All Posts by baff

Originally posted by frodus

Originally posted by baff

They were banned from wearing unifiorms off base because the Irish Catholics used to kill them. (And their families). It made them an easy target for the terrorists.

  

suger coat it all you want,paper tiger ya'll have become,need i remind you of Basra.do you need me to tell the story all over again.

Sugar coat what mate?

You weren't thinking the Muslims terrorists were the most dangerous adversaries we've faced were you?

They might be the only people to struck you on your home soil in living memory but they aren't very impressive on the scale of what are we more used to round here.

And sure, I'm up for a good story. Tell me about Basra.

My god you must be living in abject terror of the Catholics then!

Originally posted by bluberryhaze

Originally posted by baff

 

Everyone here laughed out load when Bush said Saddam was in on 9/11.

.

 

 

i would laff too.

because he never said that.

Yes mate. He did. He said it alot.

He also said God told him to invade which was a pretty tough one for the world to swallow also.

Syria was our ally in the Gulf War. They fought Saddam with us. 

Syria is still an ally of Britain. Their Queen is English.

I pretty much concur with the rest of your assesment and am happy that my country assisted you in Afghanistan. Although I would like them to leave now as there is nothing to gain but misery in that place.

And yes, once stirred the great nation of america has sent a clear message to the world that she is not to be made angry lightly.

Ironically of course, the people who attacked you died in the attempt. You can't scare suicide bombers. Particularly not ones who are already dead.

I don't blame anyone or seek to judge anyone. That's not my angle in life. Things are what they are.

They were banned from wearing unifiorms off base because the Irish Catholics used to kill them. (And their families). It made them an easy target for the terrorists.

The Afghan and Iraq wars are not popular here. Iraq in particular is almost universally disliked by the population. No one here belived the WMD story. No one here belived Saddam was a threat.

Everyone here laughed out load when Bush said Saddam was in on 9/11.

Parliament voted not to go without a second resolution form the U.N.  No second resolution was even tabled and the troops still got deployed.

The war sparked the biggest public protest in the history of country. No war has ever been as domestically unpopular.

Originally posted by bluberryhaze

 bush doctrine. (about time we get that region out of the dark ages, to appreciate life- this might hurt at first, but its something you'll get used to. the pain will subside and you can join the world)

democrats and republicans have set it up beautifully. attack 2 muslim countries. start the hate bush crusade. the world knows america is tolerant, just bush is a jerkoff. a stunning, well thought out play by american politicians. america wont suffer angst, just bush. all will be forgiving and forgotten once bush is gone. we'll have the world eating out of the palm of our hands once again. bush is the dark knight.

i more than welcome a peaceful religion.

its people i dont trust. 

furthermore, it appears in the UK people dont assimilate well into its culture. is there such a thing as UK culture?

there is an american culture. and most americans want foreigners to assimilate to it. 

 

 

I know they do. But most foreigners don't want to be assimilated into American culture any more than you want to be assimilated into theirs. (Nobody in Star Trek was pleased to see the Borg).

Neither is your religion peaceful. Your people have almost permanently been at war for the last century. So have mine. There is nothing peaceful about us.   

We don't have U.K. culture. U.K. isn't a label we call ourselves. We have British culture or English(/Scottish/Welsh/Irish) culture.

You speak the language of my culture. (You may even be a member of our church). At peak we assimilated 2/3 of the world into it. We do assimilation well. Better than you. The best in history.

You do spaceships to the moon, we do culture. Every body has his own little forté.

In order to assimilate other cultures you have to take them onboard. To assimilate Christianity, Rome became Christian. Christianity assimilated all the local gods by making them saints. Just as Roman mythology had included all god's from it's previously assimilated cultures into it's pantheon before that.

We have Sharia courts. We are assimilating. Assimilation isn't a one way process.  

Neither the Afghans nor the Iraqi's hit first.

 Osama Bin Laden is a Suadi and the people who "hit you" all died in the attack.

Last time i checked, immigrants were the only foreigners America appreciates.

(Last time i visited, the French were pretty unwelcome lol).

And Americans are massively anti muslims. read the comments in this thread if you think you welcome all religions. I've been known to recieve chain emails from my mid western buddies. Stuff "like pass this email on if you want to kill a muslim". That one came from one of your policeman. You couldn't make this stuff up. It beggars belief.

The reason I think America is so intolerant is because I spend all day talking to you, silly. You lot make it kind of hard to ignore.

(You guys are my window onto American public opinion and I value your feedback very highly).

 I have also lived in America. Compared to here, the level of racism is very hard to ignore and something all Brits find uncomfortable. We are all hoping you elect Obama. But only becuase he is black. Not becuase of his politics.

I'll give you two cases of 9/11 incited violence against Muslims. Afghanistan. Iraq.

Originally posted by Gazenthia

 

---

Originally posted by baff
 Or Sharia Court if you are a British Muslim perhaps.
 <...>
The reason Muslims need a seperate law is because they have different sensibilities.

---

In other words they shouldn't be judged by the law of the land because they disagree with those laws.

---

It is also useful in personally embarrasing cases, such as rape, wife beating, domestic abuse, divorce adoption etc to deal with the issues in a culturally aware fashion.

---

In other words they need to be judged by the laws of another culture and land  instead of the law of the land and culture of which they reside.

---

It can even be helpful to our legal system in these cases to have it adjucated by a jury of peers, rather than by a jury of white christian rednecks for example.

---

And here is some more of your palpable hate for
A) the White ethnicity
B) Christianity
C) The West

I suspect that this is the REAL reason why you are here defending this, because the topic undermines the West.

---

Ultimately, it's not a question of why should they need their own court, it is a question of why shouldn't they have one if they want one.

---

I have already answered this. The actions, means, and ends contradict the already stated sovereign laws of the land. It makes said laws of the land null and void, as they were written and intended to defend and govern all they who lawfully live there.

---

It's not one law for them and another for me.

---

 

Yes it is. That is EXACTLY what it is. It is protection, governance, and justice for some and not all of the people.

I'm a white, christain, westerner. Proud of my country, proud of my culture. I love my white christian heritage and my children will go to the same very expensive christian faith schools I did. (Or maybe they will go to a Bhuddist one, if Mrs Baff gives the orders).

I'm actively involved in fund raising for my local parish. I come from a conservative back ground and my politics are right wing.

I'm one of the minority of my countrymen that fully approved of the invasion of Iraq and hopes to see Iran get bombed too.

[b]You[/b], come from middle America and don't know any musilms. Before 9/11 you didn't have any opinion about them at all. Now you hate them.

Everyone you have regular contact with is an American too. The only foreigners you know are all immigrants. Outcasts from their own societies.

You have no respect for foreign cultures becuase you have never had any particular contact with anyone who does. Everybody you have ever spent any time with ever, everyone you have ever learnt to respect as an individual, has told you that the American way is the right way. The best way. The good way.

You find the idea that people think differently to you and have different values very threatening. Your standard response is to think that they simply hate you. Blindly and madly. Because they are stupid and evil or both. You hate China, Russia and Iran. You have never been to any of these places and don't now anyone who lives there. No one from any of those countries has ever done anything untoward to you personally. You just hate them because your culture tells you to.
 

Much like you think i hate the west and christianity because I don't hate Muslims or fear them. You are a stereotypic mid west american. Anything you don't understand or that doesn't openly prefer your culture to it's own, you hate.

Muslims are judged by exactly the same laws in England as every body else.

I am perfectly happy for people to judge themselves by their own cultural standards. Muslims reside in this land. Their culture is part of it's culture. At school we are all taught about all religions.

It isn't a case of them and us. It's just us.

British Muslims are by and large more moderate then Mid Western Americans. Most of us have a lot of difficulty distuinguishing all your radical Christians from the radical Islamics. You look different, but you sound the same.

Where I come from we lock people who talk like you away. Incitement to religious Intolerance is a criminal offence. Whatever your religion. Whatever your culture, if you are unable to respect those of others you are not welcome here.

Hitler was a Christian.

Originally posted by Cabe2323

Jeez you just don't get it. 
 

If sharia Law states that a person is murdered for changing from Islamic religion (which it states) you can't say that it isn't radical. 

Just because some countries and people choose to ignore that rule doesn't make the actual rule less radical.  It just means that most Islamic people recognize that a lot of Sharia Law is radical and choose to adapt and modernize thier beliefs.  I stated earlier that most islamic people are moderates that live in peace.  But that isn't how Sharia Law states they should live their lives. 

Just like if you follow Leviticus in the old Testament you would be living a much different life today then if you follow the modern Anglican Church.   As I stated before Christians had Jesus who stated that those old rules were invalid.  There is no such figure to invalidate parts of Sharia Law.

I by no means concur that there is any great deluge of people being executed for converting from Islam.

If it is a law that is never enacted because the law keepers are all moderate, then it is not radical in any way.

We didn't need Jesus to tell us which laws are now invalid. We have been happily invaliding the Ten Commandments all on our own.

Musilms don't need the voice of god to order them to become moderate. People are naturally self moderating. It comes with age.  (That's why we don't choose young men to become judges).

Originally posted by Cabe2323

Are you seriously using circumcision as an example of a crime?  Yes it is so much like stoning someone or beheading them. 
 

Sharia Law (you know the law from Muhammad's time) actually does state all of that.  That is the strict rules of Sharia law similar to the 10 commandments of biblical Law. 

Of course Sharia Law in England and Iran might be different but ask yourself this.  Why do they need a different law?  Aren't they English citizens?  Shouldn't the Laws that have made England the great place they wanted to come and live be good enough?  Why do they need to change the law that governs their people? How is a culture that subjects woman and treats them as a Man's property actually going to have a fair entering into this agreement to use Sharia Law.  Don't you think that the women will be forced to? 

If you beat your wife you go to jail in America.  Sure you will get anger management classes as well but you go to jail.  That is why in America a Woman who is getting beaten who feels her life is in danger can kill her husband and goes free.  Because a man has no right to beat on his wife.  Yet what do you think would happen to that woman under Sharia Law? 

 

We have the Ten Commandments here in Britain too. Not so many of them are actually crimes anymore. I think you'll find that despite being held up to the letter in some societies, for the most part they are not.
 

If you beat your wife to a pulp you go to prison in America. Same in England.

Although to be honest I suspect even in America you would need to get arrested for beating her three times in a row before you saw the inside of a prison. 

Mostly you don't even go to court. You go to marriage guidence. Or Sharia Court if you are a British Muslim perhaps.

And yes I consider the mutilation of childrens genitals a much MUCH more heinous crime than the execution of criminals by stoning. And I don't find beheading any more horrific than I do the electric chair, and less horrific than lethal injection or hanging.

What did the kids do? What could they possibly ever do that justifies that? they didn't consciously break any law. Not even an unjust one.

The reason Muslims need a seperate law is because they have different sensibilities. As with the wife beating Sharia Law is being used to arbitrate in things that are under the radar of legislation.

For a Muslim, it is a crime to eat the wrong kind of meat or use a bank. We don't need any arbitration for these things, if they want to have some, go right ahead.

It is also useful in personally embarrasing cases, such as rape, wife beating, domestic abuse, divorce adoption etc to deal with the issues in a culturally aware fashion. It can even be helpful to our legal system in these cases to have it adjucated by a jury of peers, rather than by a jury of white christian rednecks for example.

Ultimately, it's not a question of why should they need their own court, it is a question of why shouldn't they have one if they want one. If I want to be adjudicated in a Sharia Court, I can too.  It's not one law for them and another for me.

Flexibility for the win.

What you are trying to read into this subject is that Sharia Law is being used in England instead of our regular legal system. It isn't. 

Originally posted by Cabe2323

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Something I don't think is emphasized enough here is the fact that there are now two entire sets of laws that must contradict each other in significant and fundamental ways. What baff chooses to ignore is the fact that most of the people chose the laws that they did instead of adapting Sharia Law for a reason- they disagree in part or in whole with it.

Now an Islamic woman who does something that warrants death under Sharia Law will be killed in the UK. I guarantee you that there is a law in the UK that explicitly states that can't happen, so now what? What is the point of any of the laws that prohibited that which is part of Sharia Law?

Over here, it is irrelevant if that woman believes she should be judged and executed in accordance with another set of laws religious or not.

Over here we don't execute woman at all. Or men.
 

There is no death penalty in the U.K.

You may murder people in the name of justice, and think that is moral, but we do not.

There is a specific law in the UK that explicity states that you are not allowed to murder people.

Further to this there is a specific law about encouraging people to murder. That is a criminal offence too. Any you aren't even allowed to suggest murder here, let alone do it. 

 

 

That really isn't the point though. 
 

The point of the matter is that Strict Sharia Law is radical.

Modernized adapted and somewhat Secular Sharia Law is Moderate. 

That is the entire point I was making.  Anyone that can claim that Sharia Law is not radical must not actually read what Sharia Law says. 

Leviticus Old Testament Laws are extremely Radical.  In Christian belief Jesus came and stated that the old way didn't apply anymore and he was the new way and the new law. 

Sharia Law never had a "Jesus like figure" to come and moderate Sharia Law. 

Sharia Law is not radical.

Some Sharia Law is radical. Sharia Law is as moderate or radical as the societies using it.

Just as Judicial law is.

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by baff

Over here we don't execute woman at all. Or men.
 

There is no death penalty in the U.K.

 

Literacy and comprehension, baff. Try reading my post again, very slowly, and see if ya get it.


There is now a death penalty in the UK under Sharia Law.
 

Try reading mine again.
 

Originally posted by baff
Originally posted by Gazenthia

Something I don't think is emphasized enough here is the fact that there are now two entire sets of laws that must contradict each other in significant and fundamental ways. What baff chooses to ignore is the fact that most of the people chose the laws that they did instead of adapting Sharia Law for a reason- they disagree in part or in whole with it.

Now an Islamic woman who does something that warrants death under Sharia Law will be killed in the UK. I guarantee you that there is a law in the UK that explicitly states that can't happen, so now what? What is the point of any of the laws that prohibited that which is part of Sharia Law?

Over here, it is irrelevant if that woman believes she should be judged and executed in accordance with another set of laws religious or not.
Over here we don't execute woman at all. Or men.
 

There is no death penalty in the U.K.

You may murder people in the name of justice, and think that is moral, but we do not.

There is a specific law in the UK that explicity states that you are not allowed to murder people.

Further to this there is a specific law about encouraging people to murder. That is a criminal offence too. Any you aren't even allowed to suggest murder here, let alone do it.

Originally posted by Cabe2323

You aren't getting it at all.
 

 

Sharia LAW states that these are the punishments for certain Crimes.  It specifically states that if you change from Islam to another Religion (any other Religion) then you are put to death.  That isn't some radical's belief that is what Sharia LAW states. 

The examples you gave were not examples of Law.  You used illegal acts and then tried to use them as an example of Western law.  That isn't the same thing. 

Sharia Law actually states these things.  As I showed you and if you did research on your own you can find that there are specific punishments layed out in Sharia Law.  For instance death for changing religion, cutting a hand off for stealing, death for adultry, etc. 

Plus Sharia Law specifically places women as lesser beings.  A woman recieves less money from a Parent's estate then a Man does when the Parent dies.  A woman doesn't have a right to her children (after the age of 7 or puberty based on country and sex) they belong to the man.  A man can beat his wife and he recieves "anger managment training" or no punishment at all.  (and these cases took place in England)

How can anyone look at this and see it as anything more then radical? 

Show me the laws in the Western beliefs that are as radical?  Heck even our death penalty has been overturned in a lot cases by the Supreme Court.

The law that says it is ok to cut up a childs penis with a knife.
 

They don't come more severely wrong than that.

Sharia Law doesn't say all that. Sharia Law is different in every community that uses it.

U.S. law says it's Ok to murder people if they are criminals. That doesn't mean U.K. law agrees.

Just because Sharia Law in Iran says something, doesn't mean Sharia Law in England will say the same. 

What you have done is picked out all the most horrific examples of Sharia Law you can find and used them in your radical crusade to promote Islam and Sharia Law as evil.

For the record, you get sentenced anger management courses if you beat your wife in America too. 

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Something I don't think is emphasized enough here is the fact that there are now two entire sets of laws that must contradict each other in significant and fundamental ways. What baff chooses to ignore is the fact that most of the people chose the laws that they did instead of adapting Sharia Law for a reason- they disagree in part or in whole with it.

Now an Islamic woman who does something that warrants death under Sharia Law will be killed in the UK. I guarantee you that there is a law in the UK that explicitly states that can't happen, so now what? What is the point of any of the laws that prohibited that which is part of Sharia Law?

Over here, it is irrelevant if that woman believes she should be judged and executed in accordance with another set of laws religious or not.

Over here we don't execute woman at all. Or men.
 

There is no death penalty in the U.K.

You may murder people in the name of justice, and think that is moral, but we do not.

There is a specific law in the UK that explicity states that you are not allowed to murder people.

Further to this there is a specific law about encouraging people to murder. That is a criminal offence too. Any you aren't even allowed to suggest murder here, let alone do it. 

Which ones are they?

There haven't been any stonings and beheadings here.

Why is it that you choose to judge all Muslims by the the most horrific examples you can find on the internet.

Should I judge Western law by Abu Gharaib? Are our systems of law and religious beliefs reinforced by the actions of Hitler?

These countries have different laws to you. They don't want yours either. They don't want to live as you. They don't want wives that have affairs and do porn. They have their own beliefs and sensebilities.

And why are you OK about people slicing up childrens penis' if you think stoning criminals to death is so bad. 
 

We can all find bad examples of other peoples societies. 

We can all find a reason to define people as evil. 

The danger to us is when radicalisation occours. Is when people who do this accept these beliefs as a correct interpretation.

Don't be a radical. 

Originally posted by Cabe2323

 

So if everyone in Iran believes that the holocaust never happened does that make it a less radical view? 

Is China's irongrip on personal freedoms and the flow of information (ie their internet blocks and their crackdown on freepress) any less radical because they have over a billion people? 

Sorry but just because people follow something doesn't make it less radical.  Sure there are countries that are influenced by Sharia Law but most of them have replaced most of Sharia law with Secular law or modernized Sharia Law.  Not many countries or people follow actual Sharia Law because it is radical.  Just like Christians don't follow Old Testament Laws because they were radical as well. 

But you have Islamists (as the article I linked called them) who want Sharia Law followed to the letter which if done is quite radical. 

Yes, there is such a thing as a Radical Islamist.

The point is that Sharia Law is not radical. Certain people have radical interpretations of Sharia law.

It is those people who are radical, not Sharia Law, which is a very common system of law used by millions around the world daily in any number of countries.

In the same way Christianitty isn't radical because of female circumcision or abortion. Judaism isn't radical because of male circumcision.

There are radical elements in all societies. But in order to qualify as a radical you have to be going against the core beliefs.

I can't think of anything more intriniscly abhorrant than mutilating a childs penis. That still doesn't make it "radical".

Just because you don't like the way people live in China or Saudi doesn't make them radical. living by different rules to you, does not make someone "radical" or an extremist.