Hate to be such a pedant, but…There were plenty of Muslim taxi drivers driving people home (some of whom lived hours away) for free. If you go to Manchester, and many cities in the North of England, there are a huge number of Muslim taxi drivers.
Also as an aside, you’ll find that “The Independent” is one of the most trustworthy news sources in the UK. It’s the likes of The Daily Mail and The Sun that are unreliable and not worth wiping your Aris with.
I think @loppar already put forth the answer. We don’t really need the thought police on this one. The Salifists/Wahabists declare their beliefs out in the open. They label their mosques and preach their twisted ideology loudly.
We need someone strong enough to say “Salifism and Wahabism are not religious institutions, they preach the overthrow of the West from inside and violence. They are not welcome here.”
If Western governments don’t handle this there will be a wave of vigilantism. So far there’s been very few isolated incidents. But how many more dead children are citizens supposed to put up with?
There will be more demagogues elected if this doesn’t stop. The limp wristed olive branch approach isn’t working.
1 Like
This
and this.
1 Like
What has to be taken from a person before the finally say “Enough is enough”?
If someone blew up my son I wouldn’t be sharing stories of kind taxi drivers. I’d be doing recon on the local mosques and determining a strategy to maximize damage.
England has never looked like a bigger bunch of confused pussies as they do right now.
6 Likes
Honest question: how does this interact with the US constitution?
Pretty simple really.
Satanism is a religion. If I was a Satanist leader and I teach my congregation to molest children and hurt people how long do you think I’d last before I was arrested? Satanism is not a religion people are willing to put up with because of their actions and their invitations to violence.
We need to take the same stance with Wahabism. It’s a death cult. They teach violent jihad and the murder of westerners. When we find people teaching those ideas and attempting to get people to act on them then we arrest them.
The free exercise of religion doesn’t permit inciting and sponsoring violence. Just like free speech doesn’t protect your right to start a riot or threaten the President.
1 Like
I don’t see how this come at odds with the constitution.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.
They are not a religion, they’re a threat. Threats should be dealt with, swiftly and with extreme prejudice.
PS: I’m not American, if I could pick where I was born, I would probably pick the US but alas I wasn’t given the choice before my birth, oh well.
1 Like
The Independent is a total rag, the fact that the sun and the mail are, likewise, rags does not change that.
EDIT: It is slightly better than the other two, but it’s status as a LibDem pravda is a fact to anyone with eyes to see. So it probably is best viewed like the Telegraph and the Guardian.
It’s interesting - it would probably be more of a free speech issue than freedom of religion issue. Beliefs aren’t punishable, actions are, and actions like preaching in favor of inciting violence can be outside the protections of the First Amendment, depending on how far the person goes.
We couldn’t outlaw Wahhabism, it’s inherently tied up in religious beliefs. But we can target unlawful actions.
2 Likes
Interesting. Makes me think of when Trump was campaigning telling people at rallies to punch protesters in the face and what not - and someone actually got punched in the face here in NC. The guy went to jail, but could they have taken Trump to jail?
Or when protesters go against people spewing “hate speech” like Milo Yannanopolis - Not as good of a parallel - but worries me in terms of precedent.
Now obviously, trying to take down all of western society vs the previously cited examples is different, but in terms or law it is intriguing. If we can expunge radicalism that way, let’s do it, but I don’t want to set a precedent for speech freedoms to get trampled.
I’m sure you could expand upon the differences between the examples law-wise.
Cuckservative mindset : preferring to see his own country’s children slaughtered by racial and cultural foreigners than admit they’re wrong. Emotional investment is too deep to change.
Europe’s response to terror attacks reminds me of the first half of this clip:
Pay special attention around the 1:20 mark.
I fear the second half of this clip will never happen.
If the Rastafarians don’t get to smoke weed in prison, it seems logical to me that we shouldn’t allow Wahhabis to advocate for the overthrow of democratic government and putting the black flag over Downing street.
Douglas Murray is, once again, the best commentator in the UK on this issue.
Wouldn’t spreading head be, like one of the most excellent ways for her to spread love?
I know it was a typo, but to hard to resist.
I don’t hate Ariana Grande, she’s just a dumb kid who can sing. I don’t expect her to have well thought out views. But this will rattle her like nothing else.
The Stones caught all kinds of hell over Altamont and only one person died. It resulted in an entire album and movie about the experience. The felt awful about it for a long time. So yeah, this is a pile driver into her psyche for sure, but it’s most definitely not her fault. I am certain her views on terrorism, now having experienced it, will evolve, massively.
I have been asking the same thing. When is that last one where we finally decide, “the shit ends now”?
Apparently, Europe is more dead body tolerant than we are…
Oh brother. The irony here that their turning Sikhs into Muslims is not lost on me. Call a Sikh a Muslim and mean it and see if he does beat your ass.
And what the fuck would it matter if some Muslims acted nicely in the face of a terror attack and helped people? Does it change any of the facts on the ground? Very few people claim ‘all Muslims are bad’. So if some acted humanely, good for them. They shouldn’t get special recognition from the thousands of others who did the same. Where is the Atheist nurse who helped, or the Christian ambulance driver, or the Jewish policeman who helped?
2 Likes
Pointing out that its some kind of special achievement for a Muslim to be nice is bad form by the media. [quote=“yorkshireiron, post:83, topic:229963”]
Also as an aside, you’ll find that “The Independent” is one of the most trustworthy news sources in the UK
[/quote]
Independent is an average news organisation whilst the majority are poor. That doesn’t make them good.[quote=“yorkshireiron, post:82, topic:229963”]
There were plenty of Muslim taxi drivers driving people home (some of whom lived hours away) for free.
[/quote]
I was referring to this specifically my bad 
It’s called the ‘Bigotry of low expectations’. The media apparently expects all muslims to be dicks by default, and hence when one does something nice, they over report. Not knowing they invalidate their own point by expecting them to be dicks by default.
1 Like