• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Empire Strikes Back

_41305252_hamza203getty.jpg


Explain to me again why printing a picture of Muhammad is an offense against Islam, but printing this picture isn't an offense against all of humanity.

Perhaps that is how Muhammad looked, in which case the reason for the ban on depicting him is easily understandable...
 
_41305252_hamza203getty.jpg


Explain to me again why printing a picture of Muhammad is an offense against Islam, but printing this picture isn't an offense against all of humanity.

This proves the old saying:
"Beauty is only skin deep; but ugly goes all the way to the bone!"
 
Even so it's not exactly a "terrorist arsenal."
Maybe not in the US, but in the UK (outside of Ulster) its constitutes a pretty well armed group.

In my opinion the fake passports and the credit cards are much more interesting and indicative of their intentions.
Possibly, But as I travel through Finsbury park every day, I would rather that these nutters where running around with skimmed credit cards (even if its my card they skimmed) than with guns.
of course I'd rather they wern't running around at all.
 
Maybe not in the US, but in the UK (outside of Ulster) its constitutes a pretty well armed group.


Possibly, But as I travel through Finsbury park every day, I would rather that these nutters where running around with skimmed credit cards (even if its my card they skimmed) than with guns.

If I had terrorists sympathies and were engaged in credit card fraud plus forging fake passports, I would be doing it with the purpose of importing someone really deadly to do something really bad.

of course I'd rather they wern't running around at all.

Good news, then. The Finsbury Park Mosque is under new management. :)
 
Even so it's not exactly a "terrorist arsenal." In my opinion the fake passports and the credit cards are much more interesting and indicative of their intentions.
The ingress in the link provided reads:

Controversial Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri has been jailed for seven years after being found guilty of inciting murder and race hate.

A few months ago (from CNN):

Robertson told viewers of his longtime show, "The 700 Club," on Monday that Chavez was turning his oil-rich South American country into "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent."
"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition.
I'm not trying to post excuses for the cleric, I'm on the other line: Why no charges against Pat Robertson?
 
The ingress in the link provided reads:

Controversial Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri has been jailed for seven years after being found guilty of inciting murder and race hate.

A few months ago (from CNN):

I'm not trying to post excuses for the cleric, I'm on the other line: Why no charges against Pat Robertson?
I think Hamza's spiel was along the lines of "go out and kill the infidel" while Robertson was giving his opinion that the US gov't should kill Chavez. One is incitement, the other is protected political speech.
 
I think Hamza's spiel was along the lines of "go out and kill the infidel" while Robertson was giving his opinion that the US gov't should kill Chavez. One is incitement, the other is protected political speech.
That might be so, but "I think the US government really ought to go ahead and do it (kill Chavez)" sounds very much like incitement to me (just less likely to be acted upon).
 
I'm not trying to post excuses for the cleric, I'm on the other line: Why no charges against Pat Robertson?

Because
1) Pat Robinson said those things in the US, and is protected by the 1st Amendment. In the UK we have less freedom of speech.
2) The likelihood that the intended audience would carry out the actions is a lot lower. Abu Hamza was calling for his (typically young, male) congregation to go out and commit murder, Robinson was asking the US army to commit murder. Abu Hamza commanded respect and some degree of obedience from his congregation, Pat Robinson has no influence over the US army (Thank Ed).
 
Because
1) Pat Robinson said those things in the US, and is protected by the 1st Amendment. In the UK we have less freedom of speech.

Quite true, but also, Pat Robertson, scummy as he is, has never risen to the level of immediate incitement.
 
Scarily, there was a story about his British ex-wife in a newspaper today (either Metro or Evening Standard). They met in 1980 or so while they were both working in a London hotel. Apparently he was then handsome and romantic, and a bit of a womaniser. They had a child together.

As I am writing this, I less and less believe it myself. Maybe I was hallucinating.

Nope, just remember that Abu's boyish good looks were ruined by his short, but spectacular, career as part of an Afghani landmine juggling troupe.
 
I don't know about his hand, but he lost his eye when he got a small piece of grit in it. He tried to pick it out, but he forgot it was his first day with the hook...

Seriously, from Wikipedia, "Abu Hamza lost both his hands during the 1990s and now uses a distinctive hook as his right hand. Abu Hamza travelled to Afghanistan where he claims he sustained injuries to both hands and was blinded in the left eye as the result of helping clear land mines left behind by the Soviet Union. Some dispute this claim, and offer alternative theories, including that hands may have been cut off as punishment for theft in Saudi Arabia. There is also a theory that he received the injuries when a bomb he was making unexpectly exploded."
 

Back
Top Bottom