Toadhall Saint Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 Both are compatible with democracy. Are they really?? Which is the most democratic would you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 Both are compatible with democracy. All religions are compatible with democracy, as, of course, is secularism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 I'd outlaw sharia courts, i'd ban the burkha, and i'd lock up or deport those who abuse our soldiers and our values. Hear hear! I'm more than happy to defend our values alongside Dune and our EDL brothers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 None, but this is about rallying British people to demand that the government takes action. Except of course the EDF action has the opposite affect. Nobody wants to be associated with racists and skinheads, so the anti-religious extremism cause becomes undermined by the EDF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrollman no2 Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 Western Christian values. What about British people who are druids,pagans,alternative religions? While we are on the subject of being British,that can mean being from Scottish,welsh,Irish,Polish,Indian,Canadian,Australian,New Zealand,Pakistani,African desent. Do the EDL represent all of these parts of "Being British" as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 Except of course the EDF action has the opposite affect. Nobody wants to be associated with racists and skinheads, so the anti-religious extremism cause becomes undermined by the EDF. Damn that energy supplier! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 None, but this is about rallying British people to demand that the government takes action. While at the same time creating a situation where radical muslims become even more radicalised and moderate muslims start to sympathise with radicals. ****ing genius I'm sure you'll agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 2 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 2 February, 2011 While at the same time creating a situation where radical muslims become even more radicalised and moderate muslims start to sympathise with radicals. ****ing genius I'm sure you'll agree. It might help if your UAF lot stopped marching alongside Choudary and his cohorts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 BTW, are the 'Moderate EDF' mentioned in the thread title a splinter group? I assume that the desperate attempt to legitimise this fascist organisation (aka the slick, PR-savvy 'mission statement') must have fractured the membership, afterall it means the EDF thugs now have to pretend not to be racist, which pretty much eliminates the primary reason all of the members joined in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 It might help if your UAF lot stopped marching alongside Choudary and his cohorts. The last resort in Dune's rhetoric: if cornered, distract by attacking something largely irrelevant. (note to Dune, your thread's about the EDF, not the UAF, what the UAF do, or don't do, has no bearing on the actions of the EDF). Anyhow, until the EDF ban all their skinheads, thugs, rioters and racists, the UAF will be percieved by the public to be by far the more legitimate of the two organisations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 2 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 2 February, 2011 The last resort in Dune's rhetoric: if cornered, distract by attacking something irrelevant. It's not irrelevent. UAF are being supported by the MDL andthe MAC led by Anjem Choudary. Anjem Choudary was a member of the now banned al-mahajiroun which had links to 7/7 and the MAC burnt the poppy wreath on remembrance Sunday. These groups are ultra far right, but UAF march alongside them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 Damn that energy supplier! ;-) Absolutely, one warms households, the other (hopefully) warms police cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 It's not irrelevent. UAF are being supported by the MDL andthe MAC led by Anjem Choudary. Anjem Choudary was a member of the now banned al-mahajiroun which had links to 7/7 and the MAC burnt the poppy wreath on remembrance Sunday. These groups are ultra far right, but UAF march alongside them. And why is that relevent to discussing the rights and wrongs of the EDL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 2 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 2 February, 2011 And why is that relevent to discussing the rights and wrongs of the EDL? Because the EDL oppose the fascist millitant Muslims, whilst UAF support them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 (edited) Here's another one. In relation to Muslim men being given divine authority to “beat” their wives if they are “disobiedient”..... 4:34الرجالقوامونعلىالنساءبمافضلاللهبعضهمعلىبعضوبماانفقوامناموالهمفالصالحاتقانتاتحافظاتللغيببماحفظاللهواللاتيتخافوننشوزهنفعظوهنواهجروهنفيالمضاجعواضربوهنفاناطعنكمفلاتبغواعليهنسبيلااناللهكانعلياكبيرا Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). Surah 4 verse 34 Well I did tackle my co-passenger on this and he said that the reason why women wore the veil was so that they could be judged on who they were not how they looked; I think that shows respect. I do sympathise a little bit on the driving ban in place in some parts of the Muslim world. Edited 2 February, 2011 by Sergei Gotsmanov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 Well I did tackle my co-passenger on this and he said that the reason why women wore the veil was so that they could be judged on who they were not how they looked; I think that shows respect. I do sympathise a little bit on the driving ban in place in some parts of the Muslim world. Funny how women in these places get nose jobs though isnt it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 Funny how women in these places get nose jobs though isnt it The multiple wives thing probably stems from not being able to spot the best looking ones. If at first you don't succede try try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 2 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 2 February, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 (edited) I'd outlaw sharia courts, i'd ban the burkha, and i'd lock up or deport those who abuse our soldiers and our values. In the interests of balance, I actually watched the NN interview last night. From what their guy was saying, Sharia Courts have no legal rights in Union anyway. I'm actually in agreement with you on the burkha, and by implication, the comparatively bad treatment of women. I don't condone the abuse of soldiers, but I can understand it. If I were living in a foreign country that was waging war on England, I would have no time for the military. You're completely wrong on the issue of values. You only have to read this forum to discover that even amongst English people, there are vast differences in values from person to person. Domestic abuse is hardly the exclusive province of Islam, so clearly, we've got people here who think it is okay to hit women, just as I'm sure many Muslim men wouldn't dream of laying hands on one. Some people believe that a society is only as strong as its weakest inhabitants. Others would happily tour council estates with hunting rifles if it were legal to do so. There is vast gradation of values in this country, and as a piece of land that has seen invasions and waves of immigration over the last 1000 years, there always have been. I don't think that you can hold Britain up a champion of values in any event. Historically, we were an imperialist bully of a nation that threw its weight around the world, creating many global problems that still exist today - including the main source of tension between Islam and Christianity. Since the cult of the individual bloomed under Thatcher, much of the nation has become culturally vapid and politically unaware, more likely to vote in the X-Factor than in an election. So tell me, which of the myriad of values available to the modern Briton would you espouse as being common to the whole country? We've tried it your way; we played hardball with extremists. We've burned Catholic and Protestant alike, and British forces killed and locked up Republican extremists for over thirty years. Far from solving the problem, it turned moderates into sympathisers or participants. It took getting around the table for the problem to be even be half-solved. If the EDL spend their time provoking Muslims, how will they be able to distinguish between moderate and extremist? It's a shame they they're so mob-handed in their approach, because it makes them look less credible and trivialises serious debate on some very complex issues. Deportation eh? Provides a great indicator of where you're at on this issue. Deport them to where? If a British Muslim, born and bred, holds extremist views, where are you going to deport them to? On that matter, how would you deport an English person convicted of terrorism? That's the nub really. If you believe you can deport a British Muslim then what you really believe is that "they're not really British anyway". In 2011, we do have a multi-cultural society. It's a bit of clusterf*ck and we've still got a lot to sort out. We're not going to do that with every Muslim looking over his or her shoulder. Edited 2 February, 2011 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 what he said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 what he said seconded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 In the interests of balance, I actually watched the NN interview last night. From what their guy was saying, Sharia Courts have no legal rights in Union anyway. I'm actually in agreement with you on the burkha, and by implication, the comparatively bad treatment of women. I don't condone the abuse of soldiers, but I can understand it. If I were living in a foreign country that was waging war on England, I would have no time for the military. You're completely wrong on the issue of values. You only have to read this forum to discover that even amongst English people, there are vast differences in values from person to person. Domestic abuse is hardly the exclusive province of Islam, so clearly, we've got people here who think it is okay to hit women, just as I'm sure many Muslim men wouldn't dream of laying hands on one. Some people believe that a society is only as strong as its weakest inhabitants. Others would happily tour council estates with hunting rifles if it were legal to do so. There is vast gradation of values in this country, and as a piece of land that has seen invasions and waves of immigration over the last 1000 years, there always have been. I don't think that you can hold Britain up a champion of values in any event. Historically, we were an imperialist bully of a nation that threw its weight around the world, creating many global problems that still exist today - including the main source of tension between Islam and Christianity. Since the cult of the individual bloomed under Thatcher, much of the nation has become culturally vapid and politically unaware, more likely to vote in the X-Factor than in an election. So tell me, which of the myriad of values available to the modern Briton would you espouse as being common to the whole country? We've tried it your way; we played hardball with extremists. We've burned Catholic and Protestant alike, and British forces killed and locked up Republican extremists for over thirty years. Far from solving the problem, it turned moderates into sympathisers or participants. It took getting around the table for the problem to be even be half-solved. If the EDL spend their time provoking Muslims, how will they be able to distinguish between moderate and extremist? It's a shame they they're so mob-handed in their approach, because it makes them look less credible and trivialises serious debate on some very complex issues. Deportation eh? Provides a great indicator of where you're at on this issue. Deport them to where? If a British Muslim, born and bred, holds extremist views, where are you going to deport them to? On that matter, how would you deport an English person convicted of terrorism? That's the nub really. If you believe you can deport a British Muslim then what you really believe is that "they're not really British anyway". In 2011, we do have a multi-cultural society. It's a bit of clusterf*ck and we've still got a lot to sort out. We're not going to do that with every Muslim looking over his or her shoulder. I agree with most of this but why ban the Burkha? It should be anybody's right to wear what they like. Who are we to tell people what to wear? We should not interfere with people's culture, that is a fundemental right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 I'm actually in agreement with you what he said seconded Looks like we're getting ourselves a strong posse together, Dune! We'll have them Muslims dispatched in no time! Hoorah for British values!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 2 February, 2011 Share Posted 2 February, 2011 I agree with most of this but why ban the Burkha? It should be anybody's right to wear what they like. Who are we to tell people what to wear? We should not interfere with people's culture, that is a fundemental right. It's a massive barrier to communication, which more than anything, is what we need. Legislation also sorts out any cases where women are being forced to wear it against their will. If I were moving to another country, I'd expect to have to make a few changes to fit in with that country's culture. Why shouldn't it be the same here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Because the EDL oppose the fascist millitant Muslims, whilst UAF support them.You don't get it do you. Whether the UAF are flawless or demonic is completely irrelevant to discussing the rights and wrongs of the EDF. If you are on trial for armed robbery, and you know that your neighbour is a shoplifter, would it be relevant to your defense to mention this in court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 It's a massive barrier to communication, which more than anything, is what we need. Legislation also sorts out any cases where women are being forced to wear it against their will. If I were moving to another country, I'd expect to have to make a few changes to fit in with that country's culture. Why shouldn't it be the same here? It is their religion though and it is a basic right to practice it. I am sure there are a minority of women that are made to wear the Burkha but that should not prevent those that choose to freely. Is it legal to make somebody wear a Burkha? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Since the cult of the individual bloomed under Thatcher, much of the nation has become culturally vapid and politically unaware, more likely to vote in the X-Factor than in an election. So tell me, which of the myriad of values available to the modern Briton would you espouse as being common to the whole country? Really good post, but whilst Thatch can be blamed for quite a few things, imho, i don't think the cultural decline of a nation or the political apathy of it's inhabitants is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthamSteve Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 I just watched that clip. Without any real prodding from Paxman Stephen Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson ???) made himself look like a ***t. If he is the person put forward as the spokes person I dread to think what the rest of the people that follow this lot are like. Jeez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 (edited) There is nothing in the Muslim religion that 'forces' women to wear the burka, the niqqab, or any other full covering garment. The vast majority restrict themselves to a headscarf. Wearing the full 'set' derives from tribal traditions far older than the religion that it is now seen to represent, and persists in areas where these historical opinions & beliefs still hold sway. Additionally, some Muslims have adopted such dress as a visible affirmation of their faith, perhaps as a self-assurance in a society where they feel pressured or 'under attack' from intolerance and bigotry. There is absolutely nothing sinister in it, nor is there in the traditional garb of Jewish Orthodoxy, or the Amish 'uniform' of braces and straw hats. I think that you can probably say of the Koran what is often said of the Bible : "It is for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of fools". Edited 3 February, 2011 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickn Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 There is nothing in the Muslim religion that 'forces' women to wear the burka, the niqqab, or any other full covering garment. The vast majority restrict themselves to a headscarf. Wearing the full 'set' derives from tribal traditions far older than the religion that it is now seen to represent, and persists in areas where these historical opinions & beliefs still hold sway. Additionally, some Muslims have adopted such dress as a visible affirmation of their faith, perhaps as a self-assurance in a society where they feel pressured or 'under attack' from intolerance and bigotry. There is absolutely nothing sinister in it, nor is there in the traditional garb of Jewish Orthodoxy, or the Amish 'uniform' of braces and straw hats. It's certainly less sinister than the rapists masks those tw*ts are wearing in the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 I just watched that clip. Without any real prodding from Paxman Stephen Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson ???) made himself look like a ***t. If he is the person put forward as the spokes person I dread to think what the rest of the people that follow this lot are like. Jeez. well dune is one of the supporters so it shows you the level of education that lot have... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 It is their religion though and it is a basic right to practice it. I am sure there are a minority of women that are made to wear the Burkha but that should not prevent those that choose to freely. Is it legal to make somebody wear a Burkha? That's probably where you and I differ, sir. I don't believe that religion should be sacrosanct or have any special treatment, particularly if its practice has an adverse affect on society at large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 It is their religion though and it is a basic right to practice it. I am sure there are a minority of women that are made to wear the Burkha but that should not prevent those that choose to freely. Is it legal to make somebody wear a Burkha? It has nothing to do with religion. It is merely a tribal cultural practice super-imposed by some on top of Islam. I teach many Muslim women and not one wears a Burkha or any other sort of veil. The majority, however, do wear a headscarf, usually a very bright one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 It has nothing to do with religion. It is merely a tribal cultural practice super-imposed by some on top of Islam. I teach many Muslim women and not one wears a Burkha or any other sort of veil. The majority, however, do wear a headscarf, usually a very bright one! but those who want to wear it should be allowed to even if it is their tribal cutural practice. It is a bizarre alliance of feminists and right wingers that demand the Burkha be banned. It should only be an issue if it does involve the workplace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Can't say that I know too much about the EDL to be honest - but having now read this thread, watched the documentary and a few other vids, this one is about as close to the mark as I can find: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiQQ3VSmxFQ&feature=related I'll be joining tomorrow..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 3 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 3 February, 2011 but those who want to wear it should be allowed to even if it is their tribal cutural practice. It is a bizarre alliance of feminists and right wingers that demand the Burkha be banned. It should only be an issue if it does involve the workplace. My view is that it should be banned in public places, especially banks and on public transport/at public transport terminals. What is the point of CCTV if muslim women (or anyone can hide in a burkha) can simply mask themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 My view is that it should be banned in public places, especially banks and on public transport/at public transport terminals. What is the point of CCTV if muslim women (or anyone can hide in a burkha) can simply mask themselves? Finally! After stupid post upon stupid post, we now have the voice of reason. I completely agree (again!) with Dune. What is the point of CCTV if people can just wear a burka and get away with anything? The burka is a means for Islamists to commit crime. It's a cover up. You never see a white person with their face/body covered do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 My view is that it should be banned in public places, especially banks and on public transport/at public transport terminals. What is the point of CCTV if muslim women (or anyone can hide in a burkha) can simply mask themselves? No thread on 'The big society' today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 As I said before, there has to be give and take if you are joining a foreign culture. The maintenance of tribal culture in and of itself isn't something worth fighting for. It's actually futile. Culture evolves. A hundred years ago, our culture determined that women weren't fit to vote. Spin forward to today, and the country goes nuclear because a football pundit suggests that a woman isn't fit to run the line. How do you decide what to protect? If we hold up your ideal, the right for all to practice their tribal or cultural traditions, the Ku Klux Klan would be piloting trollies around Walmart in full garb. Nazis could visit Auschwitz with swastikas out. Pompey fans would be free to smear their own sh*t on the palaces of the mighty. Granted, these are more extreme forms of tribal culture - but the point remains. Some things can be part of the culture of a subset of society, yet remain totally incompatible with the mainstream. We take it for granted, but a big part of our culture is the ability to assign some kind of visual identity to those around us, even if they are complete strangers. The burka robs us of that and a lot of people are uncomfortable with it. Worse, it anonymises Muslim women in those outside the Islamic community. I would feel that way about any similar outfit. I would not, for example, feel equally uneasy walking around a ninja-populated West Quay on a Saturday; more so if they were getting handy with the shurikens. It'd be my preference to ban pedestrians from wearing of any garment that covers the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 3 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 3 February, 2011 No thread on 'The big society' today? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffo Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 I watched his interview with Paxman and thought he came across reasonably well. Didn't let Paxman take him off on a tangent and got his points across. Paxman was a snide tosser as normal. Although there are the odd few that do make racist remarks and chants, it's pretty clear that the EDL are doing all they can to get rid of these people because they are against militant Islam, and not just Islam itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junction 9 Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Finally! After stupid post upon stupid post, we now have the voice of reason. I completely agree (again!) with Dune. What is the point of CCTV if people can just wear a burka and get away with anything? The burka is a means for Islamists to commit crime. It's a cover up. You never see a white person with their face/body covered do you? I'm fairly certain the Klu Klux Klan are white, but like you say it's hard to tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Why? Pilot scheme council have ditched it, or has it conveniently slipped your memory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 I watched his interview with Paxman and thought he came across reasonably well. Didn't let Paxman take him off on a tangent and got his points across. Paxman was a snide tosser as normal. Although there are the odd few that do make racist remarks and chants, it's pretty clear that the EDL are doing all they can to get rid of these people because they are against militant Islam, and not just Islam itself. Yes, but their provocative methods will seed more militants. Unless they engage with moderate Muslims in a more constructive way, the EDL is only going to create more of what it is fighting against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffo Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Yes, but their provocative methods will seed more militants. Unless they engage with moderate Muslims in a more constructive way, the EDL is only going to create more of what it is fighting against. I agree and the only way that the problems the EDL feel there are with Britain are going to be solved is if they have these moderate Muslims on their side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Oh no, I'm totally confused. On the one hand, I think we should ban burkahs, but on the other hand I don't want a stupid nanny state that tells us we can't wear burkahs if we want to. I think my head is going to explode. I'm finding being a knee-jerk reactionary ignoramus really difficult at the moment. dune, help me out here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 3 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 3 February, 2011 Yes, but their provocative methods will seed more militants. Unless they engage with moderate Muslims in a more constructive way, the EDL is only going to create more of what it is fighting against. You're right to an extent, but UAF are also encouraging millitant Islamists. UAF have advertised that they are organising a counter demo supported by Anjem choudary and his chums. These are the people that wave the placards about our soldiers and who burnt the poppy wreaths. They are are the new face of al-muhajiroun who i protested against years ago. Do some research and you'll see that the 7/7 attacks were carried out by members of al-muhajiroun. So why are UAF marching alongside ultra far right Muslims instead of being oposed to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 3 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 3 February, 2011 (edited) I watched his interview with Paxman and thought he came across reasonably well. Didn't let Paxman take him off on a tangent and got his points across. I'm biased of course, but it was one of the best performances i've seen against Paxman. I'm sure it will have boosted EDL support. Edited 3 February, 2011 by dune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 (edited) ... Edited 3 February, 2011 by Deppo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 3 February, 2011 Share Posted 3 February, 2011 it's pretty clear that the EDL are doing all they can to get rid of these people because they are against militant Islam, and not just Islam itself. Nutshell mate. It is clear and obvious to everyone that the EDL are not against Islam per se. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot who has been swayed by the racist chanting and violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts