#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
MI 5 should have ''detained'' Jihadi John long ago.
With the British security forces coming under criticism, (not least of which from the left wing sanctimonious B.B.C.), for their apparent lack of decisive action against the piece of filth known as Jihadi John, should he not have been detained indifinitely under the anti terrorism act? However, on the other side of the coin, had thay done so the same, hypocritical, left wing run British Broadcvasting Corporation in unison with all the other self-righteous loony lefties would have been bellowing their predictable sanctimonious drivel about the violation of his ''human rights''. Could you imagine the reaction from the likes of the lefties who control the B.B.C, as well as the other left wing media:- ''Britian's Gestapo' is now rounding up and interning innocent Muslims just because of their political views''?
Yes to internment.
Side Score: 23
|
 |
No left to murder.
Side Score: 27
|
|
1
point
I think Britain should have a secret police or "gestapo" as the yogurt-knitters may like to label it to remove the Islamic enemies of the state. Even the ones who don't plan to do anything violent but still have extreme views should be arrested for being the enemies of the state that they should. Islamic hate speech should be considered treason. Allowing the vile Islamic hordes into our country in the first place was a grave mistake. We should have let the barbarians stay in their desserts, slums and hovels in their own countries where they belong. Side: Yes to internment.
I think people like you should be thrown out of the country for having extreme views about people with extreme a Islamic views . But then again maybe I should be thrown out of the country for having extreme views about people that have extreme views about people that have extreme views on Islam... Tricky. Side: No left to murder.
3
points
1
point
Not really. I am (verbally) defending Britain from it's enemies so I should be more than welcome in the country. I am one of the few people who aren't spinelessly politically correct regarding those who have the nerve to despise the country they chose to migrate to. Side: Yes to internment.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Its not the "verbal defence" that is the problem. Its advocating that a secret police service should punish those that speak against the UK. Just got to say... I'm British but absolutely despise the UK. Its a cold damp and miserable place. Respect for peoples private lives is severely lacking - as exemplified by the activities of GCHQ amongst other things. I find its stance on europe to be insanely xenophobic and it seems mainly policies and public opinions are direct result of tabloid media. You know what England is known for abroad? hooliganism and drunken fighting. Men in the Uk have been brought up to be so emotionally repressed that they feel the need to go out and start fights with out equally insecure men. It is a sick country and quite frankly a bit of foreign influence might improve it. Should I be punished too for my views? Side: No left to murder.
1
point
I think that you're saying is a bit different to Muslims saying it. To start off with you are (I am assuming) native British, you did not choose to be here. Whereas the Muslims chose to migrate here, they didn't have to yet they still have the nerve to slag us off. Second of all your criticisms are constructive (although wrong IMO), unlike Muslims' criticisms. Thirdly you are not encouraging violence and are not plotting to, or encouraging someone else to topple the current government forcefully or condoning terrorism. I find your views to be quite sickening but you are entitled to them. However the immoderate views of Muslims are another kettle of fish altogether. Side: Yes to internment.
1
point
"I think that you're saying is a bit different to Muslims saying it." Even if what they are saying is not in any way based on religious grounds? "To start off with you are (I am assuming) native British, you did not choose to be here." What if the Muslim is first, second, third (etc) generation, and therefore was born and raised there? "Second of all your criticisms are constructive (although wrong IMO), unlike Muslims' criticisms." What if the Muslims give constructive criticisms? "Thirdly you are not encouraging violence and are not plotting to, or encouraging someone else to topple the current government forcefully or condoning terrorism. He said he hated the U.K., which fulfilled the previous standard you had regarding incitement of hatred. Do you now believe it should be incitement of violence? Side: No left to murder.
1
point
Even if what they are saying is not in any way based on religious grounds? I never said that. What if the Muslim is first, second, third (etc) generation, and therefore was born and raised there? We were still pleasant enough to let their ancestors in so they should still appreciate it. Furthermore if they don't like it they can bugger back off to wherever there parents or grandparents came from. What if the Muslims give constructive criticisms? I am talking about the criticisms of militant Islam. Militant, Islamic fundamentalism has nothing constructive about it. He said he hated the U.K. There's clearly a difference between saying "I hate the weather, the people are xenophobic, there's not enough privacy" etc and saying "UK go to Hell, Bin Laden on his way", condoning the Woolwich murder and demanding Sharia law. Side: Yes to internment.
1
point
"I never said that." I know, hence my question. If Muslims are protesting, and are critical of the U.K. but not on religious grounds, would you count that? "We were still pleasant enough to let their ancestors in so they should still appreciate it. Furthermore if they don't like it they can bugger back off to wherever there parents or grandparents came from." But it is their home as much as it is yours. They were born there, they grew up there, so why do they not have the right to be critical of their home? "I am talking about the criticisms of militant Islam. Militant, Islamic fundamentalism has nothing constructive about it." Actually, you used very broad terms relating to "hating" Britain and being critical of it, not just about promoting Islamic fundamentalism. "There's clearly a difference between saying "I hate the weather, the people are xenophobic, there's not enough privacy" etc and saying "UK go to Hell, Bin Laden on his way", condoning the Woolwich murder and demanding Sharia law." So at what point do you draw the line, then? Side: No left to murder.
1
point
I know, hence my question. If Muslims are protesting, and are critical of the U.K. but not on religious grounds, would you count that? Why the hell would I? That would have nothing to do with them being Muslim so the fact that they are would not even be relevant. But it is their home as much as it is yours. They were born there, they grew up there, so why do they not have the right to be critical of their home? It is not their home as much as it is theirs. They are not native-British. Nor are they British in culture or behavior. You cannot be British and Muslim. Islam has no place in Britain. The burqa, for example cannot be integrated into British society.They are still foreigners and extremist Muslims are hardly integrated into British society. I do not care whether they were born here or not, they hate Britain so have no right to claim to be British. They have no right to slag the British off in our own country. If they are critical of Britain they can bugger off back to whatever Eastern or North African hellhole their parents originated from. Else they can shut the hell up. They are not being constructively critical, they are being abusive and militant. No way do they have a right to walk in our streets insulting the British people. Actually, you used very broad terms relating to "hating" Britain and being critical of it, not just about promoting Islamic fundamentalism. I was referring to hate from Britain from Islamic immigrants. Islamic immigrants who hate Britain hate it for not being Muslim. So at what point do you draw the line, then? At any point where they criticize the UK simply for it being at odd with their retarded, pedophile religion. Side: Yes to internment.
hereas the Muslims chose to migrate here, they didn't have to yet they still have the nerve to slag us off. No. "Jihadi John" did not choose to move to the UK. He was brought there by his parents at the age of 6. Thirdly you are not encouraging violence and are not plotting to, or encouraging someone else to topple the current government forcefully or condoning terrorism. Inciting violence is a criminal offence. We have laws against that already. I find your views to be quite sickening but you are entitled to them. However the immoderate views of Muslims are another kettle of fish altogether. All views must be outside the control of the government. There is no legitimate way a government can say which views are acceptable and which are not. Side: No left to murder.
1
point
No. "Jihadi John" did not choose to move to the UK. He was brought there by his parents at the age of 6. He still ought to be grateful anyway for letting him in and he should be grateful for the British taxpayer having to pay for his useless, sponges off family in benefits. Not slag us off. Inciting violence is a criminal offence. We have laws against that already. What's the point in having a law if it is not enforced? The whole point of the secret police would be to enforce the law by finding out which Muslims are inciting violence and then they should be (depending on severity and the situations) incarcerated or deported or executed. All views must be outside the control of the government. There is no legitimate way a government can say which views are acceptable and which are not. The views are acceptable as long as they are kept inside their heads. The moment they leave their heads at all they need to be punished. Side: Yes to internment.
He still ought to be grateful anyway for letting him in and he should be grateful for the British taxpayer having to pay for his useless, sponges off family in benefits. Not slag us off. He does a little more than "slag you off" but anyway.. the point I was making is that he didn't choose to be born a British national anymore than I did. What's the point in having a law if it is not enforced? The whole point of the secret police would be to enforce the law by finding out which Muslims are inciting violence and then they should be (depending on severity and the situations) incarcerated or deported or executed. Nope. We just need normal police arresting people and putting them before a competent court. The views are acceptable as long as they are kept inside their heads. The moment they leave their heads at all they need to be punished. Okay let me rephrase: There is no legitimate way a government can say which views are acceptable to express and which are not. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right. Side: No left to murder.
1
point
1
point
Any Muslims who speak harshly of "infidel" should be arrested. Any Muslims who speak harshly of Western people or of British people should be arrested. They should be arrested not only for planning illegal activity but inciting it with their hatred of all things non-Islamic. It is treason. Yes, they should not be allowed here. They never should have been let in, in the first place. Side: Yes to internment.
1
point
1
point
Not every incitement of hatred, but every incitement of hatred against the British establishment and the British people should be punished. We should not tolerate being slagged off and hatred being fermented against us in our own country. I don't know why you can't sympathize with this. It is quite a reasonable feeling to have. Side: Yes to internment.
1
point
You have yet to tell me who is going to determine what is an "incitement of hatred", or for that matter what standard would be used. And no, to me it is not reasonable. But I guess that is because I live in a country where people are allowed to have different opinions, even if they are critical and negative towards the country itself. I may not support them, but I recognize that thinking like yours leads down a horrifying path, as has happened multiple times in global history. "Thought police" (so to speak) never end well. Side: No left to murder.
1
point
Incitement of hatred against Britain is things such as wishing ill-will against Britain and its native people, burning the Union Jack (this happens quite a bit), protesting saying things like "Britain go to hell", "British police go to hell". Also claiming "sharia zones" inside of the UK and Islamic vigilantism trying to enforce Islamic law in areas in the UK as they do should be illegal. Taking shit from people and letting them spit on the face of your country and your people is just another of your silly knit-your-own-natural-yogurt, basket-weave-your-own-shoes ideas. Tolerating clear enemies of the state has resulted in several catastrophic events in History. For example in Weimar Germany, tolerating the Nazis clearly did not go well. This is exactly the same to tolerating the growth of militant Islam in the West. Liberalism makes nations weak like this. Side: Yes to internment.
1
point
"Incitement of hatred against Britain is things such as wishing ill-will against Britain and its native people, burning the Union Jack (this happens quite a bit), protesting saying things like "Britain go to hell", "British police go to hell"." What standard is used for wishing "ill-will"? What if they oppose some recent legislation and hopes that program fails? Is that sufficient? What if they wish ill-will against a specific group of people in Britain who happened to be wishing ill-will against them? Is that sufficient? Is all protesting sufficient, or only when they use phrases like "go to hell"? "Taking shit from people and letting them spit on the face of your country and your people is just another of your silly knit-your-own-natural-yogurt, basket-weave-your-own-shoes ideas. " No, it just shows that you aren't insecure as a country. By cracking down on behavior like that, you only galvanize those groups. If you show yourself to be the "bigger man", so to speak, you prove them wrong. "Tolerating clear enemies of the state has resulted in several catastrophic events in History. For example in Weimar Germany, tolerating the Nazis clearly did not go well. This is exactly the same to tolerating the growth of militant Islam in the West. Liberalism makes nations weak like this." Liberalism has nothing to do with what you are talking about, multiculturalism does (with the exception of the Nazi's, which really don't fit in with your comparison for reasons that I could elaborate if you wish but would take a while and significantly divert the conversation). Side: No left to murder.
1
point
Is all protesting sufficient, or only when they use phrases like "go to hell"? All protesting for militant Islam should not be tolerated. Militant Islam has no place in Britain. If you show yourself to be the "bigger man", so to speak, you prove them wrong. It's all very well getting to have your precious moral high ground. But what will that be worth when they have taken over our country? Islam will take over the UK if we tolerate this behavior. They don't need to invade from the outside when we're letting them take over from the inside. Liberalism has nothing to do with what you are talking about, multiculturalism does Liberalism does have to do with it because it is the liberals who believe in the tolerating the existence of people like this who allow them to take over. If we do nothing and let them behave how they want then they will take over. Are you not familiar with what Edmund Burke said? Nazis do fit in with the comparison because it was the Liberal Weimar government that believed in free-speech that allowed the Nazis to come power by letting them exist in the first place. If there was a right-wing government in charge then they could have simply had Hitler and other party officials permanently imprisoned or executed and banned the Nazi party then the Nazis would have never came to power. In the same way if we get rid off the ring leaders of radical Islam in the UK and then ban people from openly agreeing with them and hunting down anyone who does then that will be them sorted out. Side: Yes to internment.
1
point
"All protesting for militant Islam should not be tolerated. Militant Islam has no place in Britain." And what encompasses "protesting for militant Islam", exactly? "It's all very well getting to have your precious moral high ground. But what will that be worth when they have taken over our country? Islam will take over the UK if we tolerate this behavior. They don't need to invade from the outside when we're letting them take over from the inside." I have yet to see any evidence that Muslims are in the processing of taking over the U.K, or anywhere in the west for that matter. They certainly do not make up a large enough amount of the populations to do so, nor do they have the political clout within national governments. "Liberalism does have to do with it because it is the liberals who believe in the tolerating the existence of people like this who allow them to take over. If we do nothing and let them behave how they want then they will take over." Liberals are not the only multiculturalism out there. If you want to say it has to do with Liberals, that is different than saying it has to do with Liberalism. "Are you not familiar with what Edmund Burke said?" This is going to be fun: "We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature" You seem to strongly resist change. "The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse" You are advocating giving the government some of the most extreme powers seen in modern history, powers that have seen incredible abuse, which of course leads to "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it". Pertaining to my approach, there is "Our patience will achieve more than our force". Pertaining to your views on limiting liberties, there is "The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts", as well as "Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe". Pertaining to your opinions regarding minorities, "In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppression upon the minority". Pertaining to your opinions regarding criticism of the U.K.: "He that wrestles with us strengthens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper". Pertaining to my issues with your motivation "No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear". Regarding the unequal treatment you wish upon Muslims "Toleration is good for all, or it is good for none". So yes, I know quite a few things that Edmund Burke said :P "Nazis do fit in with the comparison because it was the Liberal Weimar government that believed in free-speech that allowed the Nazis to come power by letting them exist in the first place. If there was a right-wing government in charge then they could have simply had Hitler and other party officials permanently imprisoned or executed and banned the Nazi party then the Nazis would have never came to power. In the same way if we get rid off the ring leaders of radical Islam in the UK and then ban people from openly agreeing with them and hunting down anyone who does then that will be them sorted out." No. The Nazi's were shut down by the government many times, which galvanized the party. They also billed themselves as something they most definitely weren't (A Fascist group billing themselves as socialist to appeal to the common man), and did not advertise more overt extremism until after they held more substantial power. I know of no evidence that a right wing government with the same limitations as the Weimar Republic would have had any more success in preventing one of the most impoverished states in Western history from gathering behind an extremist group. Side: No left to murder.
1
point
And what encompasses "protesting for militant Islam", exactly? I really shouldn't have to explain this. It's pretty obvious what I mean by this. I have yet to see any evidence that Muslims are in the processing of taking over the U.K, or anywhere in the west for that matter. They certainly do not make up a large enough amount of the populations to do so, nor do they have the political clout within national governments. They breed like rabbits, they on average have far more children than we do. They are a minority now but at this rate they will be the majority. Also more and more keep migrating. They will take over the U.K. unless we do something to stop them. Edmund Burke said that evil triumphs when Good men do nothing. What you are suggesting is doing nothing. Letting the Muslims take over. If Weimar Germany wasn't so liberal then Hitler would have been executed. World War Two (In Europe and North Africa at least) and the holocaust would never have happened if Weimar Germany didn't believe in the liberal bullshit of free speech. Side: Yes to internment.
1
point
"I really shouldn't have to explain this. It's pretty obvious what I mean by this." No, it really isn't. You have not determined at what point Islam becomes "militant" nor have you defined your parameters for "protesting". "They breed like rabbits, they on average have far more children than we do. They are a minority now but at this rate they will be the majority. Also more and more keep migrating. They will take over the U.K. unless we do something to stop them." Do you have any models you are referring to that predict Muslims will become the majority, and around when that is supposed to apparently happen? "Edmund Burke said that evil triumphs when Good men do nothing. What you are suggesting is doing nothing. Letting the Muslims take over." I notice you ignored everything else he said :P And no, I am not suggesting doing nothing. I already explained what I was suggesting. "If Weimar Germany wasn't so liberal then Hitler would have been executed. World War Two (In Europe and North Africa at least) and the holocaust would never have happened if Weimar Germany didn't believe in the liberal bullshit of free speech." Please explain how you think that contradicts my previous explanation? And what would he have been executed for? Side: No left to murder.
1
point
The 2005-10 fertility rate among UK Muslims at 3.0, which means that the average British Muslim had exactly three children in her lifetime, compared to 1.8 children for non-Muslim women. If they are having almost twice the number of children, on average, that we do then of course they will catch up with the non-Muslim population and become ahead of us. To be honest the only thing we can do to save ourselves from them taking over would be forcing a mass-exodus on Muslims in the UK back to their own countries. Side: Yes to internment.
1
point
1
point
"The 2005-10 fertility rate among UK Muslims at 3.0, which means that the average British Muslim had exactly three children in her lifetime, compared to 1.8 children for non-Muslim women." Wow, this "invasion" is going to take QUITE a long time. "If they are having almost twice the number of children, on average, that we do then of course they will catch up with the non-Muslim population and become ahead of us." Which would make them the majority population. Guessing there'd be a new concept of British, eh? :P Side: No left to murder.
1
point
Which would make them the majority population. Guessing there'd be a new concept of British, eh? :P Honestly it would not be British at all. It would result in the death of Britain and the birth of Greater Pakistan or Pakistan #2. They will destroy the British race which is why they need to be stopped. Side: Yes to internment.
|
I think these unfortunate misguided chaps should be left to carry out their programme of public carnage in the hope that after a sufficient number of innocent men, woman, children and babies have been slaughtered on the streets of their own country, the British, and indeed the European public will begin to realise the shocking act of treachery which successive governments, along with the P.C. brigade committed by permitting the Islamic 5th columnist filth to infest their respective countries. Then and only then will ''the people'' decide that ''enough is enough'' and force their governments to repatriate these undesirables from whence they, or their parents/grandparents came. That is the only course of action which will ensure a lasting solution to the ongoing nightmare for the citizens of Europe. ''East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet''. Side: No left to murder.
To be fair, Europe is in a bit of a pickle with so many Muslims in the population who never intend to integrate. With literally thousands if radical Muslims scattered throught Europe, there is defiantly a problem that needs to be addressed in some way. Side: No left to murder.
There are degrees of integration. You can say that they are slower to integrate than other culture (although I'm not sure about this) but they will get there eventually. They have generations to adapt. Maybe our culture will also adapt to them to some extent. I don't see a problem in this. Side: Yes to internment.
1
point
2
points
The last time I checked it was our country, we were hear first. Isn't Jihadi John older than you by like a decade? Wouldn't that put him there first, in respect to you? If they want to move here they need to change to us. You're not a fan of the United States last I checked. You do realize that this type of thinking is precisely what set into motion the chain of events that resulted in the creation of the United States to begin with, right? Side: Yes to internment.
1
point
I could not care less how old he is. I was born here, he wasn't. My ancestors have simply always been in Britain for as far as any one can trace back, with the exception of one Spanish Great-Grandfather who abode by British rules and values unlike Jihadi John. His family have been here five minutes. Furthermore I wasn't referring to respect to me I was referring to him respecting the country and the people in general. Side: Yes to internment.
1
point
I can understand someone living in even a neutered monarchy would feel entitled to something based on his or her ancestors, but I disagree with the notion personally. Britain was not always Britain, the British have not always existed, and the British were not the first humans in any sense of the word. Based on your logic, individual groups of Africans could duke it out over the claim to the entire world and take precedence over any of you- not that they'd be taken particularly seriously. Side: No left to murder.
1
point
The British people might not have always been around but we've been around for thousands and thousands of years which in my mind pretty much is forever. A group of people clearly have more right to a land if they've been there for countless millennia than a minority group that have only been in Britain for a few decades. British people, like all people in the world may have originated from Africa but we are not Africa anymore. Europeans are an entirely different race now than to all over races. Likewise British people are entirely different ethnicity to other Europeans. We have different genes. Culturally we are also clearly incompatible with Muslims. The idea that we're all one group of people and that all ideas about race, nationality and culture are make believe is just another big, fallacious, Knit-Your-Own-Birkenstocks idea that I would expect the common lunatic left-wing cattle of this site to adhere to. Side: Yes to internment.
1
point
I didn't make the assertion that you're suggesting. I am merely pointing out flaws with the 'we were here first' argument. As far as thousands and thousands of years go.... Yes, for thousands of years the area has been referred to as the British Isles, but it was not unified under one government and one culture for a long time. For many of those thousands and thousands of years, what you call Britain was multiple kingdoms of varying sizes, with differing culture. It was only relatively recent that the mainland of England and Wales were unified into one government, which itself went through numerous shifts and permutations. The United Kingdom itself has only existed for ~300 years, and even in that timeframe has changed territories and cultural makeup significantly. You're right that the idea that the human species as one group of the same people is fallacious. It's also fallacious to present the British as one group of the same people, for the same reasons. Side: No left to murder.
1
point
Wales has been under the same government as Britain since the 13th century when Edward I conquered it. I don't know about you but that is not what I consider to be relatively recently. Furthermore it doesn't matter whether they were unified or not, the British people have existed for thousands and thousands of years. We are very diverse but we are all inhabitants of the same Island and (contrary to popular belief) very similar ethnically. English people are widely considered as being mainly of Germanic origin however in actual fact English people are mainly the same as other British peoples. There are some big cultural differences between England and Scotland but we belong together as one country and the fact is Muslims do not belong here. Side: Yes to internment.
1
point
My point is that the English and the Welsh were a different people at one time, as just one small example. "British" is an artificial construct describing the result of a merger of the two cultures, predominately but far from exclusively in favor of the English. England itself was not always unified, but was multiple small nations with varying culture. Wales too, for that matter. The culture you call British today is an amalgamation of many cultures that true, individually existed for a long time, but did not exist in a combined form until relatively recently. And that doesn't even touch on much of what else is implied when you speak of the British- much of this seems to be only descriptive of an aggregate of the current few generations of British, which would mean that the British of 100 years ago weren't the same thing- you are merely descended from them. "The British" in the sense you understand them have not existed for thousands of years- they are something new that was created via an extremely long process of combining many disparate peoples. That's not a bad thing- your cultural evolution has been rather impressive and has set many standards. Side: Yes to internment.
1
point
Even if you were correct in saying that British culture and ethnicity is not one thing, but a mixture of many things independent of each other, Islamic culture and beliefs do not fit in with any. Even if they are are individual, separate things they still, in their own ways be entitled to be on the Island (Great Britain) that they are native to. Therefore I as a mixture of English and Welsh ethnicity have more right to be on grate Britain than someone who is of Asian blood. You cannot consider the Islamization of Britain to be part of this cultural evolution. It is not at all an evolution in culture but the aggressive take over of an evil religion. Side: Yes to internment.
There is no "should" about it. It just happens. When two cultures meet they exchange ideas and adapt to each other. It is one of the ways societies evolve. It is not inherently bad. I recognise though that it is inherently scary to a xenophobe though. You have my sympathies. Side: No left to murder.
1
point
While I do not deny being xenophobic (you say it like it's bad thing, it's logical to recognize that British culture is better than the culture of savage Islamic pigs), I am not even being xenophobic by saying that we should expect them to get used to us, not us to them. It is an opinion that probably the majority of British people have, with the exception of ridiculously left-wing knit-your-own-natural yogurt people who suck up to savage cultures like you. Side: Yes to internment.
1
point
"It should be 100% them to us. The last time I checked it was our country, we were hear first. If they want to move here they need to change to us." Why? Why does the fact that you were there first mean that the area of land you inhabit must always stay that culture? Lands of changed cultures through all of human history, so who are you to determine that now is that time that it can not change any more? Side: No left to murder.
1
point
Because we shouldn't have to change to suit them if we don't want to. The fact is most native-Britons do not want to have to change themselves so Muslims do not feel uncomfortable. Most agree expecting people to do so is ridiculously politically-correct. Side: Yes to internment.
|
