Vote against a SuperMosque at the Olympics site

dirtydog · 20 Jul 2007 at 07:57

malc30 said:
You've noticed as well then.
I have to say it is Killing my desire to post

He made that post four months ago so are you sure you're both talking about the same thing?

What is killing your desire to post?

@if ®afiq · 20 Jul 2007 at 08:25

i know nothing said:
Have a read of this:- http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9742115&postcount=170

There is aso the statement from the group intending to build this: here

Couple of point for the lazy people:

- The site has been owned by the group since 1996
- The max capacity of the mosque will be 12,000 not the 77,000 figure quoted

They also have a myths explored section.

I hope this thread will be closed due to it's fictitous contents and the fact that the poll in question seems to be threating "terrible violence and suffering" in response to this mosque going up.

@if ®afiq · 20 Jul 2007 at 08:26

dirtydog said:
What is killing your desire to post?

I would say narrow-minded ignorant bigots...but that's just a guess.

wordy · 20 Jul 2007 at 08:45

@if ®afiq said:
I hope this thread will be closed due to it's fictitous contents and the fact that the poll in question seems to be threating "terrible violence and suffering" in response to this mosque going up.

Bit like what happened what some danish cartoonist drew a picture of a fictional character with a bomb for a turban then.

@if ®afiq · 20 Jul 2007 at 08:48

wordy said:
Bit like what happened what some danish cartoonist drew a picture of a fictional character with a bomb for a turban then.

Putting the fictional character jibe aside - what is your point?

Are you saying that those that threatened violence in that case and those that do it in this are of the same mindest? If so, then I agree.

VIRII · 20 Jul 2007 at 08:50

@if ®afiq said:
I would say narrow-minded ignorant bigots...but that's just a guess.

What unlike the open minded tolerant people who blindly follow a 1500 year old religion?

VIRII · 20 Jul 2007 at 08:51

@if ®afiq said:
I hope this thread will be closed due to it's fictitous contents and the fact that the poll in question seems to be threating "terrible violence and suffering" in response to this mosque going up.

I don't think that the poll threatens violence if the mosque goes up. It warns of violence from muslims if the mosque goes up.
It's rather like a "beware guard dog" sign.

wordy · 20 Jul 2007 at 08:56

@if ®afiq said:
Putting the fictional character jibe aside - what is your point?

Are you saying that those that threatened violence in that case and those that do it in this are of the same mindest? If so, then I agree.

The point I'm trying to make is that you would support attacks on "foriegn invanders" in afghanistan, but then ask for a thread to be closed when theres a mention of attacks on muslims.

@if ®afiq · 20 Jul 2007 at 09:00

wordy said:
The point I'm trying to make is that you would support attacks on "foriegn invanders" in afghanistan, but then ask for a thread to be closed when theres a mention of attacks on muslims.

I support the right of anyone to resist occupation by a foreign military. Be it Afghanis against NATO or Brits against anyone if they occupied us.

That is poles apart from threatening violence on a group of civilains in the this country.

VIRII · 20 Jul 2007 at 09:10

@if ®afiq said:
I support the right of anyone to resist occupation by a foreign military. Be it Afghanis against NATO or Brits against anyone if they occupied us.

That is poles apart from threatening violence on a group of civilains in the this country.

Do people have to be armed to be invaders?

Shackley · 20 Jul 2007 at 09:14

@if ®afiq said:
I hope this thread will be closed due to it's fictitious contents and the fact that the poll in question seems to be threatening "terrible violence and suffering" in response to this mosque going up.

Not a lot of point really; another two similar extremist threads would immediately pop up in its place and at least this one has the merit that with a little common sense and/or research, people will realise that it has just about as much credibility as WMD in Iraq.

wordy · 20 Jul 2007 at 09:17

@if ®afiq said:
I support the right of anyone to resist occupation by a foreign military. Be it Afghanis against NATO or Brits against anyone if they occupied us.

That is poles apart from threatening violence on a group of civilains in the this country.

Not really. They are still British Citizens no matter where they are, and you're supporting attacks against them. So I still think it's hypocritical.

At the end of the day if you don't agree with with Britain not been there fine, call for them to be withdrawn, supporting attacks against your own countrymen or the countrymen of your adoptive country is wrong.

VIRII · 20 Jul 2007 at 09:17

Shackley said:
Not a lot of point really; another two similar extremist threads would immediately pop up in its place and at least this one has the merit that with a little common sense and/or research, people will realise that it has just about as much credibility as WMD in Iraq.

What a silly post. If Saddam had no WMD how did he use hydrogen cyanide bombs against the marsh kurds? Filmed no less by Iranians. The murder of 2000 men women and children by WMD.
Whether he still had WMD at the time of the invasion is another question but he certainly had and used WMD against his own people.

VIRII · 20 Jul 2007 at 09:18

wordy said:
At the end of the day if you don't agree with with Britain not been there fine, call for them to be withdrawn, supporting attacks against your own countrymen or the countrymen of your adoptive country is wrong.

Nah because muslims are much more important that white brits.

@if ®afiq · 20 Jul 2007 at 09:21

VIRII said:
Do people have to be armed to be invaders?

Invaders or invading tends be forced and so generally yes they do tend to be armed...but what has this got to do with the OP?

There are plenty of anti-immigration threads on this forum to discuss whether or not to call it invasion.

@if ®afiq · 20 Jul 2007 at 09:29

wordy said:
Not really. They are still British Citizens no matter where they are, and you're supporting attacks against them. So I still think it's hypocritical.Crime Refernce Number to be supplied tomorrow.

See, that's the problem with Nationalism. It stops you from seeing things objectivley and only from a biased view.

Yes they are Briitsh Citizens, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the rights of Afghani's to resist occupation. Imagine of the tables are turned and the Afghan's invade us, would you resist the occupation?

wordy said:
At the end of the day if you don't agree with with Britain not been there fine, call for them to be withdrawn, supporting attacks against your own countrymen or the countrymen of your adoptive country is wrong.

I reiterate: I support the right of resistance against any occupation. The fact that it is my country doing the occupying doesn't change a thing.

Do you think the occupied have no right to resist occupation?

@if ®afiq · 20 Jul 2007 at 09:31

VIRII said:
Nah because muslims are much more important that white brits.

Can you keep race/skin colour out of this please.

Shackley · 20 Jul 2007 at 09:32

wordy said:
They are still British Citizens no matter where they are, and you're supporting attacks against them.

Tell me, would you suggest that British Citizens who commit crimes abroad should not be prosecuted in the countries in which they commit those crimes?

VIRII · 20 Jul 2007 at 09:33

@if ®afiq said:
Invaders or invading tends be forced and so generally yes they do tend to be armed...but what has this got to do with the OP?

There are plenty of anti-immigration threads on this forum to discuss whether or not to call it invasion.

It seems invaders do not need to be armed to be invaders.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invader

Are you sure you still want to support armed resistance to foreign invaders?

Shackley · 20 Jul 2007 at 09:33

@if ®afiq said:
Can you keep race/skin colour out of this please.

LOL