Bakiri BANNED from the UK!

[London Irish]

The commonly held view seems to be that it is a small group of high-profile Muslim clerics who are creating a situation out of which anonymous, unknown young men plan bombings.

Is there any EVIDENCE that this is in fact the case?

What worries me is that the government might be thinking that a few bannings and deportations will make a difference.

What if it doesn't?

It won't make a scrap of difference. It's not at all clear he has ANY links with the bombers at all - if he had, he would have been charged long before now.

The whole thing is a public relations exercise by Blair to keep the idiot right-wing press and their simple-minded readership happy. Also, there were some signs that the Tories were going to go big on this issue as a stick to beat the government, so Blair is now neutralising this Tory strategy.

Although there are issues raised about where you draw the line between free speech and incitement to violence, much more important in this case is our government's utterly nauseating hypocrisy in its relations with torture states.

We seem perfectly happy to label Syria as part of the axis of evil and deem them soft on terrorism. Yet is it likely al Bakri will end up back in this country to be murdered behind closed doors because of his own political activity against the Syrian leadership in the 1980s.

Once again, our government's commitment to the rule of law and justice is exposed as a sham, just as it was when it ignores all international law to support Bush's mad adventures around the world.

 

[London Irish]

Get a life, bastard spawn of Michael Foot and Tony Benn.......

What the hell has the Plymouth squad number 90 and old Tony got to do with this? Are you having some kind of McCarthyite wet dream that they are going to be rounded up and sent back to Syria to face summary execution.

 

[3gulls]

Shame - now he cannot be locked-up.

 

[3gulls]

Yet is it likely al Bakri will end up back in this country to be murdered behind closed doors because of his own political activity against the Syrian leadership in the 1980s.

f***ing good!

 

[aftershavedave]

It won't make a scrap of difference. It's not at all clear he has ANY links with the bombers at all - if he had, he would have been charged long before now.

The whole thing is such a public relations exercise by Blair to keep the idiot right-wing press and their simple-minded readership happy. Also, there were some signs that the Tories were going to go big on this issue as a stick to beat the government, so Blair is now neutralising this Tory strategy.

Although there are issues raised about where you draw the line between free speech and incitement to violence, much more important in this case is our government's utterly nauseating hypocrisy in its relations with tortute states.

We seem perfectly happy to label Syria as part of the axis of evil and deem them soft on terrorism. Yet is it likely al Bakri will end up back in this country to be murdered behind closed doors because of his own political activity against the Syrian leadership in the 1980s.

Once again, our government's commitment to the rule of law and justice is exposed as a sham, just as it was when it ignores all international law to support Bush's mad adventures around the world.

it really would make easier reading if you'd use thre phrase "in my opinion" once in a while rather than dress your opinions up as facts.

 

[3gulls]

it really would make easier reading if you'd use thre phrase "in my opinion" once in a while rather than dress your opinions up as facts.

 

[enigma]

Good riddance- and to be honest I couldn't give a shit if he dies, he seems happy enough to encourage others to die so that's his fault. He probably thinks he's a martyr anyway.

 

[London Irish]

it really would make easier reading if you'd use thre phrase "in my opinion" once in a while rather than dress your opinions up as facts.

This has got to be THE most tedious bit of troll attacking currently fashionable on NSC. It is transparently obvious they are my opinions, their appear under my user name!

 

[silky1]

Ah well, sorry for my undying belief in the tenets of free speech.

I suppose we could all racially abuse as many players as we like on Saturday and not get evicted fromt he ground. Or should there be a court room set up behind the South Stand, so you can put your case, and defend you right to racially abuse whoever you like!

 

[London Irish]

I suppose we could all racially abuse as many players as we like on Saturday and not get evicted fromt he ground. Or should there be a court room set up behind the South Stand, so you can put your case, and defend you right to racially abuse whoever you like!

No - you completely missed the point he was making. He was saying anyone suspected of incitement by the government should be subject to due process under the rule of law, whether that be racists in football grounds, holocaust deniers or political agitators that the Sun doesn't like.

 

[silky1]

What did Bakri expect to happen though? How many people are turned away from entering Britain every day. People who have nothing against this country or its politics, people the majority of Britons who be more than happy were allowed to live and work here. The man has made himself an enemy of too many people in the UK, and maybe he should face the justice system, but maybe that should be for his original offences in Syria.

 

[aftershavedave]

This has got to be THE most tedious bit of troll attacking currently fashionable on NSC. It is transparently obvious they are my opinions, their appear under my user name!

well thanks. you miss the point as usual.

the reason why you piss off so many people on here is your know-it-all attitude, and here's another example of it.

have a little humility when you post ffs!

 

[Lord Bracknell]

well thanks. you miss the point as usual.

the reason why you piss off so many people on here is your know-it-all attitude, and here's another example of it.

have a little humility when you post ffs!

Err... ?

I'd asked a question. LI attempted to answer it, with some pertinent observations that made sense to me. He may be wrong. I fear he is right. And that, in my opinion, is worrying.

Having people slagging off that opinion, simply because of where it came from, is more worrying and symptomatic of what I fear is the real problem ...

... NO-ONE, least of all the government, has a coherent strategy that will actually deal with the issue of the bombers.

 

[London Irish]

well thanks. you miss the point as usual.

the reason why you piss off so many people on here is your know-it-all attitude, and here's another example of it.

have a little humility when you post ffs!

And here's the second-most popular line of NSC troll attack, trash the character of the poster rather than taking issue with any of the arguments presented.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

What would the contributors on this thread do with this man if they were in Government then?
Is there any websites where we can have the facts on what he has actually said?

 

[aftershavedave]

well lord b let me help.

here's one of LI's earlier posts that i've added caps to:

"I DON'T THINK THAT It WILL make a scrap of difference. It's not at all clear TO ME THAT he has ANY links with the bombers at all - if he had, he would have been charged long before now.

The whole thing SEEMS TO ME is a public relations exercise by Blair to keep the idiot right-wing press and their simple-minded readership happy. Also, there were some signs that the Tories were going to go big on this issue as a stick to beat the government, so Blair is now neutralising this Tory strategy.

Although there are issues raised about where you draw the line between free speech and incitement to violence, much more important in this case is our government's utterly nauseating hypocrisy in its relations with tortute states.

We seem perfectly happy to label Syria as part of the axis of evil and deem them soft on terrorism. Yet is it likely al Bakri will end up back in this country to be murdered behind closed doors because of his own political activity against the Syrian leadership in the 1980s.

Once again, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT our government's commitment to the rule of law and justice is exposed as a sham, just as it was when it ignores all international law to support Bush's mad adventures around the world."

 

[aftershavedave]

And here's the second-most popular line of NSC troll attack, trash the character of the poster rather than taking issue with any of the arguments presented.

i agree with your arguments as it happens. it's the way that you put them that pisses me off.

i suppose that's the third-most popular line of nsc troll attack

 

[London Irish]

What would the contributors on this thread do with this man if they were in Government then?
Is there any websites where we can have the facts on what he has actually said?

I would ask the DPP to prepare a file on him to see if he has breached any of our current incitement to violence laws. Then put his fate in the hands of a jury. Then we could also have a proper debate in this country about what constitutes protected speech and what is incitement.

I certainly wouldn't revoke an individual's right to aslyum from an "axis of evil" state (granted by those well-known bleeding heart liberals, the Tory government) because of a press campaign.

 

[London Irish]

well lord b let me help.

here's one of LI's earlier posts that i've added caps to:

"I DON'T THINK THAT It WILL make a scrap of difference. It's not at all clear TO ME THAT he has ANY links with the bombers at all - if he had, he would have been charged long before now.

The whole thing SEEMS TO ME is a public relations exercise by Blair to keep the idiot right-wing press and their simple-minded readership happy. Also, there were some signs that the Tories were going to go big on this issue as a stick to beat the government, so Blair is now neutralising this Tory strategy.

Although there are issues raised about where you draw the line between free speech and incitement to violence, much more important in this case is our government's utterly nauseating hypocrisy in its relations with tortute states.

We seem perfectly happy to label Syria as part of the axis of evil and deem them soft on terrorism. Yet is it likely al Bakri will end up back in this country to be murdered behind closed doors because of his own political activity against the Syrian leadership in the 1980s.

Once again, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT our government's commitment to the rule of law and justice is exposed as a sham, just as it was when it ignores all international law to support Bush's mad adventures around the world."

And what a useful exercise in time-wasting political correctness that was. Hope you enjoyed it.

 

[clapham_gull]

An Q & A session with Omar Bakri Muhammad

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/105/22.0.html