Britain as a police state: What is happening there?
RichA
that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
them?
Amateur Photographer:
An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who was stopped
while taking innocent photos in central London were themselves quizzed
while filming.
London Tonight reporter Marcus Powell was stopped by police in the
City who told him that filming was not allowed.
The incident, yesterday morning, occurred while the crew were
attempting to film a piece about Grant Smith who was searched by
police after taking pictures for a project on churches 24 hours
earlier.
The crew were allowed to continue, but only after Powell showed the
police officer his press card.
The drama took place shortly before the ITN crew crossed the river to
interview AP's news editor for an item broadcast on More4 News last
night.
Bristolian
So, the police asked a camera crew what they were doing and, when given
an explanation and ID, allowed them to continue. Sounds quite reasonable
to me.
--
Regards
Bristolian
MC
> I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
> that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
> or hassling photographers?
Used to be quite common. However, police chiefs started to advise
officers on the ground the correct interpretation of Section 44 of the
anti terrorist laws and ordering them not to hassle photographers
anymore. Since then the occurences of these situations have become a
lot more rare. There only seems to be the occasional incident these
days and even then these are normally only instigated by overzealous or
idiotic security guards and PCSOs.
I do not know how you can say these incidents are almost daily because
you are far, far from correct.
MC
Twibil
>
>
> I do not know how you can say these incidents are almost daily because
> you are far, far from correct.
Are you conversant with the words "trolling" and "disturbed"?
No, don't thank me, just plonk him.
Ray Fischer
>I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
>that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
>or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
>terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
>them?
I thought that rightards LIKE it when the government goes after
terrorists.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Fr...@zappa.com
that BS has been going on in Britain for a long time. there's no England now. your gov't shat on you every day
in many ways for many years. surveillance, high taxes, nanny state nonsense, unchecked immigration of people
who hate you, what could possibly be wrong with Dear Old Blighty?
Churchill vomits in his own grave whilst Hitler smiles.
Eric Stevens
Are you really saying that 'leftards' don't?
Eric Stevens
Paul Heslop
--
Paul (we break easy)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Twibil
>
>
> >> I do not know how you can say these incidents are almost daily because
> >> you are far, far from correct.
>
> >Are you conversant with the words "trolling" and "disturbed"?
>
> >No, don't thank me, just plonk him.
>
Well, but those were *different* RichA disturbed troll threads.
*WAIT*! (Idea strikes.) We've missed out on a rare opportunity here!
Had one of us pointed out that the Limey cops are no doubt
confiscating a plastic camera every once in a while, we could have
watched Rich's head implode shortly thereafter as he tried to figure
out if he should *hate* the cops for hassling photographers, or *love*
'em for reducing the number of plastic cameras in existence!
Trolls don't deal well with quandarys. Or billygoats.
RustY �
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:020b5900-b370-4f72...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
> that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
> or hassling photographers?
What do you think about this Rich ?
mikeos
>
>> An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who was stopped
>> while taking innocent photos in central London were themselves quizzed
>> while filming.
>
> an explanation and ID, allowed them to continue. Sounds quite reasonable
> to me.
Does it? It must have been blindingly obvious. A film crew was filming.
Were they breaking a law? Why was it necessary to demand ID? It is not
necessary to carry ID in Britain. What if they didn't have any?
MC
You do not have to provide any ID whatsoever if you are merely stopped.
Even if they decide to conduct a search under section 44 you still do
not have to provide your details. You only have to tell them who you
are if they intend to report you for a crime or you are arrested.
MC
Bruce
All very well in theory, but in practice, refusing to tell them who
you are makes you significantly more likely to be arrested, with an
automatic demand for a DNA sample and your details recorded on the
police database.
Whatever the principle, whatever the theory, in the real world you
have to decide whether that principle - however laudable it may be -
is worth giving your DNA for and having your name on police record.
It's your choice, but I know which one I would make.
MC
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:10:12 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>
> > mikeos wrote:
> >
> >> Bristolian wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who was
> >> > > stopped while taking innocent photos in central London were
> >> > > themselves quizzed while filming.
> >> >
> >> > So, the police asked a camera crew what they were doing and, when
> >> > given an explanation and ID, allowed them to continue. Sounds
> >> > quite reasonable to me.
> >>
> >> Does it? It must have been blindingly obvious. A film crew was
> >> filming. Were they breaking a law? Why was it necessary to demand
> ID? >> It is not necessary to carry ID in Britain. What if they
> didn't have >> any?
> >
> > You do not have to provide any ID whatsoever if you are merely
> > stopped. Even if they decide to conduct a search under section 44
> > you still do not have to provide your details. You only have to
> > tell them who you are if they intend to report you for a crime or
> > you are arrested.
>
>
> All very well in theory, but in practice, refusing to tell them who
> you are makes you significantly more likely to be arrested, with an
> automatic demand for a DNA sample and your details recorded on the
> police database.
>
You can only be arrested if the police have reasonable grounds to
believe you have committed an arrestable offence. This is happening
less and less as citizens become more aware of their rights under the
law and more people than ever making complaints to the Police
Complaints Commission aginst wrongful arrest. Not only are more people
having their complaints upheld but PCs on the ground are finding it
such a hassle to be subject to complaints investigations, however minor
the hassles may be, that the days of arrest first ask questions later
are becoming fewer and fewer. It is just not worth the trouble to them
to arrest you because you have pissed them off.
> Whatever the principle, whatever the theory, in the real world you
> have to decide whether that principle - however laudable it may be -
> is worth giving your DNA for and having your name on police record.
>
You will only have your DNA collected if you are "charged" with an
offence. You cannot and will not have your DNA collected for a mere
arrest. You can even be arrested and de arrested at the scene.
You are very, very unlikely to be arrested, let alone charged, just for
withholding your details. You have a legal right to silence and thus
do not have to provide datails. To be arrested and charged there must
have been a good reason to cause the arrest in the first place.
MC
Bruce
Yes, I know the theory. Thank you for repeating it, again and again.
My decision would still be the same. Pragmatism before principle.
Bowser
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gat3i5t2jma303s5h...@4ax.com...
Maybe. Some of us value our civil rights over everything. Once our rights
are limited, what's left? Once freedoms are taken away, the terrorists have
won.
Chris Malcolm
> I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
> that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
> or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
> terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
> them?
You're rather late with this news. That used to be what was
happening. It was clearly an abuse of the powers police have been
granted to counter terrorism etc.. This was pointed out by many
photographers and photography organisations. Questions were raised in
the media and asked in Parliament. As a result special guidelines were
issued to the police on how they should interpret their powers and
deal with photographers. Most photographers and photography
organisations have been very happy with these guidelines. Some
photographers now carry a copy around with them in case they are
accosted by a police officer who hasn't yet seen them.
Since then many photographers have reported the same experience as me:
the police and security guards are becoming a lot more friendly.
For example, a year ago if I was spotted carrying a big black camera
with knobs on by a police officer or security guard I was very likely
to be approached in a hostile manner. Nowadays they're as likely to
ignore me as approach me, and if they do approach me it's usually in
an apologetic and friendly fashion.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
Pragmatism? Do you often carry a big black camera around on the
streets of Britain? From the sound of your remarks you're an armchair
theorist who has little or no such practical experience. I speak as a
British photographer who is probably approached by police at least
once a week. A year ago they were usually hostile and sometimes pretty
threatening, but I was never arrested, asked for ID, or to see my
photographs, etc.. But I was nearly always told to stop taking
photographs. Since the recent guidelines were issued to the police
they have become very much more friendly. Now they usually ignore me,
and if they do approach me they're nearly always apologetic and
friendly, and have always been happy to let me continue photographing.
Of course there are still a few nasty incidents with ignorant and
officious bullies, but they're much rarer now.
--
Chris Malcolm
Twibil
>
>
> Of course there are still a few nasty incidents with ignorant and
> officious bullies, but they're much rarer now.
And to be fair, you're going to occasionally have incidents like that
anywhere that there are Policemen.
There are always at least a few who *took* the job so that they could
be government-sanctioned bullies.
MC
Again and again? Maybe it was not heard the first time.
> My decision would still be the same. Pragmatism before principle.
If you want to give in to this form of authoritarianism that is
entirely up to you. However, those who bow down to overzealous
security officers, PCSOs and plolice officers, give said officers the
idea that they have carte blanche to bully the next person too.
MC
J. Clarke
And those who don't bow down sometimes end up in traction. Rules like
"never obey the police when you think that your rights are being trodden
upon" are fine for people who don't have any life beyond "sticking it to the
man" but for those of us who have families and debts one needs a bit more
motivation.
>
> MC
tony cooper
Many people, like MC, talk a good game about how they would react if a
policeman asked for the ID. When it actually happens, they all of a
sudden remember that they have something very important to do
elsewhere and produce the ID in order not to be delayed from their
"important" errand.
I would. My schedule is pretty wide-open, but it doesn't allow for
wasted time arguing with a cop.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Bristolian
> Bristolian wrote:
>>
>>> An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who was stopped
>>> while taking innocent photos in central London were themselves quizzed
>>> while filming.
>>
>> So, the police asked a camera crew what they were doing and, when
>> given an explanation and ID, allowed them to continue. Sounds quite
>> reasonable to me.
>
> Does it?
SG: Yes
It must have been blindingly obvious. A film crew was filming.
SG: On the surface it may have appeared obvious what these people were
doing but it could have been ne'er-do-wells using the set-up as a cover
for something else
> Were they breaking a law?
SG: I don't know. Had the police not spoken to them and verified their
credentials we'd never know ... perhaps until a bomb went off
Why was it necessary to demand ID?
SG: I didn't say they demanded ID, just that it was provided and accepted
It is not necessary to carry ID in Britain.
SG: Quite right and long may that continue
What if they didn't have any?
SG: Who knows? Maybe the outcome would have been exactly the same but
just taken longer for the situation to be resolved.
The police are often criticised for their heavy handed approach to the
public but in my view (and it's only my view) individuals get what they
deserve. Treating every encounter with authority as if it were a battle
to be won at all costs is counter-productive and simply adds to the us
and them mentality.
Courtesy and cooperation costs nothing except your time :-)
--
Regards
Bristolian
MC
> > > >
> >>> You are very, very unlikely to be arrested, let alone charged,
> just >>> for withholding your details. You have a legal right to
> silence >>> and thus do not have to provide datails. To be arrested
> and >>> charged there must have been a good reason to cause the
> arrest in >>> the first place.
> > >
> > >
> >> Yes, I know the theory. Thank you for repeating it, again and
> again.
> >
> >
> > Again and again? Maybe it was not heard the first time.
> >
> >
> >> My decision would still be the same. Pragmatism before principle.
> >
> > If you want to give in to this form of authoritarianism that is
> > entirely up to you. However, those who bow down to overzealous
> > security officers, PCSOs and plolice officers, give said officers
> > the idea that they have carte blanche to bully the next person too.
>
> And those who don't bow down sometimes end up in traction. Rules
> like "never obey the police when you think that your rights are being
trodden upon"
> are fine for people who don't have any life beyond "sticking it to
the man" but for
> those of us who have families and debts one needs a bit more
motivation.
>
We are not talking about a case of "never obey the police when you
THINK that your rights are being trodden upon" We are talking about
exercising your rights, as laid down in law, when confronted by figures
of authority who, themselves, think they are above that law.
People who do not exercise or stand up for their rights are inviting a
situation which may find themselves manipulated and downtrodden.
However, in these situations please feel free to play the game however
you feel fit but I will not play by your rules, only by the rule of law.
MC
Bruce
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>And those who don't bow down sometimes end up in traction. Rules like
>"never obey the police when you think that your rights are being trodden
>upon" are fine for people who don't have any life beyond "sticking it to the
>man" but for those of us who have families and debts one needs a bit more
>motivation.
Absolutely right!
Eric Stevens
You missed that my response entailed a change of subject. Saying that
"rightards LIKE it when the government goes after terrorists", with
all that that statement implies, is not the same as saying that
somebody doesn't value a particular civil right.
Eric Stevens
MC
Actually, I have been there and done that. I have never given my name
as I am not obliged to do so and I do not carry ID as, under UK law, I
am also not obliged to do.
> I would. My schedule is pretty wide-open, but it doesn't allow for
> wasted time arguing with a cop.
No need for arguments, just a polite refusal to disclose your details
and let them do what they have to do. Unless they have reason to
suspect you of wrong doing you will normally be sent on your way within
a minute or two, especially as they realise they had no reason to stop
you in the first place. By showing ID or giving them your details you
are no more guaranteed to be sent on your way quickly than you are by
not not giving your details.
MC
Bruce
>We are not talking about a case of "never obey the police when you
>THINK that your rights are being trodden upon" We are talking about
>exercising your rights, as laid down in law, when confronted by figures
>of authority who, themselves, think they are above that law.
>
>People who do not exercise or stand up for their rights are inviting a
>situation which may find themselves manipulated and downtrodden.
>However, in these situations please feel free to play the game however
>you feel fit but I will not play by your rules, only by the rule of law.
To you, it is a game. You said so above, quite clearly.
To me, it isn't a game. It is real life, and it is my livelihood.
You state with absolute confidence what you *would do* in the
situation we are discussing. That makes it clear that you have never
been in that situation. So you can theorise just as much as you want.
Those of us who have been in that situation, and are working in
photography for a living, see it rather differently. Like it or not,
you and I have very different points of view.
You have every right to your point of view, and I have every right to
mine. The difference is, your point of view is unlikely ever to be
tested, except in theory and on Usenet newsgroups.
Nervous Nick
>
> Trolls don't deal well with quandarys. Or billygoats.
I wackyparsed that as "quantarays". As in, the lenses, you know.
It made me giggle liek little girl.
I believe the correct plural is "quandaries" but yours is much better
in this context!
--
YOP...
MC
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:53:34 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>
> > We are not talking about a case of "never obey the police when you
> > THINK that your rights are being trodden upon" We are talking about
> > exercising your rights, as laid down in law, when confronted by
> > figures of authority who, themselves, think they are above that law.
> >
> > People who do not exercise or stand up for their rights are
> > inviting a situation which may find themselves manipulated and
> > downtrodden. However, in these situations please feel free to play
> > the game however you feel fit but I will not play by your rules,
> > only by the rule of law.
>
>
> To you, it is a game. You said so above, quite clearly.
>
> To me, it isn't a game. It is real life, and it is my livelihood.
"Playing the game". It is a figure of speach. It means playing by the
rules
>
> You state with absolute confidence what you *would do* in the
> situation we are discussing. That makes it clear that you have never
> been in that situation. So you can theorise just as much as you want.
Not necessarily under section 44 but I have been in similar stuations,
yes.
>
> Those of us who have been in that situation, and are working in
> photography for a living, see it rather differently. Like it or not,
> you and I have very different points of view.
>
Which I respect. Everybody, deals with situations their own way. Mine
is to protect, as much as I can, my personal space and privacy.
> You have every right to your point of view, and I have every right to
> mine. The difference is, your point of view is unlikely ever to be
> tested, except in theory and on Usenet newsgroups.
Again you can do it your way I will do it mine. We will just have to
agree to disagree.
MC
John Ray
> Bristolian wrote:
>
> Why was it necessary to demand ID? It is not
> necessary to carry ID in Britain.
Not yet, but it's only a matter of time.
--
John Ray
RichA
Ray Fischer wrote:
> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
> >that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
> >or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
> >terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
> >them?
>
> I thought that rightards LIKE it when the government goes after
> terrorists.
>
Most sane people do. But not innocent people. I figure maybe they
randomly target Brit whites (most of the photogs harassed) to offset
any charges of racial profiling.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
>> >that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
>> >or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
>> >terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
>> >them?
>>
>> I thought that rightards LIKE it when the government goes after
>> terrorists.
>
>Most sane people do. But not innocent people.
And who are the guilty ones? Just the Muslims?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Twibil
>
>
> I believe the correct plural is "quandaries" but yours is much better
> in this context!
My spell-checker thought it was just fine.
Complain to bill Gates.
Paul Heslop
expected to happen I can't imagine.
--
Paul (we break easy)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
C J Campbell
> mikeos wrote:
>> Bristolian wrote:
>>>
>>>> An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who was stopped
>>>> while taking innocent photos in central London were themselves quizzed
>>>> while filming.
>>>
>>> So, the police asked a camera crew what they were doing and, when given
>>> an explanation and ID, allowed them to continue. Sounds quite
>>> reasonable to me.
>>
>
>> Does it?
>
> SG: Yes
>
> It must have been blindingly obvious. A film crew was filming.
>
> SG: On the surface it may have appeared obvious what these people were
> doing but it could have been ne'er-do-wells using the set-up as a cover
> for something else
>
>> Were they breaking a law?
>
> SG: I don't know. Had the police not spoken to them and verified their
> credentials we'd never know ... perhaps until a bomb went off
Been getting a lot of bombs in those cameras lately? Why would anyone
need to take a picture of a place before blowing it up?
>
> SG: Who knows? Maybe the outcome would have been exactly the same but
> just taken longer for the situation to be resolved.
>
> The police are often criticised for their heavy handed approach to the
> public but in my view (and it's only my view) individuals get what they
> deserve. Treating every encounter with authority as if it were a battle
> to be won at all costs is counter-productive and simply adds to the us
> and them mentality.
>
> Courtesy and cooperation costs nothing except your time :-)
Yes. And it costs the police nothing, either.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Eric Stevens
<christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2009-12-11 14:14:24 -0800, Bristolian <n...@hereany.more> said:
>
>> mikeos wrote:
>>> Bristolian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who was stopped
>>>>> while taking innocent photos in central London were themselves quizzed
>>>>> while filming.
>>>>
>>>> So, the police asked a camera crew what they were doing and, when given
>>>> an explanation and ID, allowed them to continue. Sounds quite
>>>> reasonable to me.
>>>
>>
>>> Does it?
>>
>> SG: Yes
>>
>> It must have been blindingly obvious. A film crew was filming.
>>
>> SG: On the surface it may have appeared obvious what these people were
>> doing but it could have been ne'er-do-wells using the set-up as a cover
>> for something else
>>
>>> Were they breaking a law?
>>
>> SG: I don't know. Had the police not spoken to them and verified their
>> credentials we'd never know ... perhaps until a bomb went off
>
>Been getting a lot of bombs in those cameras lately? Why would anyone
>need to take a picture of a place before blowing it up?
To be able to show the bomber where to park his car or truck.
>>
>> SG: Who knows? Maybe the outcome would have been exactly the same but
>> just taken longer for the situation to be resolved.
>>
>> The police are often criticised for their heavy handed approach to the
>> public but in my view (and it's only my view) individuals get what they
>> deserve. Treating every encounter with authority as if it were a battle
>> to be won at all costs is counter-productive and simply adds to the us
>> and them mentality.
>>
>> Courtesy and cooperation costs nothing except your time :-)
>
>Yes. And it costs the police nothing, either.
Eric Stevens
Nervous Nick
> On Dec 11, 3:34 pm,Nervous Nick<nervous.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I believe the correct plural is "quandaries" but yours is much better
> > in this context!
>
> My spell-checker thought it was just fine.
I'm sure it did. You are its teacher.
--
YOP...
Twibil
>
>
> > > I believe the correct plural is "quandaries" but yours is much better
> > > in this context!
>
> > My spell-checker thought it was just fine.
>
> I'm sure it did. You are its teacher.
Uh......right.
Paul Heslop
:O)
whisky-dave
personally
just in case I was spotted by CCTV.
Of course there's no possible way of parking anywhere in London without
taking a picture
of the place first. I wish you could reserve a parking space for the next
few days./weeks just
by taking a photo of it :-)
>>> The police are often criticised for their heavy handed approach to the
>>> public but in my view (and it's only my view) individuals get what they
>>> deserve.
Not always true, I don;t think Charles de mendez got what he deserved.
>> Treating every encounter with authority as if it were a battle
>>> to be won at all costs is counter-productive and simply adds to the us
>>> and them mentality.
>>>
>>> Courtesy and cooperation costs nothing except your time :-)
>>
>>Yes. And it costs the police nothing, either.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
The police get paid for stopping people, I don;t get paid for being stopped,
few do,
most loose time when being stopped sometimes you actually loose pay too.
whisky-dave
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4b230649$0$1664$742e...@news.sonic.net...
It does seem that way, who was quilty of the 9/11 attacks, just Muslims
or is someone else to blame ?
Chris H
writes
>>>>
>>>>> Were they breaking a law?
>>>> SG: I don't know. Had the police not spoken to them and verified their
>>>> credentials we'd never know ... perhaps until a bomb went off
>>>Been getting a lot of bombs in those cameras lately? Why would anyone
>>>need to take a picture of a place before blowing it up?
>> To be able to show the bomber where to park his car or truck.
>I would have thought the bomber would have already known, but I'd use google
>personally
>just in case I was spotted by CCTV.
Exactly. Besides there are lots of pictures on the net anyway from
tourists.
If it is a real threat then Google is more guilty than any other person
or organisation of aiding terrorists. So when the Google is stopped
then you can start to prosecute photographers.
BTW Google has been asked to use lower resolution or avoid severall high
risk targets by several governments. As these are not in the USA Google
has refused... I assume that when any google staff visit those countries
their governments are quite justified in locking up the Google staff for
conspiracy for 15-20 years.
>Of course there's no possible way of parking anywhere in London without
>taking a picture
>of the place first. I wish you could reserve a parking space for the next
>few days./weeks just
>by taking a photo of it :-)
If you want photos or videos send in some teenagers or tourists with
camera-phones....
>>>> The police are often criticised for their heavy handed approach to the
>>>> public but in my view (and it's only my view) individuals get what they
>>>> deserve.
>Not always true, I don;t think Charles de mendez got what he deserved.
He should not even have been there... he was well outside his visa
working as an electrician. With the current rules for electricians
Mendes was criminal in falsifying paperwork and certification quite
apart from being in the country illegally.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris H
writes
Remember that 9/11 was the third retaliation attack for other
atrocities. It seems some one had been targeting Muslims for some time
and they decided to strike back.
I note that when 20 US trained Saudis attacked the US the US then had a
"Crusade" against Afghanistan.
More important was the legitimate government of Afghanistan offered to
send Osama Bin Laden to the US *IF* the USA could show the standard
level of evidence required for normal extradition (even though the US
refused to recognise the legitimate government of Afghanistan)
The problem was that the US could not and still can not provide any
evidence that would stand up in court.
Bowser
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4b230649$0$1664$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Well, I tried to find a news story of some lilly white terrorists, and so
far Tim McVeigh is the only one. So yes, so far it's only Muslims.
One thing about Islam, though, they seem to rely on a single solution for
anyone who dares to say something about Islam they don't like: death. You
write something they don't like? Death. Draw a cartoon? Death. Say
something? Death. See a pattern here? Why?
David J. Littleboy
"Bowser" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:4b230649$0$1664$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
>>>> >that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
>>>> >or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
>>>> >terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
>>>> >them?
>>>>
>>>> I thought that rightards LIKE it when the government goes after
>>>> terrorists.
>>>
>>>Most sane people do. But not innocent people.
>>
>> And who are the guilty ones? Just the Muslims?
>
> Well, I tried to find a news story of some lilly white terrorists, and so
> far Tim McVeigh is the only one. So yes, so far it's only Muslims.
You're forgetting Northern Ireland.
The antrax attacks were never really solved. The guy being blamed (who
committed suicide) wasn't Muslim. Wasn't there a bomb at the Atlanta
Olympics? And the unibomber (who almost killed one of my Comp. Sci.
professors).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing
And lots of my lefty friends...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States
And we've blown up a lot of weddings, dropped a lot of drone-carried bombs
onto civilian houses. Pretty terrifying if you make the mistake of being
there...
And you are forgetting Yugoslavia, where Muslims were the victims of
horrendous crimes.
To say nothing of Israel's crimes against the Palestinians.
Lots of non-Muslim terrorism.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Ray Fischer
>>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
>>>> >that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
>>>> >or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
>>>> >terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
>>>> >them?
>>>>
>>>> I thought that rightards LIKE it when the government goes after
>>>> terrorists.
>>>
>>>Most sane people do. But not innocent people.
>>
>> And who are the guilty ones? Just the Muslims?
>
>It does seem that way, who was quilty of the 9/11 attacks, just Muslims
>or is someone else to blame ?
Bigots always focus on the group that they hate.
Timothy McVeigh? That doesn't count for some reason. Israel's
invasion of Lebanon? That doesn't count for some reason.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>>> >I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
>>>> >that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
>>>> >or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
>>>> >terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
>>>> >them?
>>>>
>>>> I thought that rightards LIKE it when the government goes after
>>>> terrorists.
>>>
>>>Most sane people do. But not innocent people.
>>
>> And who are the guilty ones? Just the Muslims?
>
>Well, I tried to find a news story of some lilly white terrorists, and so
>far Tim McVeigh is the only one. So yes, so far it's only Muslims.
Then you're obviously a bigot,
>One thing about Islam, though, they seem to rely on a single solution for
>anyone who dares to say something about Islam they don't like: death.
Like invading other countries and killing tens to hundreds of
thousands of people?
No, by the standards of you bigots that's "different". It's okay when
you "Christian" and "Jews" kill Muslims because you have good excuses.
It's only bad when they dare to fight back.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Martin Brown
>
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:4b230649$0$1664$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
>>>> >that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
>>>> >or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
>>>> >terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
>>>> >them?
>>>>
>>>> I thought that rightards LIKE it when the government goes after
>>>> terrorists.
>>>
>>> Most sane people do. But not innocent people.
>>
>> And who are the guilty ones? Just the Muslims?
>
> Well, I tried to find a news story of some lilly white terrorists, and
> so far Tim McVeigh is the only one. So yes, so far it's only Muslims.
You seem to forget about the US militarised anthrax powder that was sent
to various public figures soon after 9/11 and was eventually traced to
the US biological warfare program. ISTR the only suspect committed
suicide before being taken into custody.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1849920.stm
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7536890.stm
Killed about half a dozen people. The FBI didn't seem to try very hard
to find the culprit when it became clear it was an inside job using US
weaponised military material.
I don't suppose you count the IRA as terrorists - even though they have
done such a great job training the FARC in better ways to kill US troops.
In the UK there have been way more IRA terrorist attrocities than
Islamic jihad attacks. The IRA even managed an audacious assassination
attempt against then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
>
> One thing about Islam, though, they seem to rely on a single solution
> for anyone who dares to say something about Islam they don't like:
> death. You write something they don't like? Death. Draw a cartoon?
> Death. Say something? Death. See a pattern here? Why?
They sound a bit like the US Religious Right then.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Twibil
>
>
> It's okay when you "Christian" and "Jews" kill Muslims
> because you have good excuses.
> It's only bad when they dare to fight back.
PHUMP!
(Insane-O-meter explodes.)
sid
>>>>> The police are often criticised for their heavy handed approach to the
>>>>> public but in my view (and it's only my view) individuals get what
>>>>> they deserve.
>>Not always true, I don;t think Charles de mendez got what he deserved.
>
> He should not even have been there... he was well outside his visa
> working as an electrician. With the current rules for electricians
> Mendes was criminal in falsifying paperwork and certification quite
> apart from being in the country illegally.
Not exactly justification for being gunned down by the police in a public
place though, is it?
--
sid
RLU 300284
2010
Chris H
s.com>, Twibil <noway...@gmail.com> writes
Not at all that is EXACTLY what happened. 9/11 was the third (of three)
RETALIATION attacks on the US for multiple attacks across the world by
the US on Muslim targets. After 9/11 one of the first words Bush said
was "Crusade"
whisky-dave
"Bowser" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote in message
news:0yMVm.152$5N3...@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
I'm guessing because it works, it's about the only point which I think
the islamic belief is correct and our UK one is faulty.
whisky-dave
"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:N7r1o$Hez4J...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <hg81gl$q5$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear>
> writes
>>>>>
>>>>> The police are often criticised for their heavy handed approach to the
>>>>> public but in my view (and it's only my view) individuals get what
>>>>> they
>>>>> deserve.
>>Not always true, I don;t think Charles de mendez got what he deserved.
>
> He should not even have been there... he was well outside his visa
> working as an electrician.
But they didn;t know this at the time, at the time of the shooting they
thought he was someone else and that could have been anyone.
Anyone at all that is the problem it was only luck they killed someone that
was 'illegal' and the compensation paid reflected that.
> With the current rules for electricians
> Mendes was criminal in falsifying paperwork and certification quite
> apart from being in the country illegally.
But they didn't know that at the time, he could have been a photographer
just travelling on the tube. But then again didn't they have this person
under surveillance, I mean they thought he was a suicide bomber so they
allowed
him to get on the tube train, that's always seemed a bit wierd to me.
And I DON'T blame the policeman that shot him, someone else is to blame
for the targeting the wrong person, and not stopping them from getting on
the underground
in the first place.
I think it's rather a shame we don;t shoot people for ripping off the tax
payer
with false expense acounts, but I doubt we'd get away with that, which is a
pity.
Chris H
da...@final.front.ear> writes
>
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:N7r1o$Hez4J...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <hg81gl$q5$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisk...@final.front.ear>
>> writes
>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>> The police are often criticised for their heavy handed approach to the
>>>>>> public but in my view (and it's only my view) individuals get what
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> deserve.
>>>Not always true, I don;t think Charles de mendez got what he deserved.
>> Mendes was criminal in falsifying paperwork and certification quite
>> apart from being in the country illegally.
>
>But they didn't know that at the time, he could have been a photographer
>just travelling on the tube.
True.
> But then again didn't they have this person
>under surveillance,
They did.
>I mean they thought he was a suicide bomber so they
>allowed
>him to get on the tube train, that's always seemed a bit wierd to me.
Due to multiple cock-ups by the officers in charge the armed team were
not at the station. The team that was watching him could not tackle him.
>And I DON'T blame the policeman that shot him,
Agreed. They were running to catch up *a positively identified suicide
bomber in his target zone* They had no options in the position they were
placed in. Any hesitation would have resulted in 30 dead in the
underground train.
> someone else is to blame
>for the targeting the wrong person, and not stopping them from getting on
>the underground
>in the first place.
Agreed. However, having read the Stockwell report, heads should have
rolled. Though I do believe not all the information got it to the
Stockwell report.
>I think it's rather a shame we don;t shoot people for ripping off the tax
>payer
>with false expense acounts, but I doubt we'd get away with that, which is a
>pity.
More to the point I think that a Defence Secretary who is in charge over
the Nimrod incident should *AT LEAST* get Prison... instead they are
trying to prosecute a couple of RAF officers....
Dymphna
Twibil;3074909 Wrote:
have to do it?
--
Dymphna
Message origin: www.TRAVEL.com
Twibil
wrote:
>
>
> Muslims seem to be doing a good job killing each other off. Why do we
> have to do it?
It's immoral not to return favors.
Ray Fischer
>> > It's okay when you "Christian" and "Jews" kill Muslims
>> > because you have good excuses.
>> > It's only bad when they dare to fight back.
>>
>> PHUMP!
>>
>> (Insane-O-meter explodes.)
>Muslims seem to be doing a good job killing each other off. Why do we
>have to do it?
Looking at a list of annual murders per capita it looks like it's
Christian countries which are doing a far better job of killing
themselves off.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kennedy McEwen
<rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>Dymphna <Dymphna...@no-mx.forums.travel.com> wrote:
>>Twibil;3074909 Wrote:
>>> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>> > It's okay when you "Christian" and "Jews" kill Muslims
>>> > because you have good excuses.
>>> > It's only bad when they dare to fight back.
>>>
>>> PHUMP!
>>>
>>> (Insane-O-meter explodes.)
>>Muslims seem to be doing a good job killing each other off. Why do we
>>have to do it?
>
>Looking at a list of annual murders per capita it looks like it's
>Christian countries which are doing a far better job of killing
>themselves off.
>
conclusion you'll reach!
Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, China, Mongolia, North Korea, Egypt, Syria,
Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, UAE, Libya, Algeria, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan, Ethiopia, Somalia and most of sub-Saharan Africa - all
missing, non-Christian!
Its amazing the lies you can peddle with half truths.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Ray Fischer
>In article <4b29cabc$0$1591$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>Dymphna <Dymphna...@no-mx.forums.travel.com> wrote:
>>>Twibil;3074909 Wrote:
>>>> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>> > It's okay when you "Christian" and "Jews" kill Muslims
>>>> > because you have good excuses.
>>>> > It's only bad when they dare to fight back.
>>>>
>>>> PHUMP!
>>>>
>>>> (Insane-O-meter explodes.)
>>>Muslims seem to be doing a good job killing each other off. Why do we
>>>have to do it?
>>
>>Looking at a list of annual murders per capita it looks like it's
>>Christian countries which are doing a far better job of killing
>>themselves off.
>>
>If you only count mainly christian countries that is exactly the false
>conclusion you'll reach!
This cite confirms my statement:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Your ignorant beliefs are not facts.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kennedy McEwen
>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <4b29cabc$0$1591$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>Dymphna <Dymphna...@no-mx.forums.travel.com> wrote:
>>>>Twibil;3074909 Wrote:
>>>>> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> > It's okay when you "Christian" and "Jews" kill Muslims
>>>>> > because you have good excuses.
>>>>> > It's only bad when they dare to fight back.
>>>>>
>>>>> PHUMP!
>>>>>
>>>>> (Insane-O-meter explodes.)
>>>>Muslims seem to be doing a good job killing each other off. Why do we
>>>>have to do it?
>>>
>>>Looking at a list of annual murders per capita it looks like it's
>>>Christian countries which are doing a far better job of killing
>>>themselves off.
>>>
>>If you only count mainly christian countries that is exactly the false
>>conclusion you'll reach!
>
>This cite confirms my statement:
>http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
>
counting since most of the countries missing are non-christian.
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-ca
pita&b_map=1
Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, China, Mongolia, North Korea, Egypt, Syria,
Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, UAE, Libya, Algeria, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan, Ethiopia, Somalia and most of sub-Saharan Africa - all
missing from your "murder league" and all non-Christian majority
countries
China alone has enough non-Christians and a high enough murder rate,
especially if infanticide is included, to completely swamp "Christian"
murder in the rest of the world.
Added to which, you seem to be assuming that murders in christian
majority countries are by christians on each other. It isn't christians
that practice "honour killings", though many of them seem to harbour in
christian majority countries:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8389053.stm
Ray Fischer
Probably because they don't have statistics to report.
>Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, China, Mongolia, North Korea, Egypt, Syria,
Simpy listing countries is evidence of nothing other than your
prejudices.
>China alone has enough non-Christians and a high enough murder rate,
NOte also that the ocuntry with the highest prison population (both in
absolute terms and per capita) is the United States.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kennedy McEwen
>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <4b2b2505$0$1643$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
>>>
>>And this citation confirms that your statement is based on biased
>>counting since most of the countries missing are non-christian.
>>http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-ca
>>pita&b_map=1
>
>Probably because they don't have statistics to report.
>
>>Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, China, Mongolia, North Korea, Egypt, Syria,
>
>Simpy listing countries is evidence of nothing other than your
>prejudices.
>
No - it indicates the ability to READ THE MAP and identify the countries
which haven't reported data. You would rather let your prejudices blind
you to the evidence, but its here again for you:
http://tinyurl.com/yew572l
According to Justice Goldstone's report to the United Nations of his
Fact Finding Mission on the Israeli incursion into Gaza last year
between 1387 and 1444 Palestinians were killed, of which no more than
237 were classified as combatants.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48
.pdf
That means at least 1150 people were murdered - whether they were
"collateral" or not - by Israeli forces in a population of under
1.5million. That works out at 0.767 murders per 1000 people in the
space of only 3 weeks, easily going to #1 position in your murder league
- much higher than Colombia! Neither Israel nor Gaza, appear on your
list of countries and neither Israel nor Gaza are majority christian
either!
Iraq and Pakistan are higher still - neither christian nor counted on
your league. Your claim is based on incomplete and biased evidence.
>>China alone has enough non-Christians and a high enough murder rate,
>
>NOte also that the ocuntry with the highest prison population (both in
>absolute terms and per capita) is the United States.
>
If you peak out from behind your prejudices you'll find there are many
crimes that people are sent to prison for, it isn't just murder.
Ray Fischer
>In article <4b2bc089$0$1664$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <4b2b2505$0$1643$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>>This cite confirms my statement:
>>>>http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
>>>>
>>>And this citation confirms that your statement is based on biased
>>>counting since most of the countries missing are non-christian.
>>>http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-ca
>>>pita&b_map=1
>>
>>Probably because they don't have statistics to report.
>>
>Or aren't prepared to report their statistics!
It doesn't matter either way.
>>>Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, China, Mongolia, North Korea, Egypt, Syria,
>>
>>Simpy listing countries is evidence of nothing other than your
>>prejudices.
>>
>No - it indicates the ability to READ THE MAP and identify the countries
Let's put this in plain terms:
You are a nasty, stupid, evil bigot. Your vile anti-Muslim filth is
no better than anti-semitic nazi propaganda.
Is THAT clear, asshole?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kennedy McEwen
>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <4b2bc089$0$1664$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>And this citation confirms that your statement is based on biased
>>>>counting since most of the countries missing are non-christian.
>>>>http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-ca
>>>>pita&b_map=1
>>>
>>>Probably because they don't have statistics to report.
>>>
>>Or aren't prepared to report their statistics!
>
>It doesn't matter either way.
>
then use such biased lists to make claims that Christian countries are
worse than non-Christian ones.
Here's another:
Sri Lanka has a population of 21.3million, of which some 20,000
non-combatant civilians were killed in State-v-Tamil fighting in a
period of less than 2 months last year, a figure that has been the
ANNUAL average for over a decade. 0.95 murders per 1000 people. At the
last count, Sri Lanka's religious belief broke down as Buddhist 69.1%,
Muslim 7.6%, Hindu 7.1%, Christian 6.2% with most of the remainder being
a number of minor religions.
So Sri Lanka, another non-Christian country, would easily be #1 in your
league but, as expected, it isn't included.
>>>>Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, China, Mongolia, North Korea, Egypt, Syria,
>>>
>>>Simpy listing countries is evidence of nothing other than your
>>>prejudices.
>>>
>>No - it indicates the ability to READ THE MAP and identify the countries
>
>
>Let's put this in plain terms:
>
>You are a nasty, stupid, evil bigot. Your vile anti-Muslim filth is
>no better than anti-semitic nazi propaganda.
China, Mongolia and North Korea, as examples of the countries left in
your quotation of my list of the missing, are neither Muslim nor Jewish.
Actually, I am anti-religion, all religions! Anti-Muslim, anti-Judaic,
anti-Christian, anti-Hindu, anti-Taoist, anti-Sikhist, anti-Mormon,
anti-Pagan, anti-Spiritualist etc. They are all just fairy stories and
myths or magic tricks with bones and bandages to bolster the feeble
lives of the believers and alleviate the fear of their own mortality.
When you are dead your dead, that's all. There is no heaven and
certainly no hell because there is no afterlife, nor was there any
previous life. The only thing that matters is what you do in the
limited span of your life to enhance the process of Life itself.
Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. Religion makes
otherwise good people do bad things. Your claim that one religion was
worse than another is but one example of religious based bias - though
the image you present here suggest that your certainly are not an
otherwise good person either. Religion, all religion, is the problem.
Your accusation about me is simply a consequence of your paranoid
delusion. Providing EVIDENCE that contradicts your false anti-Christian
claims is not being anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim - it is not being anti-
any specific religion in any way. It is being factual! Your claims
were based on extremely biased evidence and presented as valid - it was
not! You will also find a few "Christian" countries missing, notably
Brasil and Argentina, but it still doesn't change the extreme bias of
the evidence you cited.
I corrected your error by highlighting the religious bias in your data.
To claim that correction was anything else is merely your ramblings as a
paranoid delusional religious fantasist intent on stirring hatred!
Ray Fischer
>In article <4b2c36bb$0$1619$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <4b2bc089$0$1664$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
>>>>>And this citation confirms that your statement is based on biased
>>>>>counting since most of the countries missing are non-christian.
>>>>>http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-ca
>>>>>pita&b_map=1
>>>>
>>>>Probably because they don't have statistics to report.
>>>>
>>>Or aren't prepared to report their statistics!
>>
>>It doesn't matter either way.
>>
>It does when most of the missing countries are non-Christian
It doesn't matter because if you don't have the numbers then you don't
have the numbers, and no amount of whining, stupidity, or rank bigotry
will create numbers for you.
>>>>>Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, China, Mongolia, North Korea, Egypt, Syria,
>>>>
>>>>Simpy listing countries is evidence of nothing other than your
>>>>prejudices.
>>>>
>>>No - it indicates the ability to READ THE MAP and identify the countries
>>
>>Let's put this in plain terms:
>>
>>You are a nasty, stupid, evil bigot. Your vile anti-Muslim filth is
>>no better than anti-semitic nazi propaganda.
>
>China, Mongolia and North Korea, as examples of the countries left in
I am not interested in your bigoted filth, asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kennedy McEwen
>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <4b2c36bb$0$1619$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In article <4b2bc089$0$1664$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>>>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>>>>>>And this citation confirms that your statement is based on biased
>>>>>>counting since most of the countries missing are non-christian.
>>>>>>http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-ca
>>>>>>pita&b_map=1
>>>>>
>>>>>Probably because they don't have statistics to report.
>>>>>
>>>>Or aren't prepared to report their statistics!
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter either way.
>>>
>>It does when most of the missing countries are non-Christian
>
>It doesn't matter because if you don't have the numbers then you don't
>have the numbers,
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
and that shows that the most of the countries that don't appear on your
murder league are non-Christian. Therefore, it DOES MATTER when YOU
jump to conclusions based on religion and murder because YOU don't have
the data to make any such claims.
> and no amount of whining, stupidity, or rank bigotry
>will create numbers for you.
It is your argument that NEEDS the missing numbers, fuckwit! Throwing
accusations of bigotry to anyone that points that out to you only
demonstrates that you are indeed a paranoid delusional fantasist - and
damned stupid to boot!
Ray Fischer
>In article <4b2d2af7$0$1652$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <4b2c36bb$0$1619$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>In article <4b2bc089$0$1664$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>>>>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>>>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >
>>>>>>>And this citation confirms that your statement is based on biased
>>>>>>>counting since most of the countries missing are non-christian.
>>>>>>>http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-ca
>>>>>>>pita&b_map=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Probably because they don't have statistics to report.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Or aren't prepared to report their statistics!
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't matter either way.
>>>>
>>>It does when most of the missing countries are non-Christian
>>
>>It doesn't matter because if you don't have the numbers then you don't
>>have the numbers,
>I DO have the numbers of the missing countries' religions:
But you have no numbers about crime rates, moron.
>> and no amount of whining, stupidity, or rank bigotry
>>will create numbers for you.
>It is your argument that NEEDS the missing numbers, fuckwit!
YOU are the racist trash who hates people because of what you believe
are better or worse crime rates.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kennedy McEwen
>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <4b2d2af7$0$1652$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In article <4b2c36bb$0$1619$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>>>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>In article <4b2bc089$0$1664$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>>>>>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>>>>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>>>>>>And this citation confirms that your statement is based on biased
>>>>>>>>counting since most of the countries missing are non-christian.
>>>>>>>>http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murder
>>>>>>>>s-per-ca
>>>>>>>>pita&b_map=1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Probably because they don't have statistics to report.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Or aren't prepared to report their statistics!
>>>>>
>>>>>It doesn't matter either way.
>>>>>
>>>>It does when most of the missing countries are non-Christian
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter because if you don't have the numbers then you don't
>>>have the numbers,
>>I DO have the numbers of the missing countries' religions:
>
>But you have no numbers about crime rates, moron.
>
rates AND religion, it is you! Since I can prove that most of the
countries you don't have crime figures about are non-Christian, I can
also prove that it is a LIE to claim that murder rates are higher in
Christian countries - which was your claim. Your data is incomplete and
biased, so any conclusion from it is also biased.
>>> and no amount of whining, stupidity, or rank bigotry
>>>will create numbers for you.
>>It is your argument that NEEDS the missing numbers, fuckwit!
>
>YOU are the racist trash who hates people because of what you believe
>are better or worse crime rates.
>
I am confident that anyone reading the archives of this exchange will
have no trouble identifying which of us has made the racist remarks, and
I am equally confident it isn't me. You obviously need reminding that
it was you who wrote "Looking at a list of annual murders per capita it
looks like it's Christian countries which are doing a far better job of
killing themselves off."
Once again, I will point out to you, which you now appear to admit, that
since you DON'T have any data for MOST non-Christian countries and are
therefore mainly counting only Christian countries, your statement is
not only FALSE, but bigoted! You are demonstrating a remarkable level
of stupidity by failing to understand the implications of selective
data.
Ray Fischer
I didn't claim to, bigot. You did.
> but it isn't me that is making claims about crime
>rates AND religion,
Yes it is.
> Since I can prove that most of the
>countries you don't have crime figures about are non-Christian, I can
>also prove that it is a LIE to claim that murder rates are higher in
>Christian countries
Which I didn't do.
>- which was your claim.
I pointed out that the available evidence contradicted the claim that
murder was more common in Muslim countries.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kennedy McEwen
I was very specific in the claim I made and you have quoted what I
claimed only 3 lines above your latest lie - presumably either by
mistake or consistent with the complete incompetence you have displayed
in this thread.
>
>> but it isn't me that is making claims about crime
>>rates AND religion,
>Yes it is.
Pointing out the evidence which disproves YOUR claims about murder rates
AND religion is certainly NOT making claims one way or the other, merely
proving that YOU are an IDIOT who has jumped to false conclusions from
biased data.
>
>> Since I can prove that most of the
>>countries you don't have crime figures about are non-Christian, I can
>>also prove that it is a LIE to claim that murder rates are higher in
>>Christian countries
>
>Which I didn't do.
That is EXACTLY what you did in the quote that you conveniently snipped!
To avoid your denial, here it is again - YOU STATED:
"Looking at a list of annual murders per capita it looks like it's
Christian countries which are doing a far better job of killing
themselves off."
>
>I pointed out that the available evidence contradicted the claim that
>murder was more common in Muslim countries.
That isn't what you wrote, quoted above to prevent your continued
denial, and what you wrote was based on incomplete and biased data and
was therefore completely false. Had you enough intellect to check the
validity of the data you were extrapolating from you probably would not
have made your idiot claim, but you did because, quite simply, you are
an incompetent fool incapable of understanding the data or the terms of
abuse you liberally throw around.
Ray Fischer
This is where you need to provide some quotes.
>>> but it isn't me that is making claims about crime
>>>rates AND religion,
>>Yes it is.
>Pointing out the evidence which disproves YOUR claims about murder rates
Listing a bunch of countries is evience of nothing at all.
>>> Since I can prove that most of the
>>>countries you don't have crime figures about are non-Christian, I can
>>>also prove that it is a LIE to claim that murder rates are higher in
>>>Christian countries
>>
>>Which I didn't do.
>That is EXACTLY what you did in the quote that you conveniently snipped!
>To avoid your denial, here it is again - YOU STATED:
>"Looking at a list of annual murders per capita it looks like it's
>Christian countries which are doing a far better job of killing
>themselves off."
And that is indeed what the EVIDENCE indicates.
>>I pointed out that the available evidence contradicted the claim that
>>murder was more common in Muslim countries.
>That isn't what you wrote,
The quote above shows that it is indeed what I wrote.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kennedy McEwen
How can I provide a quote of something I didn't claim? You are an
idiot!
>
>>>> but it isn't me that is making claims about crime
>>>>rates AND religion,
>>>Yes it is.
>>Pointing out the evidence which disproves YOUR claims about murder rates
>
>Listing a bunch of countries is evience of nothing at all.
>
Listing a bunch of countries which you have no data for and
demonstrating that they do not fit with your criteria - ie. are in the
majority non-Christian - is certainly evidence that the data is biased
and your conclusion is therefore also biased.
>>>> Since I can prove that most of the
>>>>countries you don't have crime figures about are non-Christian, I can
>>>>also prove that it is a LIE to claim that murder rates are higher in
>>>>Christian countries
>>>
>>>Which I didn't do.
>>That is EXACTLY what you did in the quote that you conveniently snipped!
>>To avoid your denial, here it is again - YOU STATED:
>>"Looking at a list of annual murders per capita it looks like it's
>>Christian countries which are doing a far better job of killing
>>themselves off."
>
>And that is indeed what the EVIDENCE indicates.
>
No it doesn't! It merely indicates that those countries for which data
is available are mainly Christian. There is no evidence to support your
claim because the list already has a selective bias! Further, the fact
that information on the bias is available from exactly the same source
that you cite indicates that you are either too stupid to understand it
or are deliberately attempting to deceive.
>>>I pointed out that the available evidence contradicted the claim that
>>>murder was more common in Muslim countries.
>>That isn't what you wrote,
>
>The quote above shows that it is indeed what I wrote.
>
The quote above shows that you made a claim about Christian countries,
not Muslim countries. The evidence you provided to support that claim
was incomplete and biased, rendering your claim completely false.
Its like opening a jar of jelly beans, eating the coloured ones and then
claiming that the makers of jelly beans must be racist because the
"evidence" shows that there is a majority of white jelly beans - the
evidence shows nothing because it is biased. If you count mainly
Christian countries and have no data about the majority of non-Christian
countries then you cannot make any claim that Christian countries are
better or worse than others - which is exactly what you did.
Ray Fischer
So you're not going to prove your claim.
I guess you're just another lying moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kennedy McEwen
countries, and most of the missing countries are NOT Christian. The
website YOU referenced makes that quite clear on the map tab! I can't
account for your inability to read the facts, but it proves my case and
subsequent ravings prove that you are a bigoted liar and fuckwit that is
too stupid to understand that conclusions drawn from biased information
are also biased.
Ray Fischer
Most of the countries at the TOP of the list are Christian while most
at the bottom are not Christian.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kennedy McEwen
>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <4b303b52$0$1593$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In article <4b2e9f5b$0$1668$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>>>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>In article <4b2e6ee2$0$1606$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>>>>>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>>>>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>In article <4b2dd660$0$1583$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>>>>>>>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>>>>>>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>In article <4b2d2af7$0$1652$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>>>>>>>>>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <4b2c36bb$0$1619$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>>>>>>>>>>>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article <4b2bc089$0$1664$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>><rfis...@sonic.net> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Kennedy McEwen <r...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And this citation confirms that your statement is based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_mur_percap-crim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>pita&b_map=1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Probably because they don't have statistics to report.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Or aren't prepared to report their statistics!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>It doesn't matter either way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>It does when most of the missing countries are non-Christian
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>It doesn't matter because if you don't have the numbers then
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I DO have the numbers of the missing countries' religions:
>>>>>>>>>But you have no numbers about crime rates, moron.
>>>>>>>>Neither have you,
>>>>>>>I didn't claim to, bigot. You did.
>>>>>>No I didn't, you LIAR!
>>>>>
>>>>>This is where you need to provide some quotes.
>>>>
>>>>How can I provide a quote of something I didn't claim?
>>>
>>>So you're not going to prove your claim.
>>>
>>What I have STATED is that the cite you quote is mainly Christian
>>countries, and most of the missing countries are NOT Christian.
>
>Most of the countries at the TOP of the list are Christian while most
>at the bottom are not Christian.
>
the start of this discussion, not Christian. Iran, Iraq, Pakistan,
China, Mongolia, North Korea, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon,
Jordan, Gaza, Turkey, UAE, Libya, Algeria, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan,
non-Christian. The list of sites being compared is therefore extremely
biased, and I don't need any figures about crime rates in the missing
countries to show that the list is biased, simply that the number of
missing countries is significant and mainly of the type relevant to your
claim (ie. Christian or not). Having proved that the comparison is
biased, any conclusion that you draw from it and propagate as fact is
bigotry.
It is pretty simple really - conclusions you draw from biased data is
prejudiced. Expressing such religious and racial prejudice as fact is
bigotry and those who do are liars. That is the category you chose to
align yourself with, deliberately so, given your subsequent defence of
that position in the face of the facts.
Fr...@zappa.com
Islamic countries are shit when it comes to human rights.
Is that racist? No - Islam is not a race.
////////////////////////////////// SNIP //////////////////////////////////////////
Paul Heslop
>
> Islamic countries are shit when it comes to human rights.
> Is that racist? No - Islam is not a race.
>
human rights as long as it actually is. it's only racist or whatever
when it is a blatant lie or generalisation, so really you should have
said 'most islamic countries' as there may well be ones where
tolerance is part of the culture and the guys running it aren't a
bunch of frothy mouth power crazed war mongers.
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
>Islamic countries are shit when it comes to human rights.
It's a good thing that those Nazis were good Christians so that
they didn't violate people's rights.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Fr...@zappa.com
Whether it is accurate or not, it's not racist to say a religion is shit on human rights.
A religion is not a race. A blatant lie or a generalization about a religion is not racist.
Why? See above - a religion is not a race.
As far as tolerance in some Muslim countries? Thin. Real thin.
So thin it gets torn to shreds whenever the Koran is nearby, and it always is.
Paul Heslop
well I do know there are tolerant muslims as there are tolerant people
in all religions. I consider the whole thing to be about power anyway,
religion is just another form of suppression.
--
Paul (we break easy)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Paul Heslop
>
> <Fr...@Zappa.com> wrote:
> >Islamic countries are shit when it comes to human rights.
>
> It's a good thing that those Nazis were good Christians so that
> they didn't violate people's rights.
>
Fr...@zappa.com
///////////////// SNIP //////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
>well I do know there are tolerant muslims as there are tolerant people
>in all religions. I consider the whole thing to be about power anyway,
>religion is just another form of suppression.
Ah, the fall-back position of equivocation. "religion is just another form of suppression" stated as
if all religions are the same. They are not.
Put down the Sharpie, stop drawing equal signs where they do not belong. Different religions
have different contents and effects. Sort of like pills.
Fr...@zappa.com
the Nazis were Pagans and/or Occultists, not Christians.
NameHere
>
>
>the Nazis were Pagans and/or Occultists, not Christians.
>
There's just some things that christian revisionists failed to, forgot to,
or were unable to change in written and oral history. Like all those Nazi's
graves donned by christian crosses in all that old B&W news-reel footage
that survived. Ooops, they forgot to edit those old films to remove those
fields of christian crosses above Nazi graves. Or how the Pope was helping
the Nazis.
Birds of a feather!
Ray Fischer
>>> >Islamic countries are shit when it comes to human rights.
>>>
>>> It's a good thing that those Nazis were good Christians so that
>>> they didn't violate people's rights.
>>>
>>yeah, heaven forbid eh?
>
>the Nazis were Pagans and/or Occultists, not Christians.
The good old No True Scotsman fallacy. Because you wish Christians to
be good you'll convince yourself that bad Christians weren't really
Christians. It's dishonest, of course, but hardly a surprise.
And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I
am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
Adolf Hitler -- Mein Kampf
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Chris H
writes
>
>Islamic countries are shit when it comes to human rights.
>Is that racist? No - Islam is not a race.
It is also wrong. Islamic countries are not worse than non-islamic
countries. And bigotry is the same no matter what label you put on it.
China, N. Korea, Israel and the USA are not Islamic and have appalling
human rights.
come to that many S. American countries are also shit when it comes to
Human rights (many backed by the USA...) and they are not Islamic.
If is nothing to do with the religion.... at least it was not until the
"Christian" USA made it so and started a religious war. SO it is the
Christians generally who are shit at human rights. Unfortunately
recently due to so much shit from the Christian USA the Islamic groups
targeted have retaliated in kind.
The USA really has screwed things up this time and lost.
>////////////////////////////////// SNIP ///////////////////////////////
>///////////
>>
>>It is pretty simple really - conclusions you draw from biased data is
>>prejudiced. Expressing such religious and racial prejudice as fact is
>>bigotry and those who do are liars. That is the category you chose to
>>align yourself with, deliberately so, given your subsequent defence of
>>that position in the face of the facts.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Paul Heslop
of course, it is the people who have authority in religions who choose
how to act on it who abuse it. but if you think the old testament and
the warning of hell etc are not just a threat to make you toe the line
then I am so happy for you.
Paul Heslop
they claimed to have god on their side.
J. Clarke
> Fr...@Zappa.com wrote:
>>
>> ///////////////// SNIP
>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>>
>>> well I do know there are tolerant muslims as there are tolerant
>>> people in all religions. I consider the whole thing to be about
>>> power anyway, religion is just another form of suppression.
>>
>> Ah, the fall-back position of equivocation. "religion is just
>> another form of suppression" stated as if all religions are the
>> same. They are not.
>>
>> Put down the Sharpie, stop drawing equal signs where they do not
>> belong. Different religions
>> have different contents and effects. Sort of like pills.
>
> of course, it is the people who have authority in religions who choose
> how to act on it who abuse it. but if you think the old testament and
> the warning of hell etc are not just a threat to make you toe the line
> then I am so happy for you.
The problem with Islam and with protestant Christianity is that _nobody_ has
any authority within those religions. Everybody reads the Koran or the
Bible and interprets it in their own way without regard to any history--if
their interpretation is one that in the past has created huge problems for
everybody including the people who adhered to that interpretation they don't
know or care because those old fogies who learned that the hard way were
brainwashed fools who were slaves to dogma (according to them).
With Islam this lack of control is the reason that the radical Islamists
want the Sharia to be implemented by government--without the government
behind them they have no authority in Islam and they _know_ they have no
authority. They're trying to establish a situation in Islam in which there
_is_ authority and in which they are it.
Most of the most obnoxious sort of "Christians" simply deny that the Old
Testament has any relevance--at least the Muslim fundies are intellectually
honest enough to want to follow the whole thing, stonings and all, except
for those parts that Mohammed has specifically revised and not cherry pick
it.
Religion can be a tool of oppression or a tool of liberation depending on
who is wielding it--tell us honestly if King or Tutu would have been
effective if they were not ministers of a recognized religion, and tell us
what sort of oppression came from their actions.
And yes, one function of religion is to serve as an intermediate level of
social control and another is to act as a proxy for chance. There are
actions which are disruptive to the social fabric but not so severely so
that people should be arrested over them, especially when the prisons are
overcrowded and the police don't have the manpower to chase all the thieves
and murderers out there--that's the domain where sin is a useful social
concept--fear of an all knowing and all powerful God who has the power to
make your live miserable for all eternity and not just for the few years you
spend in prison is a powerful deterrent and applying it doesn't require that
the government spend tax money on enforcement of minor transgressions. And
things do happen that nobody could have foreseen and that were preventable
only in hindsight, but that doesn't stop the lawyers from suing everybody in
sight--if people have God to blame then they have a focus for their anger
when something goes wrong in their lives that doesn't require that they take
it out on their fellow men.
Is religion 100 percent effective in these roles? No. Neither is secular
law. That does not mean that it does not serve a useful function in
society.
Paul Heslop
<snip big lump of stuff>
> Is religion 100 percent effective in these roles? No. Neither is secular
> law. That does not mean that it does not serve a useful function in
> society.
It's a pity they aren't all like the Buddhists.
Fr...@zappa.com
Hatred of the infidel is woven directly into Islam and cannot be
removed by a differing interpretation.
This is true only of Islam and no other religion.
If we started a religious war is was simply by existing.
Ray Fischer
>Hatred of the infidel is woven directly into Islam and cannot be
>removed by a differing interpretation.
Your rabid hatred of Muslims will not create hatred in them.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Fr...@zappa.com
> <Fr...@Zappa.com> wrote:
>>Hatred of the infidel is woven directly into Islam and cannot be
>>removed by a differing interpretation.
>
>Your rabid hatred of Muslims will not create hatred in them.
I have no hatred for Muslims. It is the basic structure of Islam which hates.
My feelings, one way or the other, cannot create anything in someone
other that myself.
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> <Fr...@Zappa.com> wrote:
>>>Hatred of the infidel is woven directly into Islam and cannot be
>>>removed by a differing interpretation.
>>
>>Your rabid hatred of Muslims will not create hatred in them.
>
>I have no hatred for Muslims.
Then why the evil lies?
> It is the basic structure of Islam which hates.
Your hatred and your lies does not mean that they hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Fr...@zappa.com
> <Fr...@Zappa.com> wrote:
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> <Fr...@Zappa.com> wrote:
>>>>Hatred of the infidel is woven directly into Islam and cannot be
>>>>removed by a differing interpretation.
>>>
>>>Your rabid hatred of Muslims will not create hatred in them.
>>
>>I have no hatred for Muslims.
>
>Then why the evil lies?
they are not lies, are they? to say that Islam hates?
what do you think you know of Islam?
>
>> It is the basic structure of Islam which hates.
>
>Your hatred and your lies does not mean that they hate.
again - I have no hate, and do not lie.