part of their apparent organised action against British Muslim politicians.

In a press release, the “loyalist” group claim they specialise in direct action which they will use against Mr Khan.
The group's leader Paul Golding, who ran for Mayor of London and scored abysmally gaining 31,372 first preference votes compared to Mr Khan’s 1,148,716, has made his feelings clear about Mr Khan before, having been pictured with his back turned when the newly appointed Mayor gave his victory speech earlier this month.

In the release, Mr Golding says: “Britain First specialises in militant direct action and has tracked down and confronted numerous hate preachers and terrorists.

“Britain First now considers all Muslim elected officials as ‘occupiers’ and will start to oppose their strategy of entryism and take-over of our political system.”

The statement concludes by reminding readers of their “official” policy to ban Islam in the UK and say they will “not stop until all Islamist occupiers are driven out of politics completely”.

The group’s “direct action” has previously included “invading” a Halal meat factory, the Islamic Sharia Council in east London and bombarding their way through a mosque.

Citing the apparent “intelligence” they receive, the group pledges to “focus on all aspects of their day-to-day lives and official functions, including where they live, work, pray and so on”.

As well as Mr Khan, the group mentions fellow ‘targets’ Tory business minister Sajid Javid, the mayor of Oxford Mohammed Altaf-Khan, the mayor of Blackburn Hussain Akhtar and also Shafique Shah who they say is the mayor of Birmingham.

However, Mr Shah is not the mayor of Birmingham anymore. Ray Hassall is.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/sadiq-khan-britain-first-london-mayor-threaten-direct-action-a7047991.html



Nice!   Issued before Thomas Mair killed Jo Cox, no wonder they are backpeddling.

IF A NEO-NAZI group over here released such a threatening edict publicly,

they would likely be in jail by now...

Does the UK have codified freedom of religion?

Ben Reilly wrote:Does the UK have codified freedom of religion?

That makes no sense as people are allowed to protest.
Are you saying religions should be protected from protests?
Do you want censurship of freespeech?

The best way to deal with Britians First who look to bigoted ways against Muslims is for communities to stick together and stand in peaceful opposition to them.

ONCE an activist group starts protesting outside a persons workplace, home, church, their childrens school (or even at weddings or funerals -- like the Westbro wankers do in the US..), than they are starting to harass and threaten other people besides their initial target(s)...

HOW an imagined right to "free speech" should somehow allow militant and bigoted activist "protest" groups to threaten people, disrupt public order or peoples lives, terrorise neighbourhoods, workplaces or local communities..

AS WELL AS pushing some of their more crazy and unbalanced  members and followers over the edge..
WELL, that does belie any rational and reasoned arguments.    

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

ONCE an activist group starts protesting outside a persons workplace, home, church, their childrens school (or even at weddings or funerals -- like the Westbro wankers do in the US..), than they are starting to harass and threaten other people besides their initial target(s)...

HOW an imagined right to "free speech" should somehow allow militant and bigoted "protest" groups to threaten people, disrupt public order or peoples lives, terrorise neighbourhoods, workplaces or local communities..

AS WELL AS pushing some of their more crazy and unbalanced  members and followers over the edge..

WELL, that does belie any rational and reasoned arguments.      

You mean like these protestors?

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Does the UK have codified freedom of religion?

That makes no sense as people are allowed to protest.
Are you saying religions should be protected from protests?
Do you want censurship of freespeech?

The best way to deal with Britians First who look to bigoted ways against Muslims is for communities to stick together and stand in peaceful opposition to them.

Of course it makes sense.

The statement concludes by reminding readers of their “official” policy to ban Islam in the UK and say they will “not stop until all Islamist occupiers are driven out of politics completely”.

Does the UK have codified freedom of religion?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


That makes no sense as people are allowed to protest.
Are you saying religions should be protected from protests?
Do you want censurship of freespeech?

The best way to deal with Britians First who look to bigoted ways against Muslims is for communities to stick together and stand in peaceful opposition to them.

Of course it makes sense.

The statement concludes by reminding readers of their “official” policy to ban Islam in the UK and say they will “not stop until all Islamist occupiers are driven out of politics completely”.

Does the UK have codified freedom of religion?

It makes no sense as are you saying people are not allowed to protest

Does british socldiers burn in hell not incite hate?

People have a right to peaceful protest and its not against the law.

Banning Islam is not the way forward, but everyone has a right to petition to ban anything.

It does not mean it will become law.

If they are directly discriminating someone, then its different in law, but protesting is not against the law and they know this, as should you

Didge wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

ONCE an activist group starts protesting outside a persons workplace, home, church, their childrens school (or even at weddings or funerals -- like the Westbro wankers do in the US..), than they are starting to harass and threaten other people besides their initial target(s)...

HOW an imagined right to "free speech" should somehow allow militant and bigoted "protest" groups to threaten people, disrupt public order or peoples lives, terrorise neighbourhoods, workplaces or local communities..

AS WELL AS pushing some of their more crazy and unbalanced  members and followers over the edge..

WELL, that does belie any rational and reasoned arguments.      

You mean like these protestors?

SHIP 'EM OFF to Syria or Afghanistan, I say !!!

Preferably on a leaky boat..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Didge wrote:

You mean like these protestors?

SHIP 'EM OFF to Syria or Afghanistan, I say  !!!

Preferably on a leaky boat..

lol i agree, but again the point is, and in both extreme groups, that they have the freedom of speech to protest.
Though to me when it clashes with hate, it then crosses a line
So I get where Ben is coming from and sort of agree, but you cannot legislate against a peaceful protest even ifs its motivations is prejudiced and hate

There was no apparent problem with Islamic extremists harassing soldiers in Luton, so I don't see the problem.

sassy wrote:The far-right group Britain First has threatened to target where Sadiq Khan “lives, works and prays” as part of their apparent organised action against British Muslim politicians.

No surprise. All violence (or threats thereof) come from the right. They can't 'think' their way into an argument, so the resort to the only means they have at their disposal.

I keep repeating...

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:The far-right group Britain First has threatened to target where Sadiq Khan “lives, works and prays” as part of their apparent organised action against British Muslim politicians.

No surprise.  All violence (or threats thereof) come from the right.  They can't 'think' their way into an argument, so the resort to the only means they have at their disposal.

I keep repeating...

So are threats from extremist Muslims towards non-Muslims also "right wing" threats? I guess so, so basically to you, any threat is "right wing", right?

Was the attack on Lee Rigby a "right wing" attack? After all, Michael Adebolajo said he was only defending downtrodden Muslims abroad.

What about threats from animal rights groups? Are they "right wing" too? Are people who disrupted hunt meetings "right wing"?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No surprise.  All violence (or threats thereof) come from the right.  They can't 'think' their way into an argument, so the resort to the only means they have at their disposal.

I keep repeating...

So are threats from extremist Muslims towards non-Muslims also "right wing" threats? I guess so, so basically to you, any threat is "right wing", right?

I've been saying that for over 10-years.  Antipathy toward Muslims in the US and UK is RW, and Muslim extremism is RW.  So it's RW of the West vs. RW.of the Middle East.  

Except for those in difficult positions, such as sassy, the LW involvement is only one of observing, and passing judgment on both sides, as seems fit.

What difference does it make if it comes from the right or left???????

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:The far-right group Britain First has threatened to target where Sadiq Khan “lives, works and prays” as part of their apparent organised action against British Muslim politicians.

No surprise.  All violence (or threats thereof) come from the right.  They can't 'think' their way into an argument, so the resort to the only means they have at their disposal.

I keep repeating...

So are threats from extremist Muslims towards non-Muslims also "right wing" threats? I guess so, so basically to you, any threat is "right wing", right?

Look at the values of Islamic fundamentalists, Western right-wingers and Western left-wingers and tell me which two groups are the most similar.

Hell, even Major agrees with Islamic fundamentalists on one gigantic social issue

SEBRING, Florida (CNN) -- A couple of hours up the road from where some September 11 hijackers learned to fly, the new head of Aryan Nation is praising them -- and trying to create an unholy alliance between his white supremacist group and al Qaeda.

"You say they're terrorists, I say they're freedom fighters. And I want to instill the same jihadic feeling in our peoples' heart, in the Aryan race, that they have for their father, who they call Allah."

With his long beard and potbelly, August Kreis looks more like a washed up member of ZZ Top than an aspiring revolutionary.

Don't let appearances fool you: his résumé includes stops at some of America's nastiest extremist groups -- Posse Comitatus, the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nation.

"I don't believe that they were the ones that attacked us," Kreis said. "And even if they did, even if you say they did, I don't care!"

Kreis wants to make common cause with al Qaeda because, he says, they share the same enemies: Jews and the American government.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/29/schuster.column/

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So are threats from extremist Muslims towards non-Muslims also "right wing" threats? I guess so, so basically to you, any threat is "right wing", right?

Look at the values of Islamic fundamentalists, Western right-wingers and Western left-wingers and tell me which two groups are the most similar.

Left wingers and islamic fundementals, the former defends thems constantly and yet fails to reaslise islamism is neo-conservatism

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So are threats from extremist Muslims towards non-Muslims also "right wing" threats? I guess so, so basically to you, any threat is "right wing", right?

Look at the values of Islamic fundamentalists, Western right-wingers and Western left-wingers and tell me which two groups are the most similar.

Left wingers and islamic fundementals, the former defends thems constantly and yet fails to reaslise islamism is neo-conservatism

HERE WE GO A-FUCKIN'-GAIN ...

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

Left wingers and islamic fundementals, the former defends thems constantly and yet fails to reaslise islamism is neo-conservatism

HERE WE GO A-FUCKIN'-GAIN ...

Okay potty mouth, lets go over this

How many times did you defend Muslim youths refusing to shake hands based off islamism?
You are a lefty and the view not to shake hands is off an islamism political ideology
The Burka is not even islamic and is genesis is cultural and has been absorbed into islamism politiocal ideology in the form of Wahhabism.
You defend the right of women indoctrinated to believe they should be ahsmaed of their bodies and thus defend islamism. Also condming countless women forced to wear the outfit by defending this view to cover up.

You tell me if I am wrong as everytime you defend these poliitical islamist beliefs. That are not only sexist towards women and born from misogyny, you  are in fact defending neo-conservativism. As if this came from neo conservative Republicans, you would be highly critical, but with Islamism, you end up defending Islamic neo-conservatism. That is the double standards you portray.

So swear at me all you like. The proof is in the pudding. So where you should rightly view Islamism and the Tea party as two peas in the pod, you constantly defend the islamic one.

Original Quill wrote:

sassy wrote:The far-right group Britain First has threatened to target where Sadiq Khan “lives, works and prays” as part of their apparent organised action against British Muslim politicians.

No surprise.  All violence (or threats thereof) come from the right.  They can't 'think' their way into an argument, so the resort to the only means they have at their disposal.

I keep repeating...

All violence eh

Stalin?
Lenin?
Pol Pot?
Mao?


This why leftism does not work and will never work fora very long time, as it fails to understand humans and their corruptability, their lust for power etc. In fact leftism has seen some of the most appalling violnce in the 20th century.
Its a very flawed system, where something between left and right you will always going to find a better balance, but as seen leftism has always been a stark and utter failure as a system

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So are threats from extremist Muslims towards non-Muslims also "right wing" threats? I guess so, so basically to you, any threat is "right wing", right?

Look at the values of Islamic fundamentalists, Western right-wingers and Western left-wingers and tell me which two groups are the most similar.

What about the violence and threats in Communist countries? Is that "right wing" too?

I love the way "lefties" like to distance themselves from any kind of unpleasantness and think that they're all tree huggers who just lurve all mankind.

Raggamuffin wrote:I love the way "lefties" like to distance themselves from any kind of unpleasantness and think that they're all tree huggers who just lurve all mankind.

I think the concept you are looking for is called

"Double standards"

Not only that, the left seem to come out with biggest load of bullshit revisionist history I have ever heard.

Oh. Did I miss the "left wing flaps at the right wing and the right wing flapped back, again", again?

Well. Both sides suck like a fucking sucky lemon because you're both "fixed" on your own ideas instead of admitting a mix of both, may work quite well.
Like....lemon and custard.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So are threats from extremist Muslims towards non-Muslims also "right wing" threats? I guess so, so basically to you, any threat is "right wing", right?

Look at the values of Islamic fundamentalists, Western right-wingers and Western left-wingers and tell me which two groups are the most similar.

What about the violence and threats in Communist countries? Is that "right wing" too?

How do the Soviet Union, etc. compare to the countries that Western left-wingers love, like Sweden?

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


That makes no sense as people are allowed to protest.
Are you saying religions should be protected from protests?
Do you want censurship of freespeech?

The best way to deal with Britians First who look to bigoted ways against Muslims is for communities to stick together and stand in peaceful opposition to them.

Of course it makes sense.

The statement concludes by reminding readers of their “official” policy to ban Islam in the UK and say they will “not stop until all Islamist occupiers are driven out of politics completely”.

Does the UK have codified freedom of religion?

It makes no sense as are you saying people are not allowed to protest

Does british socldiers burn in hell not incite hate?

People have a right to peaceful protest and its not against the law.

Banning Islam is not the way forward, but everyone has a right to petition to ban anything.

It does not mean it will become law.

If they are directly discriminating someone, then its different in law, but protesting is not against the law and they know this, as should you

I'm not saying they don't have the right to freedom of speech, I'm asking whether religious freedom is guaranteed by British law -- which would render their promise to ban Islam an empty promise.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What about the violence and threats in Communist countries? Is that "right wing" too?

How do the Soviet Union, etc. compare to the countries that Western left-wingers love, like Sweden?

Like I said revisionism

Who governs Swedon Ben?

A Coalition by any chance?

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

Left wingers and islamic fundementals, the former defends thems constantly and yet fails to reaslise islamism is neo-conservatism

HERE WE GO A-FUCKIN'-GAIN ...

Okay potty mouth, lets go over this

How many times did you defend Muslim youths refusing to shake hands based off islamism?

Not extremism.

You are a lefty and the view not to shake hands is off an islamism political ideology
The Burka is not even islamic and is genesis is cultural and has been absorbed into islamism politiocal ideology in the form of Wahhabism.
You defend the right of women indoctrinated to believe they should be ahsmaed of their bodies and thus defend islamism. Also condming countless women forced to wear the outfit by defending this view to cover up.

I defend the right of anyone to dress as they choose, and to make up their own minds about their beliefs. Including a belief in Islam.

You tell me if I am wrong as everytime you defend these poliitical islamist beliefs. That are not only sexist towards women and born from misogyny, you  are in fact defending neo-conservativism. As if this came from neo conservative Republicans, you would be highly critical, but with Islamism, you end up defending Islamic neo-conservatism. That is the double standards you portray.

So swear at me all you like. The proof is in the pudding. So where you should rightly view Islamism and the Tea party as two peas in the pod, you constantly defend the islamic one.

I don't defend Islamism!

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What about the violence and threats in Communist countries? Is that "right wing" too?

How do the Soviet Union, etc. compare to the countries that Western left-wingers love, like Sweden?

Like I said revisionism

Who governs Swedon Ben?

A Coalition by any chance?

Western liberals say, "We should be more like Sweden." Not, "We should be more like Stalin." Doesn't matter two shits whether Sweden is governed by a coalition or a sentient computer -- liberals are saying, "That's the sort of society we ought to be emulating."

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


It makes no sense as are you saying people are not allowed to protest

Does british socldiers burn in hell not incite hate?

People have a right to peaceful protest and its not against the law.

Banning Islam is not the way forward, but everyone has a right to petition to ban anything.

It does not mean it will become law.

If they are directly discriminating someone, then its different in law, but protesting is not against the law and they know this, as should you

I'm not saying they don't have the right to freedom of speech, I'm asking whether religious freedom is guaranteed by British law -- which would render their promise to ban Islam an empty promise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_Kingdom

You can still campaign to ban anything, or have it redefined as hate spech could you not, as is not homophobia hate speech?
Aspects of the abrahamic faiths should be redifined as hate speech
You see this is where you allow yourself to protect things that deserve no protection.
People deserve protection, not beliefs
Anyway banning is always a daft move

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


Like I said revisionism

Who governs Swedon Ben?

A Coalition by any chance?

Western liberals say, "We should be more like Sweden." Not, "We should be more like Stalin." Doesn't matter two shits whether Sweden is governed by a coalition or a sentient computer -- liberals are saying, "That's the sort of society we ought to be emulating."

Yes it does because, as there many liberal conservatives who make up the Governement.
This is what the left do, take total credit for something they certainly do not warrant.
This is a fine example where left and right can put their diffierences aside and govern together.
Something the US and Uk are incapable of
But its not because of left or right but people placing the needs of the people over that of their political views

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

Okay potty mouth, lets go over this

How many times did you defend Muslim youths refusing to shake hands based off islamism?

Not extremism.

You are a lefty and the view not to shake hands is off an islamism political ideology
The Burka is not even islamic and is genesis is cultural and has been absorbed into islamism politiocal ideology in the form of Wahhabism.
You defend the right of women indoctrinated to believe they should be ahsmaed of their bodies and thus defend islamism. Also condming countless women forced to wear the outfit by defending this view to cover up.

I defend the right of anyone to dress as they choose, and to make up their own minds about their beliefs. Including a belief in Islam.

You tell me if I am wrong as everytime you defend these poliitical islamist beliefs. That are not only sexist towards women and born from misogyny, you  are in fact defending neo-conservativism. As if this came from neo conservative Republicans, you would be highly critical, but with Islamism, you end up defending Islamic neo-conservatism. That is the double standards you portray.

So swear at me all you like. The proof is in the pudding. So where you should rightly view Islamism and the Tea party as two peas in the pod, you constantly defend the islamic one.

I don't defend Islamism!

You are as seen defending two islamist beliefs.
So if a woman is told to wear a dog coillar, being led on the lead and the religion she believes in makes her naive to the fact she is a mere slave. You are saying you are going to defend her right to be fooled into being a slave are you?

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

Okay potty mouth, lets go over this

How many times did you defend Muslim youths refusing to shake hands based off islamism?

Not extremism.

You are a lefty and the view not to shake hands is off an islamism political ideology
The Burka is not even islamic and is genesis is cultural and has been absorbed into islamism politiocal ideology in the form of Wahhabism.
You defend the right of women indoctrinated to believe they should be ahsmaed of their bodies and thus defend islamism. Also condming countless women forced to wear the outfit by defending this view to cover up.

I defend the right of anyone to dress as they choose, and to make up their own minds about their beliefs. Including a belief in Islam.

You tell me if I am wrong as everytime you defend these poliitical islamist beliefs. That are not only sexist towards women and born from misogyny, you  are in fact defending neo-conservativism. As if this came from neo conservative Republicans, you would be highly critical, but with Islamism, you end up defending Islamic neo-conservatism. That is the double standards you portray.

So swear at me all you like. The proof is in the pudding. So where you should rightly view Islamism and the Tea party as two peas in the pod, you constantly defend the islamic one.

I don't defend Islamism!

You are as seen defending two islamist beliefs.
So if a woman is told to wear a dog coillar, being led on the lead and the religion she believes in makes her naive to the fact she is a mere slave. You are saying you are going to defend her right to be fooled into being a slave are you?

YES (because Ben is Progressive!)

because regardless of religon that is freedom,
She is free to choose a Path In oppositon to what YOU think is best for her.
what is or isn't good is irrelevant freedom includes the power of self destruction

Ben is not defending Islam specifically he is defending 'freedom of religion'

Sweden...!?


http://www.allenbwest.com/ashleyedwardson/mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-why-sweden-is-now-rape-capital-of-the-west

Raggamuffin wrote:I love the way "lefties" like to distance themselves from any kind of unpleasantness and think that they're all tree huggers who just lurve all mankind.

RW'rs are the conservatives.  To conserve is to stay the same...to be content with whatever misery there is.  Lw'rs are mindful of any suffering, and want to change things for the better.  It follows that LW'rs are active and mentally progressives.

Conservatives, wishing to just sleep, become angry at changes.  Mentally unpracticed, they cannot comprehend.  Their response to any changes is to feel threatened.  Anger is the first step of violence.  All violence comes from RW'rs.

Sweden is lw idea of 'better'...!?

tommy your source si and Ulra right wing Ameircan nut job

Crime stats for sweden

The rate of exposure to sexual offences has remained relatively unchanged, according to the SCS, since the first survey was conducted in 2006, despite an increase in the number of reported sex crimes.[34] This discrepancy can largely be explained by reforms in sex crime legislation, widening of the definition of rape,[35][36][37] and an effort by the Government to decrease the number of unreported cases.[36][38][39][40] In SCS 2013, 0.8 per cent of respondents state that they were the victims of sexual offences, including rape; or an estimated 62,000 people of the general population (aged 16–79). Of these, 16 per cent described the sexual offence as "rape" — which would mean approximately 36,000 incidents of rape in 2012.[34]

A frequently cited source when comparing Swedish rape statistics internationally is the regularly published report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) — although they discourage this practice.[41] In 2012, according to the report by UNODC, Sweden was quoted as having 66.5 cases of reported rapes per 100,000 population,[41] based on official statistics by Brå.[42][Note 1] The high number of reported rapes in Sweden can partly be explained by differing legal systems, offence definitions, terminological variations, recording practices and statistical conventions, making any cross-national comparison on rape statistics difficult.[43][Note 1]

According to a 2014 study published by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), approximately one third of all women in the EU were said to have suffered physical and/or sexual abuse. At the top end was Denmark (52%), Finland (47%) and Sweden (46%).[44][45] Every second woman in the EU has experienced sexual harassment at least once since the age of 15. In Sweden that figure was 81 per cent, closely followed by Denmark (80%) and France (75%). Included in the definition of "sexual harassment" was — among other things — inappropriate staring or leering and cyber harassment.[46][47] The report concluded that there's a strong correlation between higher levels of gender equality and disclosure of sexual violence

nothing to do with Islam
they changed the defintion and it has gone up in reports but the number in relation to capita remains largely the same.

YES they are 'LW better' because they report harassment that is view as acceptable in other western nations as sex crime.

RW ultra nut job ...?



http://www.allenbwest.com/meet-allen-west

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/23/sweden-opened-its-doors-to-Muslim-immigration-today-its-the-rape-capital-of-the-west-japan-didnt/

Tommy Monk wrote:RW ultra nut job ...?

http://www.allenbwest.com/meet-allen-west

so what part did you think doesn;t say he si a RW nut job

Its goal is to develop and promote private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.

member of
http://www.ncpa.org/achievements

can't get more RW that that

and yes another scare article that my information clearly explained.

What's that got to do with this...!?


http://www.allenbwest.com/ashleyedwardson/mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-why-sweden-is-now-rape-capital-of-the-west

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I love the way "lefties" like to distance themselves from any kind of unpleasantness and think that they're all tree huggers who just lurve all mankind.

RW'rs are the conservatives.  To conserve is to stay the same...to be content with whatever misery there is.  Lw'rs are mindful of any suffering, and want to change things for the better.  It follows that LW'rs are active and mentally progressives.

Conservatives, wishing to just sleep, become angry at changes.  Mentally unpracticed, they cannot comprehend.  Their response to any changes is to feel threatened.  Anger is the first step of violence.  All violence comes from RW'rs.

Prime example of revisionist history
Again look at every single example of Communism and its been an abject failure, let alone the violence carried out by Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Mao etc exceeds well over a hundred million deaths.
Again you hold some warped view that biologically humans are infertior based on political beliefs, which has no bearing.
No doubt you will pull up the Left wing joker card again on the prejudiced study which showed actually prejudice in both left and Right wing people, just in this study more right wing. The reality is you use the racist methodology politically and neglect first and foremost the presidents who most brought American forward with progression were actually RW

People change their political stances like the wnd and yet you think its some fixed biological trait when again its not and its people like you that creates a divide between people. Like I said to Ben on Swedon, it was not left or right wing politics that has made the country a great place to live. Its because people have placed aside their differences politically for the better need of the people

I will wait for ben to answer my questions, no problem if he cannot, though its interesting to note some on here would defend beliefs of people who joined religious cults like the Rev Jim Jones, Charles Manson etc and not be critical of their beliefs, but to defend I guess their abhorant beliefs. I mean Nazism is a belief system as well, which I think many would be critical of their practices. Claim something has a deity and people pander to protect such an abhorant belief system. Its peop;le you protect not the belief system and by protecting the beleif then many people suffer oppresion from that belierf where it is forced onto many women. Based off no religious text but a cultural be,lief that shames women.

Going back to his point on religious freedom, this I found very interesting.


Can You Indict Someone for Their Beliefs? It Happened in 1948. In the United States. -

See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162892#sthash.NeFlyfC9.dpuf

it is simple, do you stand for freedom or fear?

Standing for freedom means letting people make their own choices including mistakes
unitl they impinge on the freedom of another you have no rigth to interfere with their freedom or it is YOU that impinges on the rights of another and therefore in the wrong.

That's a conerstone of the progressive movement, If you don not follow that you cannot not be progressive.

I want to ask Ben whether he understands that like with any school, religions have copmpulsary dress codes. So its not a choice over what you wear but what doctrine you follow in islam. So the question is do you defend the belief that women should be shamed over what they wear and are taught to believe they are at fualt for the sexual desires of men? Either you back this belief in Wahabbism or you are against it. Hence the absurdity in regards to religious freedom, as this is subjucation. Its not a choice on whether to wear but a choice on what doctrine you chose to follow which has the compulsary burka. It then ceases to be a choice on what to wear but the choice is on the faith you follow. A belief system is not free from criticsm and progression did not occur from defending beliefs, but standing up to them.

So Ben, do you back the subjugation of women as taught in Wahhabism in the form of the Burka?

Yes or no

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

Okay potty mouth, lets go over this

How many times did you defend Muslim youths refusing to shake hands based off islamism?

Not extremism.

You are a lefty and the view not to shake hands is off an islamism political ideology
The Burka is not even islamic and is genesis is cultural and has been absorbed into islamism politiocal ideology in the form of Wahhabism.
You defend the right of women indoctrinated to believe they should be ahsmaed of their bodies and thus defend islamism. Also condming countless women forced to wear the outfit by defending this view to cover up.

I defend the right of anyone to dress as they choose, and to make up their own minds about their beliefs. Including a belief in Islam.

You tell me if I am wrong as everytime you defend these poliitical islamist beliefs. That are not only sexist towards women and born from misogyny, you  are in fact defending neo-conservativism. As if this came from neo conservative Republicans, you would be highly critical, but with Islamism, you end up defending Islamic neo-conservatism. That is the double standards you portray.

So swear at me all you like. The proof is in the pudding. So where you should rightly view Islamism and the Tea party as two peas in the pod, you constantly defend the islamic one.

I don't defend Islamism!

You are as seen defending two islamist beliefs.
So if a woman is told to wear a dog coillar, being led on the lead and the religion she believes in makes her naive to the fact she is a mere slave. You are saying you are going to defend her right to be fooled into being a slave are you?

All right, Didge, you want to play this stupid-ass game? Well then ...

You support the slaughter of innocent Palestinian children by Israeli forces. You must support that, after all, since you support Israel. You must be totally in favor of what the worst of Israel does, since you support Israel's statehood and freedom.

You let the worst speak for the best, so I'm going to hold you to the same standard. You want all Palestinians -- elderly grandmothers, decent hard-working men who provide for their families, little kids not old enough to form their own opinions -- you want them dead. You want the streets of Israel to run with their blood.

You call me an Islamist sympathizer, I call you someone who rejoices in the blood of dead Muslims regardless of anything they've done.

That's YOU'RE infantile game, I just decided to play it against you. Ball's in your court, shithead.