Attack outside UK Houses Of Parliament — No speculation — Read 1st post

FrancieBrady · 24-03-2017 02:48PM

Depp wrote: »

Bit Ironic you're calling out someone for misrepresenting facts but then insist sharia is completely voluntary. This may be the legal definition but do you have any idea how these people/communities operate in reality?

There are many communities, and within those communities many levels of belief. Just like any society.

Is the over whelming belief among UK Muslims in Sharia law? No.

And I part own a property very near Brixton for many many years and have spent a lot of time there. Great part of London and like any other borough has it's problem as well as having a great community.

Help!!!! · 24-03-2017 02:49PM

Omackeral wrote: »

Seriously, the first link is to a site where the logo is an Islamic Crescent with a bloodied dagger going through it and the second one has sections on it called 'Jizzlam' and 'Libtards'.

And no I haven't been around 'hundreds of them' as you so nicely put it. I went to school with two Somalian lads who were absolutely leagues ahead of most of the class in maths. There's also a fella in my local Tesco who seems to be smiling anytime I pop in, he's probably plotting something.

Haha so you met 3 of them here in Ireland?? I'm sure their nice fellas but go walk around a Somali area & I'm sure your view on them will change

Widdershins · 24-03-2017 02:50PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Hey, it wasn't me who tried to misrepresent the facts.

You say, 'the desire for Sharia should be non existent'.

I say, just like Catholicism, religions evolve. And the evidence clearly is that when it comes to western society, Islam evolves and dilutes. Otherwise the 'caliphate' would be more likely and not a pipe dream.
Purposely leaving out the 'fact' that Sharia adherence is voluntary and that they are 'councils' and not 'courts' in the UK is to attempt to scaremonger. I'm sorry if the truth hurts.

I did no such thing. I typed court instead of council. Council is no better, they impact on the fate of people who come before them in ways that should be abhorred by anyone with human decency. Instead of settling matters in ways that the rest of the country do, primarily women lose out and suffer because of sharia councils. Pedantry over a typo is letting you down even further.

Their very existence is a serious issue. If that's diluted I'm worried about the concentrated version. Oh yes, true, they don't generally stone or behead people in Britain. Yes, what's there is diluted, but it's not ok. And the very existence of the British legal system is the reason for this 'dilution'.A paralel society is a very serious problem, whether or not they have one foot in mainstream society.

And for someone who attempted to say the London attacker accidentally killed and crippled his victims you must have no shame if you're accusing me of misrepresenting anything.

Depp · 24-03-2017 02:51PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Many studies, where are they? you've posted a story that's basically giving one guys opinion. He may be a pretty smart guy but this isn't he's field of expertise and he didn't do an actual study from what I could see.

My first guess would be it's likely a lot cheaper to go to a council. If two neighbours go to court it costs them a load of money, they end up in conflict rather than looking for resolution and they often end up never speaking again. The point of the councils seems to be to find a mutually beneficial resolution. I don't see anything wrong with that on the face of it. Unless you can give me some example of something that's wrong with this form of private resolutions? I don't see anything wrong with it, in my experience everyone would better off finding alternatives to court.

the issues brought before these courts or councils or whatever term you want are not like what you see in civil courts. You cant bring your daughter to small claims court after you find out she had sex outside of marriage and want help deciding whether to murder her or not.

ilkhanid · 24-03-2017 02:52PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No it's not. If you are a refugee, you will want to go to the richest countries to try to rebuild your life.

So? If they regarded the West as their deadly enemy, nothing would make them go, riches or no. ME Christians won't go next or near the Gulf states or the KSA, no matter what the financial rewards. Nor would Shi'a Muslims.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And
Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale were born in Britain.

...and that it makes it even more senseless. We have two people attaching themselves to some imagined community of their demented dreams, supposedly avenging something that has nothing to do with themselves, their country of origin or their country of residence.

Del.Monte wrote: »

I'm tired of hearing this old mantra - please provide a link showing exactly how America robbed Iraq's oil. Seriously.

And it's "steal" not "rob".(the person you are quoting, not you). Was'nt Trump complaining recently that the USA had'nt grabbed Iraq's oil?

Depp wrote: »

being right wing is a political view, islam is a religion, this comparison is completely ridiculous. The argument most are making here is there are fundamental errors in the quran and islamic ideology. not that all muslims are evil, not that all muslims are terrorists, not that all muslims should be banned. Our argument is that the bloody book has some massive flaws and burying your head in the sand, insisting theres nothing wrong and calling anyone who disagrees a racist isn't doing anything to help the fact that we have a pretty huge problem with islamic extremist terrorism!

It's not the book itself. The problem is who owns the book?

Widdershins · 24-03-2017 02:53PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Many studies, where are they? you've posted a story that's basically giving one guys opinion. He may be a pretty smart guy but this isn't he's field of expertise and he didn't do an actual study from what I could see.

My first guess would be it's likely a lot cheaper to go to a council. If two neighbours go to court it costs them a load of money, they end up in conflict rather than looking for resolution and they often end up never speaking again. The point of the councils seems to be to find a mutually beneficial resolution. I don't see anything wrong with that on the face of it. Unless you can give me some example of something that's wrong with this form of private resolutions? I don't see anything wrong with it, in my experience everyone would better off finding alternatives to court.

If you cannot see anything wrong with sharia councils in Britain and want to paint them as benign alternatives to court cases then I have no faith in your respect for human rights and I believe it is futile to continue to engage with you and Francie the terrorism apologist (trying to escape when he rammed the pedestrians? I'm sickened)

Widdershins · 24-03-2017 02:54PM

Depp wrote: »

the issues brought before these courts or councils or whatever term you want are not like what you see in civil courts. You cant bring your daughter to small claims court after you find out she had sex outside of marriage and want help deciding whether to murder her or not.

I suspect ScumLord is going by a slightly more sanitised and fluffy version of sharia law that someone has fed him along the line or he found after his ''quick Google''.

I'm curious, though, what posters who object to extrajudicial action against people like the Westminster jihadist, think about Sharia councils. What with some posters' firm belief in the rule of law.

FrancieBrady · 24-03-2017 02:55PM

Widdershins wrote: »

I did no such thing. I typed court instead of council. Council is no better, they impact on the fate of people who come before them in ways that should be abhorred by anyone with human decency. Instead of settling matters in ways that the rest of the country do, primarily women lose out and suffer because of sharia councils. Pedantry over a typo is letting you down even further.

Their very existence is a serious issue. If that's diluted I'm worried about the concentrated version. Oh yes, true, they don't generally stone or behead people in Britain. Yes, what's there is diluted, but it's not ok. And the very existence of the British legal system is the reason for this 'dilution'.A paralel society is a very serious problem, whether or not they have one foot in mainstream society.

I think the difference between using 'court' and 'council' is very significant to a point about 'scaremongering' actually.
The GAA has a 'council' to deal with law issues. That is different to a 'court' as the findings of it's council only apply as long as you remain a member of the GAA.
Of course Sharia is against human decency, nobody is denying that. I don't know why you are trying to imply that I or anyone else is in favour of it.

And for someone who attempted to say the London attacker accidentally killed and crippled his victims you must have no shame if you're accusing me of misrepresenting anything.

What?

Depp · 24-03-2017 02:57PM

Widdershins wrote: »

I suspect ScumLord is going by a slightly more sanitised and fluffy version of sharia law that someone has fed him along the line or he found after his ''quick Google''.

More than likely. People need to face up to the reality that this is what sharia law is, this is what their courts deliberate. Im not scaremongering, Im not being a bigot, I'm being honest and speaking out against what I think is wrong. No western child should be born and have to live their lives under this draconian human rights abuse.

Depp · 24-03-2017 02:59PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think the difference between using 'court' and 'council' is very significant to a point about 'scaremongering' actually.
The GAA has a 'council' to deal with law issues. That is different to a 'court' as the findings of it's council only apply as long as you remain a member of the GAA.
Of course Sharia is against human decency, nobody is denying that. I don't know why you are trying to imply that I or anyone else is in favour of it.

This is pedantics at this stage, whether you call it a council or a court it doesnt change the facts of what they are doing and the human rights abuses they are enforcing on British and Irish children. This is wrong.

24-03-2017 03:01PM

Help!!!! wrote: »

Haha so you met 3 of them here in Ireland?? I'm sure their nice fellas but go walk around a Somali area & I'm sure your view on them will change

I don't think there is any Somali area near my gaff. Yep, three I know off hand and they're all just normal enough blokes. That's what I base my findings on anyway, real life interactions with people. I like your way too, though, rendering all 1,100+ of them here as nothing but useless criminals.

FrancieBrady · 24-03-2017 03:03PM

Depp wrote: »

This is pedantics at this stage, whether you call it a council or a court it doesnt change the facts of what they are doing and the human rights abuses they are enforcing on British and Irish children. This is wrong.

If I disagreed with that anywhere, you will have to point it out.

24-03-2017 03:06PM

If the Muslim community is taking law & order into their own hands, then it should be stopped.
What types of crimes are they investigating & what sanctions are they bringing?
Is this activity recorded anywhere?

Depp · 24-03-2017 03:07PM

Help!!!! wrote: »

Haha so you met 3 of them here in Ireland?? I'm sure their nice fellas but go walk around a Somali area & I'm sure your view on them will change

This attitude is not helpful to the discussion. The problem imo is islam, not muslims. No human is inherently evil or a criminal based purely on their origin. Why we see so many somalis etc is they are vulnerable for other reasons, and thats whats truly insideous about radical islam, it preys on and uses vulnerable people and communities to fulfill its own aims.

CoolHandBandit · 24-03-2017 03:07PM

bubblypop wrote: »

There are 3 million muslims in England, out of approx 53 million.
If 20% of them would like Sharia law, I'd say we are safe enough!

20% is on the low side but even at that conservative figure we are talking 600k out of some 3 million. That's a huge problem you'll have to admit.

Depp · 24-03-2017 03:10PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If I disagreed with that anywhere, you will have to point it out.

By coming out with ''its a council not a court'' and telling everyone they're scaremongering you are actively defending them and excusing their actions.

24-03-2017 03:10PM

CoolHandBandit wrote: »

20% is on the low side but even at that conservative figure we are talking 600k out of some 3 million. That's a huge problem you'll have to admit.

But it's 600,000 out of 53 million, so not such a huge problem

Will I Am Not · 24-03-2017 03:14PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

2025 for the Blanchardstown area i read in some report

Balbriggan must be 50/50 Irish and foreign nationals at this stage.
It was heading that way a few years ago anyway.

24-03-2017 03:15PM

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

Balbriggan must be 50/50 Irish and foreign nationals at this stage.
It was heading that way a few years ago anyway.

So?

Help!!!! · 24-03-2017 03:15PM

Omackeral wrote: »

I don't think there is any Somali area near my gaff. Yep, three I know off hand and they're all just normal enough blokes. That's what I base my findings on anyway, real life interactions with people. I like your way too, though, rendering all 1,100+ of them here as nothing but useless criminals.

Well I like to also base my findings on real life interactions with people & after living near many of them in London I've got no problem saying that. I have met none in Ireland so will wait to see if they change my mind

ilkhanid · 24-03-2017 03:16PM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

If we continue along this line of differential analysis and explanation of terrorist attacks in Europe in recent years, one cannot ignore the spectre of Islam in cutting across many of the conventional explanations proffered. Appeals to economic disadvantage don't really fit considering groups from greater and lesser states of economic disadvantage tend not to engage in such terrorist acts. Mental illness also doesn't really fit the bill unless one is prepared to make the argument that people of the Islamic faith or from those ethnicities which tend to contribute the most Muslims are predisposed towards mental illness. It also appear to be rather difficult to assemble a coherent model of Islamist terrorists as hailing from a single social class or level of educational attainment (though the presence of successful third level graduates amongst this group is usually understated).

If anyone can suggest a common thread linking these bombers apart from their apparently fundamentalist Islamist beliefs (notwithstanding how theologically nuanced or developed they were) I would be fascinated to here it, because apart from one purported unifying theme of drug use which I have heard put forth (by Peter Hitchens I think but I can't be sure), it strikes me that there is none other. Failing that, we are left potentially with the rather unappetising conclusion that it is simply belief in the Islamic faith alone that predisposes individuals towards acts of violent extremism, and that is a conclusion I would severely prefer was not true.

I'd modify it further. A specific type of Sunni Islam, of the type described variously as Salafi/Takfiri/Wa'habi. Shi'as are capable of fanaticism, but not to this this demented degree, nor have they engaged in self-sacrificial,indiscriminate madness like this to anything of the same degree.

Grayson wrote: »

Jews killed German diplomats. Remember that? they also committed lots of acts of terrorism in Palestine. The first modern suicide bomber in the middle east was a jew. People who wanted to hate jews found their reasons to hate jews.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Why did Jews kill German diplomats? because of Nazi persecution. Jewish terrorism post-dated the Holocaust. The fact is before WW2 most Jews either kept to themselves, or were often well-integrated model citizens.

Depp wrote: »

This attitude is not helpful to the discussion. The problem imo is islam, not muslims. No human is inherently evil or a criminal based purely on their origin. Why we see so many somalis etc is they are vulnerable for other reasons, and thats whats truly insideous about radical islam, it preys on and uses vulnerable people and communities to fulfill its own aims.

It's not just Somalis (or Muslims) who are vulnerable, it's Islam itself. the religion has a weakness at the core. It has not generated the defences, the scholarship, the ability to adapt that Christianity or judaism has.

Call Me Jimmy · 24-03-2017 03:17PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But let not the reality get in the way of some good old fashioned scaremongering.

You are concerned about scaremongering and people holding opinions about the consequences of islamic beliefs but you are not concerned by the beliefs of terrorists (islamic or otherwise) because they are only disaffected people who will latch onto any 'cause' and were going to hurt people no matter what they believed.

CoolHandBandit · 24-03-2017 03:17PM

bubblypop wrote: »

But it's 600,000 out of 53 million, so not such a huge problem

It's Sharia not tree huggers. It's a problem.

Depp · 24-03-2017 03:23PM

bubblypop wrote: »

But it's 600,000 out of 53 million, so not such a huge problem

According to Sharia law:

• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand.
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah is punishable by death (see Allah moon god).
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death (compulsion in religion).
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' clitoris should be cut (Muhammad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination (see Religion of Peace).
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits (see Errors in Quran).
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to eat must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be "Halal".
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.

This is a short summary of some of the tenets of sharia law taken from the quran...regardless of the dilution when you have a rapidly increasing 600000 people practicing and promoting this in a civilized country you definitely do have a problem, and its absolutely a huge one.

FrancieBrady · 24-03-2017 03:26PM

Depp wrote: »

By coming out with ''its a council not a court'' and telling everyone they're scaremongering you are actively defending them and excusing their actions.

Don't think so. That would just be a silly reaction.

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

You are concerned about scaremongering and people holding opinions about the consequences of islamic beliefs but you are not concerned by the beliefs of terrorists (islamic or otherwise) because they are only disaffected people who will latch onto any 'cause' and were going to hurt people no matter what they believed.

No, I am concerned about violence and disaffection,I think I made that clear. I lived, like an awful lot of other people through 40 years of violence due to the disaffection of a segment of society and I saw that being solved when the real causes were addressed.

donkeykong5 · 24-03-2017 03:26PM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

ScumLord wrote: »

I haven't vilified any non muslims. Muslims make up 4.5% of the UK population according to wiki, 20% of those people want to bring in sharia law. That's less than 2% of the population. How exactly are they going to bring in sharia law? It's not worth worrying about, there's no legal path for Sharia law in the UK, in Ireland and throughout Europe. It's not ever going to happen so why would I worry about it? It's hysterics and a distraction to spend any time debating it.

By 2050 Irish people will be a minority on this Island. The projection is most will be Asian. Its time to start worrying.

Thats frightening to say the least.!

CoolHandBandit · 24-03-2017 03:30PM

bubblypop wrote: »

But it's 600,000 out of 53 million, so not such a huge problem

• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.

That's one aspect of Sharia. 600k people follow Sharia is the UK (at a minimum) and you think it not a huge problem? Seriously?

ScumLord · 24-03-2017 03:31PM

Widdershins wrote: »

If you cannot see anything wrong with sharia councils in Britain and want to paint them as benign alternatives to court cases then I have no faith in your respect for human rights and I believe it is futile to continue to engage with you and Francie the terrorism apologist (trying to escape when he rammed the pedestrians? I'm sickened)

Widdershins wrote: »

I suspect ScumLord is going by a slightly more sanitised and fluffy version of sharia law that someone has fed him along the line or he found after his ''quick Google''.

This is hilarious. I've never stated my position on anything, or given my opinion. I never really get around to doing that in these threads because people prefer to assume my opinions and never actually ask. All I have done in this thread is ask you and others to clarify you're assertions, and those questions are taken out of context, assumptions are made and the questions avoided.

Depp wrote: »

By coming out with ''its a council not a court'' and telling everyone they're scaremongering you are actively defending them and excusing their actions.

but it is a council, that's just a plain fact. Councils and courts are two different things. It's not like there aren't all kinds of mediation out there that are meant to be an alternative to the court.

If these councils are bad then please explain what's wrong with them. Can you give some examples of what harm they're doing? If you weren't so determined to assume my position I might even end up agreeing with you.

Call Me Jimmy · 24-03-2017 03:33PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Don't think so. That would just be a silly reaction.

No, I am concerned about violence and disaffection,I think I made that clear. I lived, like an awful lot of other people through 40 years of violence due to the disaffection of a segment of society and I saw that being solved when the real causes were addressed.

So in this context, who is disaffected and why?

ceadaoin. · 24-03-2017 03:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely it should be important to note that this individual had a history of violent acts - he converted to Islam while he was in prison ... for violent crime. Sure, you can go on about how Islam is bad, blah blah blah, but not forgetting the fact that plenty of these people are, in fact, mentally ill or are just violent thugs.

This is a big problem that needs to be tackled. Extremists are targeting prisoners for conversion and recruiting them on a large scale. In France, a majority of prisoners are now Muslim. You can see how violent, angry and already marginalised people are an Isis recruiters dream

Oh and I'm another left leaning person. You can't just shut everyone down by calling them right wing anymore. I started to see the problems with the left when I saw people defending the cologne mass rapists and downplaying what happened. If attacks like this become more frequent, I wonder will we get to the point where victims are blamed for being out in crowded areas and once you avoid those places sure we're 'safer than ever'

Attack outside UK Houses Of Parliament — No speculation — Read 1st post

Comments