But Dude it's a direct and detailed plan to take over your country! He even threatened your QUEEN! Now you Brits once went to war because of the ear of some Sea Captain named Jenkins and now you allow such threats to go unpunished in your own country?

Well, some people are gonna tell you that they have freedom of speech and that killing is prohibited by law.

Anyway, i would be really surprised if the mediatization of this just a week after the shootings at Fort Hood would be a clever move from them.

What a way to improve their reputation!

Where in the world did you get the idea that they suddenly sprang into existance in America?

Scottish rednecks, Puritans didn't have the blood thing like the Covenanters did.


I think the Brits know Choudray is just a loudmouth ***** with a handful of idiots behind nim who couldn't plan a kiddies tea party even with help.

Primarily because these days most Brits don't give a flying rats arse about that kind of thing and if they do and speak about it they are assumed to be BNP. Most Brits care more about the X Factor and Jedward than they do about Buck House. :03:
Sad state of affairs, but that's the UK now for you, and the major parties won't touch anything like immigration or racial tension with a ten foot barge pole because it'll blow up in their faces and people will accuse them of being fascist and so on and so forth. :hmmm:
It's for this reason and the underlying racial and religious tensions in the UK that the BNP is becoming more popular, and I say thank god for that, because it's got the main parties scared and they have finally realised that they will actually have to address the issues that the BNP thrives on to undermine their support and prevent a Weimar.

WHAT?!
Immigration is one of the main opposition batons.
All three major parties list immigration on their online major policies
lists.

Immigration has been a BIG political topic for the major parties forever
and a day.
Things haven't got much past the “if you want a n_____r for a
neighbour, vote Labour” days. It's just the language that is toned down.

A two-sided sword, though I tend to agree that the failure of the establoishement paves the way for more extremist poltical actors stepping onto the stage, and maybe that even is needed - if the established powers do not act. I read this morning that Geert Wilders runs for prime ministre 2011 - and that his party currently leads the Duch polls (says Der Spiegel). But we have seen in Germany repeatedly in the past years how grassroot movements and citizen groups trying to raise resistance to Islam and allowing (or being helpless against) rightwing groups taking over their fight, brought all such ambitions into public discredit over being called Nazism and racism. Even in the forum here the formula "opposing Islam = xenophobia + racism + islamophobia" is very popular with some.

Which makes being called a racist and xenophobe and islamophobe a compliment certifying your healthy reason and ratio.

Interesting how terms get turned into meaning all and nothing anymore.

That is because the groups deal in absolutes which don't work, plus of course they are usually led by idiots like Wilders or Griffin and attract a disproportionate number of morons which give them a bad name.

Nothing new, when I was living in Britain the BNP wanted to kick all the Irish out.
Apparently we are all terrorist supporters, don't intergrate and are part of a global plot by the Vatican.:yeah:
Now its the Muslims turn, if they get rid of all the Muslims they will only find someone else to blame, probably the Jews again.
BTW do the BNP still do their protests outside M&W and Mark&Sparks?

Funnily enough though, when I was living in Germany it was the brits not the Irish that got the grief from the locals.

Hmm.. maybe. But this sure strikes me as similar to Lenin and the Bolsheviks, who worked this same approach for years and eventually toppled an empire and caused untold misery for millions. The obscure crackpots of today can become tyrants at a future date.

The similarities to pre-revolution Bolshevism and these zelots are so
sparse and general that the comparison doesn't make the much sense.
There is certainly no "same approach" going on.

Problems with historical comparison aside, the notion of these nuts ever
being 'popular', let alone leading a popular uprising is a little unlikely to
say the least.


ed: Perhaps a better comparison from the early 20th century is with the
Anarchist movements which invented the use of bombs as terror weapons.
ed2: On second thoughts, this too is a poor comparison. The Anarchists
made much more effort to be intellectually serious.

Ha! that's the comparison I made. Same approach: ideological warfare. Nuts like these were once facists and communists. They managed pretty well.

You can make the comparison all you like. what you can't do is make it valid.
The thinking behind pre-revolutionary communism, whilst deeply flawed,
was a product of the most influential and brilliant minds of the time.

Radical Islam....isn't.

First off "Brilliant" isn't a term that i'd use for something that is "deeply flawed" Letum and second, I'd consider radical Islam to be just as influential as any other system, given their ability to produce apparently limitless numbers of suicide bombers for their cause, affect the laws in a dozen first world nations and keep the entire world reacting to their actions.

Having said that though revolutionary tactics transcend any particular revolution. Not every tactic might be used, or used to the same degree, in every conflict, but they all come from the same bag of tricks.

Which particular laws?

I'd like to pause the discussion right here and point to this shining example of rhetoric from an indoctrinated socialist.

As you can see, it has very little basis in fact.

Starting with the assumption that the first Anglican settlers in what would become the United States were "backwards religious fundamentalists" who entertained theories of "global conspiracy", and ending by labeling them as "rednecks", a term which has absolutely no relevance to the people of the day, Tribesman has demonstrated his complete inability to make an objective judgement with a basis in reality. This is not entirely surprising, as Tribesman hails from a centrist, and therefore, socialist nation.

Note the way that he distorts history in an attempt to rationalize the beliefs he has been taught. To most of us they appear ridiculous, but to him they are truth itself. He completely disregards the success of free societies in the modern world in favor of a dogma that has kept him and his people in the shackles of state control and religious violence. He has no idea why his nation is regarded as being "backwards" amongst other western nations, and he may not even realize why.

Is this kind of indoctrination that we want for our children? Do we want them to think for themselves or do we want them to embrace state indoctrination?

This is the "third" way. It is just an indirect route to the "second" way, which is socialism. The proponents of the "third way", like Tribesman, don't realize that they are opening Pandora's Box. Fiat power given to a fiat entity will invariably result in abuse of power. As the maxim goes: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely". All they know is that they have a desire for change of some kind, and they are willing to trust a fiat monoply to effect it.

I fully expect Tribesman to post some brief response to all of this, but I expect that it will not be detailed or intelligent. If experience is any guide, he will be completely unable to defend his position, and he will resort to brief and cryptic remarks that imply his superiority.

What do you say, Tribesman?:DL

You will have a hard time finding a philosopher whose ideas do not have
a serious flaw somewhere. That is why it is such a lively area. That
doesn't make Plato, Descartes, Hume, Marx, popper etc. any less
brilliant.
The difference in political philosophy is that the flaws can become
manifest.

Radical Islam will influence bugger all when there are no radical islamists
left. The early communist theoreticians will be on course reading lists
indefinitely.

I say you have written a good example of total nonsense.
Lets start.
Where was that claimed?
But then again you appear cluless on the simplest of stuff.
Start with basic religion 101, can you tell the difference between a presbyterian covenanter and an anglican?
Maybe you should start with the bishops wars which were the start of the wars of the three kingdoms.
Actually once you explore that and the papist conspiracy theories of those days you can bring that up to date with a quick look at a real stereotypical redneck group. Try for example the Knights party from down south , you can't get more backwards redneck than the Klan can you , they call themselves good christians and have this conspiracy thing about a global popish plot(as well as a Jewish/communist/Islamic/socialist/liberal/negro plot that controls all the media:up:)

Errrrrr...covananters were called rednecks.

Wrong, the comparison made is of a bunch of modernday backwards nuts, another bunch of modernday backwards nuts and some historic backwards nuts.
This whole tangent has developed because some people simply don't know the origins of the term.


Look up the origins for yourself , then for funlook up the schism with the Presbyterians in the 1840s in america which seperated the southern rednecks from those in the northern appalacians over an issue which was later to tear the country apart. If you explore that then you can tie it in very nicely with the picture of Rednecks that was posted.

:har::har::har::har::har:
:har::har::har::har::har:
Two rather pathetic lines , after that your post just degenerates even further into complete nonsense that isn't even worth a laughing smiley.

Though it is tempting with this talk of backwardsness and dogma in the modern world to point at the fundamentalist religious right who have found a nice home with the republicans, or to have a good laugh at the creationists who insist the government should push their literal interpreatrion of scripture in science class in schools.

Interesting exchanges here on the topic. This made me laugh a little bit. I'm flabbergasted that you just proved UnderseaLcpl's point to a tee with your reply. :yeah: You knew that all along though....right? Something tells me you don't.

Well radical Islam predates all of them except Plato and, unlike Marx and communism, it's core philosophy continues to remain viable in many parts of the world so I don't think i can agree with your assessment of it's transience.

Yeah, same here. Brilliant and Lenin, sorry, that's no sale here. The man was a deluded maniac... sort of like the mullahs interviewed in the article I linked.