Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Lets stop these Muslim....
fanatics destroying our Country. What right have they, because if we acted the same in their homeland we would be put in jail.
I suppose most of them are on benefits paid by you and me anyway!
Deport the lot of them and lets get the UK back for the British!
http://
I suppose most of them are on benefits paid by you and me anyway!
Deport the lot of them and lets get the UK back for the British!
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by trt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
150 protestors, led by one known firebrand, protest against the US. That means a)most are on benefits b)they are destroying our country c)all must be deported.
Don't quite follow the logic of that, but if we deport the 150, how many Muslims are left? Would you like all Muslims deported ? Do you think all, a majority, or just a substantial number are destroying our country?
Of course, among others, the Senior Prosecuting Counsel ('Treasury Counsel') at the Old Bailey, the Chief Prosecutor for the CPS in the North West,various senior doctors, and the blokes who run the corner shops, would have to go if you sent them all away. You might miss some of the Muslims, if you think about it.
Don't quite follow the logic of that, but if we deport the 150, how many Muslims are left? Would you like all Muslims deported ? Do you think all, a majority, or just a substantial number are destroying our country?
Of course, among others, the Senior Prosecuting Counsel ('Treasury Counsel') at the Old Bailey, the Chief Prosecutor for the CPS in the North West,various senior doctors, and the blokes who run the corner shops, would have to go if you sent them all away. You might miss some of the Muslims, if you think about it.
Yours is an extreme reaction, trt, as I think the responses testify. The Muslims I know are certainly not on benefits, they are UK citizens, mostly born in this county and earning a decent living. They ARE British - and not all from ethnic minorities either. If you were going to have a pogrom, you'd need to clear out a fair few converts too, they're as British as you and me (assuming you are, of course).
Such a complex issue, will it ever reach a conclusion that satisfies all parties, all beleifs - will it hell!!!
These articles can insight hatred from our side, in highlighting the issue it will add fuel to the fire. But...... should we be standing up against these muslims? Its a very personal thing, some will say yes, some no. Most, I fee,l will bury their heads in the sand and if it doesnt directly effect them, just get on with every day life!
These articles can insight hatred from our side, in highlighting the issue it will add fuel to the fire. But...... should we be standing up against these muslims? Its a very personal thing, some will say yes, some no. Most, I fee,l will bury their heads in the sand and if it doesnt directly effect them, just get on with every day life!
How on earth have you come to the conclusion that "most of them are on benefits"? Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but that's just ludicrous!
I agree with them. The film is a disgrace and should be banned.
Keith Allen and Mohammed Al Fayed made a film about the death of Princess Diana, Unlawful Killing. This was banned, because it showed the royals in a (very) bad light. Both this country and America were quick to ban that, yet they allow a film which portrays the prophet Mohammed as a fraud and a child abuser to be shown?
How would Britain and the US feel if they were to make a film about Jesus, showing him in the same light? They wouldn't stand for it, so why should these Muslims?
The only people "destroying our country" are our own government, and the people that pull the strings.
I agree with them. The film is a disgrace and should be banned.
Keith Allen and Mohammed Al Fayed made a film about the death of Princess Diana, Unlawful Killing. This was banned, because it showed the royals in a (very) bad light. Both this country and America were quick to ban that, yet they allow a film which portrays the prophet Mohammed as a fraud and a child abuser to be shown?
How would Britain and the US feel if they were to make a film about Jesus, showing him in the same light? They wouldn't stand for it, so why should these Muslims?
The only people "destroying our country" are our own government, and the people that pull the strings.
@BalloonsFlyHigh
Keith Allens documentary wasn't banned that I am aware of. It was suggested to the producers by their legal advisers that for it to get a screening in the UK that would not risk them getting sued, they would need to make 87 cuts. He and his producers elected not to do that.
His whole project, the movie, was finally shelved earlier this year because he was unable to get persuade insurers to indemnify the film against potential lawsuits.
http://
So - no banning. Just a non-story about a publicity seeker and a sorrowing father making a wildly speculative film, and being unable to convince insurers to indemnify the film against potential lawsuits that might arise from some of the more evidence-free assertions contained in the movie.
You said:
"How would Britain and the US feel if they were to make a film about Jesus, showing him in the same light? They wouldn't stand for it, so why should these Muslims? "
Actually, I do not agree. In all probability such a hypothetical film, made by serious film studios, and destined for a general release would be shown, although it is likely that the tone would be moderated to secure general release. Some of the more fervent religious believers would probably gather at some of the cinemas, and call for a ban, and call it blasphemy, but what would not happen is for crowds of thousands to gather outside international embassies, baying for blood, burning flags, threatening violence or murder, and trying to impose their will on everyone else through intimidation.The film you refer to though, the one that has been the cause of the latest trouble, was an obvious attempt to incite islamophobia, cooked up by a bunch of religious fruitcakes, and released to the internet. I am sure there are similar "films" about jesus out there, but you do not get mobs baying for blood, do you?
In fact, we have examples of films destined for general release considered blasphemous or having that potential - "The Life of Brian" faced a concerted action to ban it by religious groups, which largely failed. Paul Verhoeven is apparently making a film about Jesus right now which the critics have already called blasphemous. And we have the dramatisation of the Phillip Pullman "His Dark Materials" trilogy, the first film of which, "The Golden Compass", bombed in the US despite many cuts to appease the fundamentalists.
The response to such garbage is to rise above it - not to offer reprisals such as the murder of the ambassador, or the storming of camp bastion, or demonstrations by thousands of frothing at the mouth protestors attempting to get their way using violence, threats and intimidation.....
Keith Allens documentary wasn't banned that I am aware of. It was suggested to the producers by their legal advisers that for it to get a screening in the UK that would not risk them getting sued, they would need to make 87 cuts. He and his producers elected not to do that.
His whole project, the movie, was finally shelved earlier this year because he was unable to get persuade insurers to indemnify the film against potential lawsuits.
http://
So - no banning. Just a non-story about a publicity seeker and a sorrowing father making a wildly speculative film, and being unable to convince insurers to indemnify the film against potential lawsuits that might arise from some of the more evidence-free assertions contained in the movie.
You said:
"How would Britain and the US feel if they were to make a film about Jesus, showing him in the same light? They wouldn't stand for it, so why should these Muslims? "
Actually, I do not agree. In all probability such a hypothetical film, made by serious film studios, and destined for a general release would be shown, although it is likely that the tone would be moderated to secure general release. Some of the more fervent religious believers would probably gather at some of the cinemas, and call for a ban, and call it blasphemy, but what would not happen is for crowds of thousands to gather outside international embassies, baying for blood, burning flags, threatening violence or murder, and trying to impose their will on everyone else through intimidation.The film you refer to though, the one that has been the cause of the latest trouble, was an obvious attempt to incite islamophobia, cooked up by a bunch of religious fruitcakes, and released to the internet. I am sure there are similar "films" about jesus out there, but you do not get mobs baying for blood, do you?
In fact, we have examples of films destined for general release considered blasphemous or having that potential - "The Life of Brian" faced a concerted action to ban it by religious groups, which largely failed. Paul Verhoeven is apparently making a film about Jesus right now which the critics have already called blasphemous. And we have the dramatisation of the Phillip Pullman "His Dark Materials" trilogy, the first film of which, "The Golden Compass", bombed in the US despite many cuts to appease the fundamentalists.
The response to such garbage is to rise above it - not to offer reprisals such as the murder of the ambassador, or the storming of camp bastion, or demonstrations by thousands of frothing at the mouth protestors attempting to get their way using violence, threats and intimidation.....
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.