"Complex" plot of blow up UK airlines foiled

[Toby Rowe]

1) Yes I do
2) It's fact.

If you're Turkish then the world is different however.

Sharia law is an interpretation of the Koran, this interpretation dictates how your nation treats you, nations logically wouldn't exist under it, but do so because colonialism existed at the time, whose powers over others was exercised by colonialism, the need to deliniate spheres of influence of other lands set nation states as a concept in stone, and would never be challenged again.

The French are of many, the British, German and now the Americans are of many.

Sharia Law does not recognise this nation statehood that we accept.

I don't recognize religion much either, although I class myself agnostic, not aitheist, I do know I'll never be Muslim or follow my Catholic birth religion.

Religion kills, and always has done since a group of people broke away in about 500AD and began a religion now called the Muslim faith, or perhaps that was the Romans in 0AD when slaughter first began "in the name of"- Of course you'd need to believe the books firstly.

I do strongly believe in the nation-state, nothing more.

Toby

[Ramo]

Let me restate my second question. How does that, in any way shape or form, have anything to do with my posts? It's a totally random comment.

And there's no need to talk about "we" - I don't give a **** about nations. But that's neither here nor there.

As for the first part, the idea that sharia dictating everyone's life is an intrinsic part of Islam is absurd. That's a ridiculous caricature and indicates a profound lack of contact with Muslims.

[Toby Rowe]

Dunno mate,

Something you posted earlier within the thread I think, but it's 5.30am now and I'm not about to reread it, sorry if I mean't someone else.

Sharia Law does dictate and has primacy over nations as the concept of nations doesn't exist if a nation challenges Sharia Law- it is always supreme.

The Muslim Council of Britain for instance will from time to time make a ruling on an issue that has a conflict between Sharia Law and national law- banking and making money from lending is a recent example, they decreed it was okay within Britain, clearly others thought otherwise, within a year a Muslim bank had been formed under the tenets (as the founder saw it) of Sharia Law.

British banks, not wishing to be left out then invented accounts that conformed with Sharia Law.

I think the Bank is called the Islamic bank of Britain or something similar.

Note the word "conformed".

I'm not trying to demonise Muslims as you might think I am, I made clear I dislike the RELIGION as well as my own one, In it's current form, this religion holds sway over a couple of billion people, it tells you what to do and what to wear, how to educate and who recieves one, how often you should worship, how women and men should interact before marriage and who you will marry etc,etc. It's dictatorial and seeks (and succeeds) in controling every breath of a follower- much like my own religion used to do 500 years ago.

Assuming you follow it.

Only Muslims can change it, that's their fight not mine, but in order to do so those that disagree need to become scholars to fight from within, much like changing political parties that have become corrupt through a lack of a real political system within an individual democracy.

Toby

[Ramo]

All I have to say is that you have a silly caricature disconnected from reality. But since it has no bearing on what I posted, I don't care to argue the point.

[Toby Rowe]

Dunno if my point was disconnected from reality, since much was based upon fact, not my opinion.

I am concerned that I replied to you by mistake however: I clicked on the "reply to notification email" link for a post I'd made a long time ago, way down the post listing, I reckon you weren't the one, so I apologise!

So to all!!

I don't see a caricacture forming in my post, more an annoyance the fundamentalists are attempting to change the way of life our shores have enjoyed since World War One, with free speech under attack if we (the vast majority) wish to criticise a set of beliefs.

That set of beliefs is called Religion, and it is now illegial to insult any set of beliefs that fall into the category of "religious beliefs".

I don't personally wish to insult religious beliefs, but I'm insulted that it is now illegial for those that wish to do so.

Freedom of thought is now curtailed if you wish to communicate these thoughts to others.

Just imagine, if this act of parliament had been instead a decree by the King of England or the French Monarchy later in history, but in place 100 years prior to both the English Civil War and the French Revolution then it's quite possible that both may never have occured.

Anything that curtails the right to freedom of speech is dangerous, anyone that wants to curtail that freedom is equally dangerous to me at least.

Tolerance is about accepting others and their differences, already Britons have lost something in order to appease the Muslim section within our community who began to arrive 50 years ago.

The majority must not accept a law like this again.

The Muslims shouted first, the Sikhs followed and finally the Christians shouted, all three were about Plays or Books in which oppression by THEIR religion played a central theme, all were critical of THEIR religion, all plays were stopped on Police advice saying they were unable to guarentee the safety of the people wishing to see the play, only the book remains.

It reminds me of that German Priest after WW2 who said that famous poem;

"First they came for the trade unions and I did not speak out,
Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out,
Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out,
Then they came for the gypsies and I did not speak out,

etc,

Then they came for ME and there was no one left to speak out........"

I've lost a freedom I had since birth- the right to insult any set of beliefs I choose: if those beliefs are in the Religious category of beliefs. Shame on Parliament.

Toby