Rev. Phelps Banned in the UK

[Nogbad]

I think that is rather unfair, it should be "The English press bless them are by and large very anti-foreign. They dislike most anybody really including us Scots, Welsh, Irish and English".

Fair point well presented

 

[BPSCG]

Speaking of "appeasing fanatics", what were you guys doing between September 1939, when Britain declared war on Germany, and December 1941, when Germany declared war on the US?

Helping England stand alone against fascism. Should have done more, and Roosevelt wanted to do more, but sadly, too many Americans didn't think fascism taking over Europe was our problem.

Today, it seems the reverse is true; Americans are concerned about Islamist fascism taking over Europe, while the Europeans don't seem to care. At least that's the perception on this side of the pond.

 

[fuelair]

That's why I say let them in but don't protect them. Phelps and crew are so far beneath the label of human beings they should be treated like rabid dogs. I come from an era that would have been made it very painful for Phelps to use funerals to preach his twisted hate.

..

And where, I suspect, it would have only happened once.

 

[GreNME]

Speaking of "appeasing fanatics", what were you guys doing between September 1939, when Britain declared war on Germany, and December 1941, when Germany declared war on the US?

Helping England stand alone against fascism.

We were? How many troops did we have deployed for that purpose? Did our domestic bigotry against Jews and Poles magically vanish during these years?

 

[BPSCG]

We were?

See Lend-Lease. As I said, we should have done more, but it wasn't like we were completely neutral until December 7, 1941.

 

[fuelair]

In a way, yes. For example, I understand that it was determined, here in the US, that the First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Of course, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater runs the risk of causing people serious physical harm, whereas the Phelps are just making people mad.

They do cause intense emotional distress to other people as well, though. For example, by picketing funerals. I very much appreciate the PGR (thank you thank you thank you Redtail for your service) for their work in that area.

l.

My preference is if anyone dies at a funeral where they are puking out their evil of heart attack or other stress factor illness/condition they be arrested and fried on the spot. Just me (and lots of other I 'spects.)

 

[Nogbad]

Helping England stand alone against fascism. Should have done more, and Roosevelt wanted to do more, but sadly, too many Americans didn't think fascism taking over Europe was our problem.

Today, it seems the reverse is true; Americans are concerned about Islamist fascism taking over Europe, while the Europeans don't seem to care. At least that's the perception on this side of the pond.

The perception is over stated. Don't get me wrong there are Muslims who dream fondly of a European Caliphate and they are very vocal. However, in Europe one of the biggest concerns amongst more orthodox Muslims is that so many of their youth are becoming so Westernised. My town is not huge and only has a handful of Muslims. Mohammed, the previous manager of a local restaurant spent his night off in the pub with a pint watching the footie on TV like anybody else. I don't think he was desperately strict on the religion thing.

 

[fuelair]

I wouldn't be surprised that they planned to come knowing that they might get banned. Banning people from coming into the country is a great source of publicity for them and these Wesboro guys seem to be all about any media attention they can get. One thing I have to give them is that they're quite brilliant at it. I'll bet there are plenty of other small groups around with equally as distasteful views who none of us have ever heard of.

I think I'd have to go along with the notion that if they're not inciting violence, they should probably have just been allowed in.

But as most of us - and the British obviously - recognize, they are inciting violence. You do not have to yell 'Beat up each other now!"
or "Come and get us, you flaming wankers!" to incite violence. Simply behaving as they do at the events they do it at are inciting violence. I would be happy if someone were to open up on them with a machine gun at their next event - and if I was on the jury for the trial of the gunner, he/she would walk or the jury would be hung (not the rope kind or the large parts one, the unable to agree one).

 

[dudalb]

Speaking of "appeasing fanatics", what were you guys doing between September 1939, when Britain declared war on Germany, and December 1941, when Germany declared war on the US?

Well shut up then.

Bad tempered today, are'nt we?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Today, it seems the reverse is true; Americans are concerned about Islamist fascism taking over Europe, while the Europeans don't seem to care.

And the reason that we don't share your anxiety is, of course, that we can count. Even if all the Muslims in the EU were Islamofascists, which naturally they are not, we'd still outnumber them forty to one (calculation based on figures from 2007). Not to mention our governments having all those, y'know, weapons.

What exactly is it that you guys are worried that they're going to do? 'Cos if you can't think of any plausible threat scenario, we'd be obliged if you'd quit complaining that we're not frightened of your imaginary bogeyman --- and then implying that that makes us timorous cowards.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Bad tempered today, are'nt we?

"Today"? I am willing at any time to mock anyone who instances appeasement of the Nazis as a special fault of the British. If we declared war on them in 1939 rather than 1938, then that may have been dilatory by our own standards. But I don't see that anyone else has any ground for complaint.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

And the reason that we don't share your anxiety is, of course, that we can count. Even if all the Muslims in the EU were Islamofascists, which naturally they are not, we'd still outnumber them forty to one (calculation based on figures from 2007). Not to mention our governments having all those, y'know, weapons.

Then... why not let Wilder have his say? If you don't like it, ignore it, or stand up and have your say.

What exactly is it that you guys are worried that they're going to do? 'Cos if you can't think of any plausible threat scenario, we'd be obliged if you'd quit complaining that we're not frightened of your imaginary bogeyman --- and implying that that makes us timorous cowards.

I am worried (not as a representative of any agency larger than my own ego) that a few people wrecking houses and burning cars is so intimidating to modern people that they might be willing to sacrifice an important and permanent ideal to avoid some current, momentary nastiness.

I am worried that a tiny sub-population that's neither ashamed of nor hesitant to use violence can make people stay in their homes when they should be out demanding that their elected officials uphold the principals on which they were elected, and to whose defense they are sworn.

Someone once said that all that's needed for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing. I'm afraid that quite a lot of people are willing to do nothing as long as they get to stay home and... you know... do nothing.

I'm afraid that, having delegated responsibility for their own individual safety to an outside agency, people might just delegate dealing with the unpleasant business of fertilizing that old Tree of Freedom to a similar outside agency as well.

But... as I said... that's just me.

 

[BPSCG]

And the reason that we don't share your anxiety is, of course, that we can count. Even if all the Muslims in the EU were Islamofascists, which naturally they are not, we'd still outnumber them forty to one (calculation based on figures from 2007).

And you're not concerned that the ratio will drop over the coming decades, because Muslims aren't outbreeding the rest of the population.

Frankly, when I see video of rioters screaming "Jihad!" and causing your police to retreat ignominiously, yeah, I am concerned.

 

[BPSCG]

But... as I said... that's just me.

No it's not.

 

[dudalb]

What exactly is it that you guys are worried that they're going to do? 'Cos if you can't think of any plausible threat scenario, we'd be obliged if you'd quit complaining that we're not frightened of your imaginary bogeyman --- and then implying that that makes us timorous cowards.

Go to a fire station in NYC, and explain why Islamic extremists are a imaginary bogeyman.

Dr.Adequate,the last few days you have been worse then usual in insulting and riduculing anybody who dares to disagree with you. You are coming off like a real jerk. That is not helping getting your point of view across.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Go to a fire station in NYC, and explain why Islamic extremists are a imaginary bogeyman.

I will not, because that is not my opinion.

I shall, however, be happy to tell them that Europe is in no danger of being taken over by Islamofascists, because that is my opinion.

Dr.Adequate,the last few days you have been worse then usual in insulting and riduculing anybody who dares to disagree with you.

A curious delusion, which a search for my recent posts reveals to be false. Indeed, I didn't post at all yesterday or the day before.

You are coming off like a real jerk.

Now, that, you see, would be an insult.

That is not helping getting your point of view across.

Your mess of insults, falsehoods, and straw men are likewise unlikely to convince me. But since you are wrong, I'm not missing anything.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Then... why not let Wilder have his say? If you don't like it, ignore it, or stand up and have your say.

Who is this "Wilder" of whom you speak? I can find no reference to him on this thread.

I am worried (not as a representative of any agency larger than my own ego) that a few people wrecking houses and burning cars is so intimidating to modern people that they might be willing to sacrifice an important and permanent ideal to avoid some current, momentary nastiness.

I am worried that a tiny sub-population that's neither ashamed of nor hesitant to use violence can make people stay in their homes when they should be out demanding that their elected officials uphold the principals on which they were elected, and to whose defense they are sworn.

Someone once said that all that's needed for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing. I'm afraid that quite a lot of people are willing to do nothing as long as they get to stay home and... you know... do nothing.

I'm afraid that, having delegated responsibility for their own individual safety to an outside agency, people might just delegate dealing with the unpleasant business of fertilizing that old Tree of Freedom to a similar outside agency as well.

But... as I said... that's just me.

Then you will be relieved to learn that your worries are ill-founded.

 

[Egg]

But as most of us - and the British obviously - recognize, they are inciting violence. You do not have to yell 'Beat up each other now!"
or "Come and get us, you flaming wankers!" to incite violence. Simply behaving as they do at the events they do it at are inciting violence. I would be happy if someone were to open up on them with a machine gun at their next event - and if I was on the jury for the trial of the gunner, he/she would walk or the jury would be hung (not the rope kind or the large parts one, the unable to agree one).

I take your point, but doesn't that invite censorship of any kind of speech which any group or even any individual might find offensive enough to react violently to? Surely we could then include such things as blasphemy, personal insults and sexual references to someone's mother as things which might be said to incite violence? What about having a hittable face?

 

[Dr Adequate]

And you're not concerned that the ratio will drop over the coming decades, because Muslims aren't outbreeding the rest of the population.

If Islamofascists have the highest birth rate of all sectarian groups in Europe, a proposition for which you have produced no evidence, then I should hope that even if this trend were to continue unchecked and unbalanced for the next few centuries, then some other factor, such as Westernization, would catch up with the problem in the thousand years or so it'll take the descendants of this tiny minority to outnumber all the rest of us put together. Otherwise, I admit that I am at a loss to conceive of a final solution. What did you have in mind?

Frankly, when I see video of rioters screaming "Jihad!" and causing your police to retreat ignominiously, yeah, I am concerned.

If I saw that, which I haven't, I'd think that whoever makes these decisions should have sent more policemen. The idea that Islamofascists were about to conquer Europe by their powers of fecundity would not have been the first thing I thought of.

 

[Texas]

If Islamofascists have the highest birth rate of all sectarian groups in Europe, a proposition for which you have produced no evidence, .

I'm not arguing against your point but the evidence is there at least in the UK:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571969/Britains-highest-birth-rates-among-migrants.html

The figures, from the Office for National Statistics, will reveal that Britain's highest birth rates are in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, both predominantly Muslim.

The birth rate among women born in Pakistan but living in the UK is three times higher than that among British-born women, the figures will show.

Separate figures due this month will reveal whether Mohammed has overtaken Jack as Britain's most popular name for baby boys.

Last year's ratings showed that Jack remained in first place, chosen for 6,928 babies, but Mohammed - taking into account all of its variant spellings - had overtaken Thomas to lie in second place with 5,991.