Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
country.

If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.
Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
"Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.

Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
another (a)religious could not have done?



MI5: Al-Qa'eda recruiting UK children for terror
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/05/nevans305.xml

Muslim children as young as 15 are being recruited by al-Qa'eda to
wage "a deliberate campaign of terror" in Britain, the head of MI5 has
said.

Jonathan Evans used his first speech since taking over the security
service to warn that Islamists were "radicalising, indoctrinating and
grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism."

He said MI5 had identified 2,000 individuals who pose a direct threat
to national security and public safety but warned the number of
potential terrorists living in this country could run to 4,000.

What does the verb "to brain" mean as per Subject?



-- 
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive .....C S Lewis.

aracari wrote:
> What does the verb "to brain" mean as per Subject?
>
>
>
> --
> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims
> may be the most oppressive .....C S Lewis

"To brain" in this context means to take headshot(s), like what
happened to JCdM. Necessary for on-the-spot incapacitation of suicide
bombers.

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:48:42 -0800, Winston & Julia Smith
 wrote:

>Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
>from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
>country.
>
>If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.
>Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
>"Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.
>
>Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
>another (a)religious could not have done?
>
>MI5: Al-Qa'eda recruiting UK children for terror
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/05/nevans305.xml
[Snipped text from above URL]

Islam in Australia (A Christian Nation) is not lawful and only
recognized by constitution as a cult. 

Further Moslems are not by our constitution allowed political in-put
(such as citizenship) 

This said our politicians are doing a version of political correctness
by not enforcing Australia's constitution.

I believe the UK (A Christian Nation) would be feeding the same
hogwash in recognizing Islam as anything more  than the horror cult it
is

The fix is in Australia to put in Senate vote to place as Number 1,
The Christian Democratic Party (CDP). I do not believe this will get
the CDP in but it should give enough muscle to enforce Australia's
Constitution, thus removing Moslems from citizenship (resident status
only)

petzl
--
CDP Senate Candidates in each State
QLD Linda Brice, 
VIC Ewen McDonald, 
WA Gerard Goiran, 
NSW Paul Green

Australia has had enough. NO MORE MOSLEMS
<http://www.cdp.org.au/docs/A5_Musilm_Poll_Flyer.pdf>
Vote 
Christian Democrat first,  
The Opposition Member second 
Your sitting member last
2nd last the anti-environment party the "Greens"

On 5 Nov, 20:48, Winston & Julia Smith
 wrote:
> Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
> from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
> country.
>
> If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.
> Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
> "Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.
>
> Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
> another (a)religious could not have done?

Have you never had a chicken tikka marsala?

--
If only you would sheikh it properly!

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:48:42 -0800, Winston & Julia Smith
 wrote:

>Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
>from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
>country.
>
>If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.
>Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
>"Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.
>
>Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
>another (a)religious could not have done?
>
>
>
>MI5: Al-Qa'eda recruiting UK children for terror
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/05/nevans305.xml
>
>Muslim children as young as 15 are being recruited by al-Qa'eda to
>wage "a deliberate campaign of terror" in Britain, the head of MI5 has
>said.
>
>Jonathan Evans used his first speech since taking over the security
>service to warn that Islamists were "radicalising, indoctrinating and
>grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism."
>
>He said MI5 had identified 2,000 individuals who pose a direct threat
>to national security and public safety but warned the number of
>potential terrorists living in this country could run to 4,000.

Perhaps you could pick through that article, and quote some facts, and
ditto the one on the BBC news website.
It doesn't actually say anything - just vague conjecture.

And then tell me why nobody has been arrested for grooming terrorists,
particularly children.

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:53:05 -0800, Mustapha Phuq
 wrote:

>On 5 Nov, 20:48, Winston & Julia Smith
> wrote:
>> Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
>> from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
>> country.
>>
>> If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.
>> Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
>> "Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.
>>
>> Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
>> another (a)religious could not have done?
>
>Have you never had a chicken tikka marsala?

What's that? Some kind of curried Italian?

On 5 Nov, 21:46, Maria  wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:48:42 -0800, Winston & Julia Smith
>
>
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
> >from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
> >country.
>
> >If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.
> >Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
> >"Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.
>
> >Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
> >another (a)religious could not have done?
>
> >MI5: Al-Qa'eda recruiting UK children for terror
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/05/nevan...
>
> >Muslim children as young as 15 are being recruited by al-Qa'eda to
> >wage "a deliberate campaign of terror" in Britain, the head of MI5 has
> >said.
>
> >Jonathan Evans used his first speech since taking over the security
> >service to warn that Islamists were "radicalising, indoctrinating and
> >grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism."
>
> >He said MI5 had identified 2,000 individuals who pose a direct threat
> >to national security and public safety but warned the number of
> >potential terrorists living in this country could run to 4,000.
>
> Perhaps you could pick through that article, and quote some facts, and
> ditto the one on the BBC news website.
> It doesn't actually say anything - just vague conjecture.
>
> And then tell me why nobody has been arrested for grooming terrorists,
> particularly children.

Perhaps the reason is that the believers who go on martyrdom
operations groom themselves to look their best to all the virgins
waiting for them in paradise?

--
Have a long, cool sheikh!

On 5 Nov, 21:47, Maria  wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:53:05 -0800, Mustapha Phuq
>
>  wrote:
> >On 5 Nov, 20:48, Winston & Julia Smith
> > wrote:
> >> Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
> >> from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
> >> country.
>
> >> If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.
> >> Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
> >> "Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.
>
> >> Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
> >> another (a)religious could not have done?
>
> >Have you never had a chicken tikka marsala?
>
> What's that? Some kind of curried Italian?

No, you ignorant kuffar! It is a traditional Pakastani dish from
Birmingham.

--
Have a cool sheikn with it, not beer!

Maria wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:48:42 -0800, Winston & Julia Smith
>  wrote:
>
> >Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
> >from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
> >country.
> >
> >If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.
> >Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
> >"Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.
> >
> >Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
> >another (a)religious could not have done?
> >
> >
> >
> >MI5: Al-Qa'eda recruiting UK children for terror
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/05/nevans305.xml
> >
> >Muslim children as young as 15 are being recruited by al-Qa'eda to
> >wage "a deliberate campaign of terror" in Britain, the head of MI5 has
> >said.
> >
> >Jonathan Evans used his first speech since taking over the security
> >service to warn that Islamists were "radicalising, indoctrinating and
> >grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism."
> >
> >He said MI5 had identified 2,000 individuals who pose a direct threat
> >to national security and public safety but warned the number of
> >potential terrorists living in this country could run to 4,000.
>
> Perhaps you could pick through that article, and quote some facts, and
> ditto the one on the BBC news website.
> It doesn't actually say anything - just vague conjecture.

I can't say whether the MI5 head is telling a tale or not. If you have
evidence to show that he is lying, then the onus is really on you to
put it out plainly for debate.

That said, we do know as facts that terrorists have recruited children
as suicide bombers in Israel and are interested in recruits of
Caucasian appearance to stymie racial profiling against them. So I
would not put it beyond them to do the same here.

> And then tell me why nobody has been arrested for grooming terrorists,
> particularly children.

Do not assume that because you don't hear about it, they haven't been
arrested. Also, do not assume that because they haven't been arrested,
it doesn't happen.

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:19:08 -0800, Winston & Julia Smith
 wrote:

>
>Maria wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:48:42 -0800, Winston & Julia Smith
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
>> >from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
>> >country.
>> >
>> >If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.
>> >Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
>> >"Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.
>> >
>> >Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
>> >another (a)religious could not have done?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >MI5: Al-Qa'eda recruiting UK children for terror
>> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/05/nevans305.xml
>> >
>> >Muslim children as young as 15 are being recruited by al-Qa'eda to
>> >wage "a deliberate campaign of terror" in Britain, the head of MI5 has
>> >said.
>> >
>> >Jonathan Evans used his first speech since taking over the security
>> >service to warn that Islamists were "radicalising, indoctrinating and
>> >grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism."
>> >
>> >He said MI5 had identified 2,000 individuals who pose a direct threat
>> >to national security and public safety but warned the number of
>> >potential terrorists living in this country could run to 4,000.
>>
>> Perhaps you could pick through that article, and quote some facts, and
>> ditto the one on the BBC news website.
>> It doesn't actually say anything - just vague conjecture.
>
>I can't say whether the MI5 head is telling a tale or not. If you have
>evidence to show that he is lying, then the onus is really on you to
>put it out plainly for debate.

Maybe you should post evidence that he is telling the truth since it
is you who is asserting that he is correct. :) There is no evidence in
any of the articles I have read so far...

>
>That said, we do know as facts that terrorists have recruited children
>as suicide bombers in Israel and are interested in recruits of
>Caucasian appearance to stymie racial profiling against them. So I
>would not put it beyond them to do the same here.

If MI5 know about it, why no arrests? They are saying this is
happening, not might be happening.

>> And then tell me why nobody has been arrested for grooming terrorists,
>> particularly children.
>
>Do not assume that because you don't hear about it, they haven't been
>arrested. Also, do not assume that because they haven't been arrested,
>it doesn't happen.

I am 100% certain that anyone arresting for anything even vaguely
connected with terrorism is guaranteed front page headlines in the
media.

You do realise that the MI5 line is wheeled out every time the
government wants to increase the length of time they can detain peope
without trial? The thing has little support - scary stories make
people more willing to sacrifice their freedom.

On Nov 6, 7:19 am, Winston & Julia Smith
 wrote:
> Maria wrote:
> > On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:48:42 -0800, Winston & Julia Smith
> >  wrote:
>
> > >Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
> > >from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
> > >country.
>
> > >If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.
> > >Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
> > >"Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.
>
> > >Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
> > >another (a)religious could not have done?
>
> > >MI5: Al-Qa'eda recruiting UK children for terror
> > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/05/nevan...
>
> > >Muslim children as young as 15 are being recruited by al-Qa'eda to
> > >wage "a deliberate campaign of terror" in Britain, the head of MI5 has
> > >said.
>
> > >Jonathan Evans used his first speech since taking over the security
> > >service to warn that Islamists were "radicalising, indoctrinating and
> > >grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism."
>
> > >He said MI5 had identified 2,000 individuals who pose a direct threat
> > >to national security and public safety but warned the number of
> > >potential terrorists living in this country could run to 4,000.
>
> > Perhaps you could pick through that article, and quote some facts, and
> > ditto the one on the BBC news website.
> > It doesn't actually say anything - just vague conjecture.
>
> I can't say whether the MI5 head is telling a tale or not. If you have
> evidence to show that he is lying, then the onus is really on you to
> put it out plainly for debate.
>
> That said, we do know as facts that terrorists have recruited children
> as suicide bombers in Israel and are interested in recruits of
> Caucasian appearance to stymie racial profiling against them. So I
> would not put it beyond them to do the same here.
>
> > And then tell me why nobody has been arrested for grooming terrorists,
> > particularly children.
>
> Do not assume that because you don't hear about it, they haven't been
> arrested. Also, do not assume that because they haven't been arrested,
> it doesn't happen.-

I suspect they are noticing that faitrly large numbers of young people
are attracted to Islam

I know from personal obervationthat as young people start to think for
themselves and are free to move around andask and explore , many young
people do discover Islam at about 15 or 16 years

>From my own experience this is not a reqruiting drive by muslims at
all

It is pretty much the normal reaction we see all around the world

Asyoung people discover that Islam is the victim and Christans and
jews are thereal twerrotrists , the " establishment " then cionsiders
them as a potential threat ,  and reinforces the hostilities that
drive people to become " anti western " as they get picked on by their
own people only proves that  white western capitalist christians and
jews really are the real terrorists , in an ever increasing self
fullfilling cycle


that will destroy the western christan capitalist system over time ,
by its own guilty concience and fear of being forced to admit their
centuries of warcrimes , that prove the western capitalist christian
and jwish people have killed over 1000 times more people than have
muslims

Young people are NOT SILLY

kanga
======

Winston & Julia Smith wrote:
> Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
> from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
> country.

Sounds good to me.

> If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.

You make a good point. I can't argue with you.

> Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
> "Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.

All ragheads are terrorists. There is no distinction.

> Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
> another (a)religious could not have done?

Why is a religion required for a contribution?

> MI5: Al-Qa'eda recruiting UK children for terror
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/05/nevans305.xml
>
> Muslim children as young as 15 are being recruited by al-Qa'eda to
> wage "a deliberate campaign of terror" in Britain, the head of MI5 has
> said.
>
> Jonathan Evans used his first speech since taking over the security
> service to warn that Islamists were "radicalising, indoctrinating and
> grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism."
>
> He said MI5 had identified 2,000 individuals who pose a direct threat
> to national security and public safety but warned the number of
> potential terrorists living in this country could run to 4,000.

Fucking ragheads!

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:48:42 -0800, Winston & Julia Smith
 wrote:
<snip>


>He said MI5 had identified 2,000 individuals who pose a direct threat
>to national security and public safety but warned the number of
>potential terrorists living in this country could run to 4,000.


The Stockwell One report is due out on Thursday; it is therefore
necessary to keep up the focus on the "terrorists" and off the
Metropolitan Police.

Mustapha Phuq wrote:
> On 5 Nov, 21:46, Maria  wrote:
> > On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:48:42 -0800, Winston & Julia Smith
> >
> >  wrote:
> > >Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
> > >from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
> > >country.
> >
> > >If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.
> > >Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
> > >"Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.
> >
> > >Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
> > >another (a)religious could not have done?
> >
> > >MI5: Al-Qa'eda recruiting UK children for terror
> > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/05/nevan...
> >
> > >Muslim children as young as 15 are being recruited by al-Qa'eda to
> > >wage "a deliberate campaign of terror" in Britain, the head of MI5 has
> > >said.
> >
> > >Jonathan Evans used his first speech since taking over the security
> > >service to warn that Islamists were "radicalising, indoctrinating and
> > >grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism."
> >
> > >He said MI5 had identified 2,000 individuals who pose a direct threat
> > >to national security and public safety but warned the number of
> > >potential terrorists living in this country could run to 4,000.
> >
> > Perhaps you could pick through that article, and quote some facts, and
> > ditto the one on the BBC news website.
> > It doesn't actually say anything - just vague conjecture.
> >
> > And then tell me why nobody has been arrested for grooming terrorists,
> > particularly children.
>
> Perhaps the reason is that the believers who go on martyrdom
> operations groom themselves to look their best to all the virgins
> waiting for them in paradise?

No, the ragheads are running out of virgins so they are sending their
own over now. Especially young boys - their favourite!

On Nov 5, 2:17 pm, Mustapha Phuq  wrote:
> On 5 Nov, 21:47, Maria  wrote:
> > On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:53:05 -0800, Mustapha Phuq
>
> >  wrote:
> > >On 5 Nov, 20:48, Winston & Julia Smith
> > > wrote:
> > >> Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
> > >> from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
> > >> country.
>
> > >> If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.
> > >> Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
> > >> "Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.
>
> > >> Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
> > >> another (a)religious could not have done?
>
> > >Have you never had a chicken tikka marsala?
>
> > What's that? Some kind of curried Italian?
>
> No, you ignorant kuffar! It is a traditional Pakastani dish from
> Birmingham.

Actually it is Indian food; nothing to do with Pakistan.

http://www.indianfoodforever.com/non-veg/chicken/chicken-tikka-masala.html

> --
> Have a cool sheikn with it, not beer!
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,2763,1176076,00.html

Bozo, I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, unless
I wanted an orange, hyperactive bargepole.

'Dangerous dye levels' found in tikka
"Food colourings linked to hyperactivity, asthma, and even cancer,
have been detected in chicken tikka masala, which has arguably
become the UK's national dish, consumer chiefs warned today.
Random tests ordered by Trading Standards officers in Surrey
suggest 57% of Indian restaurants in the county use "illegal and
potentially dangerous" levels of dyes to give the sauce its
distinctive
orange-red hue."

http://www.margonaut.com/tartrazine.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_Yellow_FCF
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v18je12.htm

Little Johnny Howard wrote:
> Winston & Julia Smith wrote:
> > Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
> > from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
> > country.
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> > If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.
>
> You make a good point. I can't argue with you.
>
> > Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
> > "Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.
>
> All ragheads are terrorists. There is no distinction.
>
> > Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
> > another (a)religious could not have done?
>
> Why is a religion required for a contribution?

A religion, or no religion. As long as it isn't Islam. The statistics
show that Muslims have about 3x the unemployment rate of any other
religion or atheists.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=979

> > MI5: Al-Qa'eda recruiting UK children for terror
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/05/nevans305.xml
> >
> > Muslim children as young as 15 are being recruited by al-Qa'eda to
> > wage "a deliberate campaign of terror" in Britain, the head of MI5 has
> > said.
> >
> > Jonathan Evans used his first speech since taking over the security
> > service to warn that Islamists were "radicalising, indoctrinating and
> > grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism."
> >
> > He said MI5 had identified 2,000 individuals who pose a direct threat
> > to national security and public safety but warned the number of
> > potential terrorists living in this country could run to 4,000.
>
> Fucking ragheads!

judith wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:48:42 -0800, Winston & Julia Smith
>  wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
> >He said MI5 had identified 2,000 individuals who pose a direct threat
> >to national security and public safety but warned the number of
> >potential terrorists living in this country could run to 4,000.
>
>
> The Stockwell One report is due out on Thursday; it is therefore
> necessary to keep up the focus on the "terrorists" and off the
> Metropolitan Police.

Good point. However, unlike Gordon Brown, most of us have two eyes so
we can usually keep an eye on more than one thing at once ;)

In article , 
winstonandjuliasmith@yahoo.co.uk writes...

> He said MI5 had identified 2,000 individuals who pose a direct threat
> to national security

Ant thats only the full on skinheads!

-- 
DM
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com

Maria wrote:

> >I can't say whether the MI5 head is telling a tale or not. If you have
> >evidence to show that he is lying, then the onus is really on you to
> >put it out plainly for debate.
>
> Maybe you should post evidence that he is telling the truth since it
> is you who is asserting that he is correct. :) There is no evidence in
> any of the articles I have read so far...

No, you're the one asserting he's telling lies. So it should be you
that proves that this is so. Innocent before guilty means he's telling
the truth unless proven otherwise.

> >
> >That said, we do know as facts that terrorists have recruited children
> >as suicide bombers in Israel and are interested in recruits of
> >Caucasian appearance to stymie racial profiling against them. So I
> >would not put it beyond them to do the same here.
>
> If MI5 know about it, why no arrests? They are saying this is
> happening, not might be happening.

Because they might want to keep an eye on the players to see how deep
this can of worms is.

> >> And then tell me why nobody has been arrested for grooming terrorists,
> >> particularly children.
> >
> >Do not assume that because you don't hear about it, they haven't been
> >arrested. Also, do not assume that because they haven't been arrested,
> >it doesn't happen.
>
> I am 100% certain that anyone arresting for anything even vaguely
> connected with terrorism is guaranteed front page headlines in the
> media.

I am 100% certain that many arrests do not go reported by the media.
Yet we are both cynics of the government.

> You do realise that the MI5 line is wheeled out every time the
> government wants to increase the length of time they can detain peope
> without trial?

Which I think is more than adequate as it is.

> The thing has little support - scary stories make people more willing to sacrifice
> their freedom.

The solution is external rather than internal. Eject all Muslims and
retaliate against Muslim countries if they cause trouble. Make the
Muslim countries fear us. In the meantime keep our citizens free.

Instead our government has been spineless with terror states like Iran
while they dismantle our freedoms.

On Nov 5, 1:23 pm, aracari  wrote:
> What does the verb "to brain" mean as per Subject?

It means a dunt on the gowdie.

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:32:21 -0800  'Winston & Julia Smith'
wrote this on uk.politics.misc:

>
>aracari wrote:
>> What does the verb "to brain" mean as per Subject?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims
>> may be the most oppressive .....C S Lewis
>
>"To brain" in this context means to take headshot(s), like what
>happened to JCdM. Necessary for on-the-spot incapacitation of suicide
>bombers.

Right thanks. So we can now expect the police to start shooting 
15yo kids for being *suspected* terrorists. Such an escalation
doesn't really surprise me.

-- 
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive .....C S Lewis.

aracari wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:32:21 -0800  'Winston & Julia Smith'
> wrote this on uk.politics.misc:
>
> >
> >aracari wrote:
> >> What does the verb "to brain" mean as per Subject?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims
> >> may be the most oppressive .....C S Lewis
> >
> >"To brain" in this context means to take headshot(s), like what
> >happened to JCdM. Necessary for on-the-spot incapacitation of suicide
> >bombers.
>
> Right thanks. So we can now expect the police to start shooting
> 15yo kids for being *suspected* terrorists. Such an escalation
> doesn't really surprise me.
>
> --
> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims
> may be the most oppressive .....C S Lewis.

That isn't how it has to be. Instead of taxing the IQ of your average
police officer by having them discriminate between an "Immediate
Terrorist" and a "Potential Terrorist", we could just have them
discriminate between "Muslim" and "Non-Muslim". Muslims get rounded up
and kicked out of the country back to Saudi Arabia or some other
Muslim country they love so much.

Also, instead of ID cards, CCTVs and a surveillance society to stop
terrorists, the government could announce that, for example, we will
respond in the following manner to terrorist attacks:
10 people dead: live military exercises for 10 days in a random Muslim
country
100 people dead: energetic military exercises for 100 days in a random
Muslim country
1000 people dead: Kaaba gets turned into rubble

on 05/11/2007, Winston & Julia Smith supposed :
> aracari wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:32:21 -0800  'Winston & Julia Smith'
>> wrote this on uk.politics.misc:
>> 
>>> 
>>> aracari wrote:
>>>> What does the verb "to brain" mean as per Subject?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims
>>>> may be the most oppressive .....C S Lewis
>>> 
>>> "To brain" in this context means to take headshot(s), like what
>>> happened to JCdM. Necessary for on-the-spot incapacitation of suicide
>>> bombers.
>> 
>> Right thanks. So we can now expect the police to start shooting
>> 15yo kids for being *suspected* terrorists. Such an escalation
>> doesn't really surprise me.
>> 
>> --
>> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims
>> may be the most oppressive .....C S Lewis.
>
> That isn't how it has to be. Instead of taxing the IQ of your average
> police officer by having them discriminate between an "Immediate
> Terrorist" and a "Potential Terrorist", we could just have them
> discriminate between "Muslim" and "Non-Muslim". Muslims get rounded up
> and kicked out of the country back to Saudi Arabia or some other
> Muslim country they love so much.
>
> Also, instead of ID cards, CCTVs and a surveillance society to stop
> terrorists, the government could announce that, for example, we will
> respond in the following manner to terrorist attacks:
> 10 people dead: live military exercises for 10 days in a random Muslim
> country
> 100 people dead: energetic military exercises for 100 days in a random
> Muslim country
> 1000 people dead: Kaaba gets turned into rubble

You have not thought this through have you.

-- 
Count Baldoni

Winston & Julia Smith submitted this idea :
> Maria wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:48:42 -0800, Winston & Julia Smith
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
>>> from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
>>> country.
>>> 
>>> If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.
>>> Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
>>> "Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.
>>> 
>>> Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
>>> another (a)religious could not have done?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> MI5: Al-Qa'eda recruiting UK children for terror
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/05/nevans305.xml
>>> 
>>> Muslim children as young as 15 are being recruited by al-Qa'eda to
>>> wage "a deliberate campaign of terror" in Britain, the head of MI5 has
>>> said.
>>> 
>>> Jonathan Evans used his first speech since taking over the security
>>> service to warn that Islamists were "radicalising, indoctrinating and
>>> grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism."
>>> 
>>> He said MI5 had identified 2,000 individuals who pose a direct threat
>>> to national security and public safety but warned the number of
>>> potential terrorists living in this country could run to 4,000.
>> 
>> Perhaps you could pick through that article, and quote some facts, and
>> ditto the one on the BBC news website.
>> It doesn't actually say anything - just vague conjecture.
>
> I can't say whether the MI5 head is telling a tale or not. If you have
> evidence to show that he is lying, then the onus is really on you to
> put it out plainly for debate.
>
> That said, we do know as facts that terrorists have recruited children
> as suicide bombers in Israel and are interested in recruits of
> Caucasian appearance to stymie racial profiling against them. So I
> would not put it beyond them to do the same here.
>
>> And then tell me why nobody has been arrested for grooming terrorists,
>> particularly children.
>
> Do not assume that because you don't hear about it, they haven't been
> arrested. Also, do not assume that because they haven't been arrested,
> it doesn't happen.

Well white guys have taken black children in Africa to kill and stuff 
their bodies with drugs and fuck knows what else.

-- 
Count Baldoni

Mustapha Phuq explained on 05/11/2007 :
> On 5 Nov, 21:46, Maria  wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:48:42 -0800, Winston & Julia Smith
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  wrote:
>>> Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
>>> from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
>>> country.
>> 
>>> If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.
>>> Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
>>> "Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.
>>> Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
>>> another (a)religious could not have done?
>>> MI5: Al-Qa'eda recruiting UK children for terror
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/05/nevan...
>>> Muslim children as young as 15 are being recruited by al-Qa'eda to
>>> wage "a deliberate campaign of terror" in Britain, the head of MI5 has
>>> said.
>> 
>>> Jonathan Evans used his first speech since taking over the security
>>> service to warn that Islamists were "radicalising, indoctrinating and
>>> grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism."
>>> He said MI5 had identified 2,000 individuals who pose a direct threat
>>> to national security and public safety but warned the number of
>>> potential terrorists living in this country could run to 4,000.
>> 
>> Perhaps you could pick through that article, and quote some facts, and
>> ditto the one on the BBC news website.
>> It doesn't actually say anything - just vague conjecture.
>> 
>> And then tell me why nobody has been arrested for grooming terrorists,
>> particularly children.
>
> Perhaps the reason is that the believers who go on martyrdom
> operations groom themselves to look their best to all the virgins
> waiting for them in paradise?

Believe that horseshit and they will believe anything.  All seats in 
the cabins of all Air France planes are now made of pigskin.

-- 
Count Baldoni

It happens that Little Johnny Howard formulated :
> Mustapha Phuq wrote:
>> On 5 Nov, 21:46, Maria  wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:48:42 -0800, Winston & Julia Smith
>>> 
>>>  wrote:
>>>> Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
>>>> from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
>>>> country.
>>> 
>>>> If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.
>>>> Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
>>>> "Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.
>>>> Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
>>>> another (a)religious could not have done?
>>>> MI5: Al-Qa'eda recruiting UK children for terror
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/05/nevan...
>>>> Muslim children as young as 15 are being recruited by al-Qa'eda to
>>>> wage "a deliberate campaign of terror" in Britain, the head of MI5 has
>>>> said.
>>> 
>>>> Jonathan Evans used his first speech since taking over the security
>>>> service to warn that Islamists were "radicalising, indoctrinating and
>>>> grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism."
>>>> He said MI5 had identified 2,000 individuals who pose a direct threat
>>>> to national security and public safety but warned the number of
>>>> potential terrorists living in this country could run to 4,000.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps you could pick through that article, and quote some facts, and
>>> ditto the one on the BBC news website.
>>> It doesn't actually say anything - just vague conjecture.
>>> 
>>> And then tell me why nobody has been arrested for grooming terrorists,
>>> particularly children.
>> 
>> Perhaps the reason is that the believers who go on martyrdom
>> operations groom themselves to look their best to all the virgins
>> waiting for them in paradise?
>
> No, the ragheads are running out of virgins so they are sending their
> own over now. Especially young boys - their favourite!

Don't start blaming the Arabs for Madeleine McCann, that is what they 
want you to do.

-- 
Count Baldoni

On Nov 6, 12:13 am, Baldoni <baldoniXXV<nientespam>@gmail.com> wrote:
> on 05/11/2007, Winston & Julia Smith supposed :
>
>
>
>
>
> > aracari wrote:
> >> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:32:21 -0800  'Winston & Julia Smith'
> >> wrote this on uk.politics.misc:
>
> >>> aracari wrote:
> >>>> What does the verb "to brain" mean as per Subject?
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims
> >>>> may be the most oppressive .....C S Lewis
>
> >>> "To brain" in this context means to take headshot(s), like what
> >>> happened to JCdM. Necessary for on-the-spot incapacitation of suicide
> >>> bombers.
>
> >> Right thanks. So we can now expect the police to start shooting
> >> 15yo kids for being *suspected* terrorists. Such an escalation
> >> doesn't really surprise me.
>
> >> --
> >> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims
> >> may be the most oppressive .....C S Lewis.
>
> > That isn't how it has to be. Instead of taxing the IQ of your average
> > police officer by having them discriminate between an "Immediate
> > Terrorist" and a "Potential Terrorist", we could just have them
> > discriminate between "Muslim" and "Non-Muslim". Muslims get rounded up
> > and kicked out of the country back to Saudi Arabia or some other
> > Muslim country they love so much.
>
> > Also, instead of ID cards, CCTVs and a surveillance society to stop
> > terrorists, the government could announce that, for example, we will
> > respond in the following manner to terrorist attacks:
> > 10 people dead: live military exercises for 10 days in a random Muslim
> > country
> > 100 people dead: energetic military exercises for 100 days in a random
> > Muslim country
> > 1000 people dead: Kaaba gets turned into rubble
>
> You have not thought this through have you.
>
> --
> Count Baldoni- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
============================================

They've been badly affected by what happened to them in room 101.

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:34:10 -0800, Winston & Julia Smith
 wrote:

>
>Maria wrote:
>
>> >I can't say whether the MI5 head is telling a tale or not. If you have
>> >evidence to show that he is lying, then the onus is really on you to
>> >put it out plainly for debate.
>>
>> Maybe you should post evidence that he is telling the truth since it
>> is you who is asserting that he is correct. :) There is no evidence in
>> any of the articles I have read so far...
>
>No, you're the one asserting he's telling lies.

No...I am the one asserting that he is saying nothing of any substance
or meaning. Nothing pratical.

>So it should be you
>that proves that this is so. Innocent before guilty means he's telling
>the truth unless proven otherwise.

For god's sake this is a politician not a criminal suspect. These
people lie all the time! 

>> >
>> >That said, we do know as facts that terrorists have recruited children
>> >as suicide bombers in Israel and are interested in recruits of
>> >Caucasian appearance to stymie racial profiling against them. So I
>> >would not put it beyond them to do the same here.
>>
>> If MI5 know about it, why no arrests? They are saying this is
>> happening, not might be happening.
>
>Because they might want to keep an eye on the players to see how deep
>this can of worms is.

All of them?

>> >> And then tell me why nobody has been arrested for grooming terrorists,
>> >> particularly children.
>> >
>> >Do not assume that because you don't hear about it, they haven't been
>> >arrested. Also, do not assume that because they haven't been arrested,
>> >it doesn't happen.
>>
>> I am 100% certain that anyone arresting for anything even vaguely
>> connected with terrorism is guaranteed front page headlines in the
>> media.
>
>I am 100% certain that many arrests do not go reported by the media.
>Yet we are both cynics of the government.

WRT terrorist offences, even someone with a dodgy leaflet makes the
headlines. It is in the establishment interest to make us all
terrified of non-specific threats.
Don't think I don't believe there is no terrorist threat to the UK - I
believe there is. I just don't believe this lot when they make
non-specific claims during a week when they want public support for
longer detentions. I do not support long detentions without trial.

>> You do realise that the MI5 line is wheeled out every time the
>> government wants to increase the length of time they can detain peope
>> without trial?
>
>Which I think is more than adequate as it is.

We agree then.

>> The thing has little support - scary stories make people more willing to sacrifice
>> their freedom.
>
>The solution is external rather than internal. Eject all Muslims and
>retaliate against Muslim countries if they cause trouble. Make the
>Muslim countries fear us. In the meantime keep our citizens free.
>
>Instead our government has been spineless with terror states like Iran
>while they dismantle our freedoms.

That just isn't going to happen, however much it is wished for. If
they won't deport Chindamo, then they are not going to deport millions
of British born Muslims.

On 6 Nov, 09:26, Maria  wrote:
>
> That just isn't going to happen, however much it is wished for. If
> they won't deport Chindamo, then they are not going to deport millions
> of British born Muslims.

This is all a bit meaningless. It is useless to say 'this should be
done, that should be done...'
We are a conquered people, having surrendered to the slow-motion coup
d'etat from Brussels.
Decisions like the ones mentioned here are out of our hands, such
decisions are made for us in Brussels.

If you slowly give away control over your country to nameless,
faceless, unelectable, unfirable gangsters in Brussels, then you
should not complain about the consequences.

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:29:11 -0800, Old.Jinglebollocks@googlemail.com
wrote:

>On 6 Nov, 09:26, Maria  wrote:
>>
>> That just isn't going to happen, however much it is wished for. If
>> they won't deport Chindamo, then they are not going to deport millions
>> of British born Muslims.
>
>This is all a bit meaningless. It is useless to say 'this should be
>done, that should be done...'
>We are a conquered people, having surrendered to the slow-motion coup
>d'etat from Brussels.
>Decisions like the ones mentioned here are out of our hands, such
>decisions are made for us in Brussels.
>
>If you slowly give away control over your country to nameless,
>faceless, unelectable, unfirable gangsters in Brussels, then you
>should not complain about the consequences.

Correct, except that the last time we were asked was a very long time
ago. This is supposed to be a democracy, but with none of the ms
parties supporting a withdrawal from the EU there's not a lot we can
do about it.
I get annoyed that there are no protests about a lack of referendum on
Europe, but then we rarely protest about anything. Only the rich and
the left seem to bother, and neither of them seem bothered about the
European issue.

On 6 Nov, 11:30, Maria  wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:29:11 -0800, Old.Jinglebollo...@googlemail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 6 Nov, 09:26, Maria  wrote:
>
> >> That just isn't going to happen, however much it is wished for. If
> >> they won't deport Chindamo, then they are not going to deport millions
> >> of British born Muslims.
>
> >This is all a bit meaningless. It is useless to say 'this should be
> >done, that should be done...'
> >We are a conquered people, having surrendered to the slow-motion coup
> >d'etat from Brussels.
> >Decisions like the ones mentioned here are out of our hands, such
> >decisions are made for us in Brussels.
>
> >If you slowly give away control over your country to nameless,
> >faceless, unelectable, unfirable gangsters in Brussels, then you
> >should not complain about the consequences.
>
> Correct, except that the last time we were asked was a very long time
> ago. This is supposed to be a democracy, but with none of the ms
> parties supporting a withdrawal from the EU there's not a lot we can
> do about it.
> I get annoyed that there are no protests about a lack of referendum on
> Europe, but then we rarely protest about anything. Only the rich and
> the left seem to bother, and neither of them seem bothered about the
> European issue.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I was in London in 1975 during that one and only referendum on EU. It
was all a fake, as the issue of control over our country was never
even mentioned - it was just about financial contributions and trade
arrangements.

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:44:23 -0800, Old.Jinglebollocks@googlemail.com
wrote:

>On 6 Nov, 11:30, Maria  wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:29:11 -0800, Old.Jinglebollo...@googlemail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 6 Nov, 09:26, Maria  wrote:
>>
>> >> That just isn't going to happen, however much it is wished for. If
>> >> they won't deport Chindamo, then they are not going to deport millions
>> >> of British born Muslims.
>>
>> >This is all a bit meaningless. It is useless to say 'this should be
>> >done, that should be done...'
>> >We are a conquered people, having surrendered to the slow-motion coup
>> >d'etat from Brussels.
>> >Decisions like the ones mentioned here are out of our hands, such
>> >decisions are made for us in Brussels.
>>
>> >If you slowly give away control over your country to nameless,
>> >faceless, unelectable, unfirable gangsters in Brussels, then you
>> >should not complain about the consequences.
>>
>> Correct, except that the last time we were asked was a very long time
>> ago. This is supposed to be a democracy, but with none of the ms
>> parties supporting a withdrawal from the EU there's not a lot we can
>> do about it.
>> I get annoyed that there are no protests about a lack of referendum on
>> Europe, but then we rarely protest about anything. Only the rich and
>> the left seem to bother, and neither of them seem bothered about the
>> European issue.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I was in London in 1975 during that one and only referendum on EU. It
>was all a fake, as the issue of control over our country was never
>even mentioned - it was just about financial contributions and trade
>arrangements.

Indeed - I don't think anybody overly objects to our membership of the
EU as a trading bloc (though I object to the EU placing tarrifs on
imported goods from outside the EU...) - it's the political union they
have never asked about, and never will because the answer will be no.

On 5 Nov, 20:48, Winston & Julia Smith
 wrote:
> Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
> from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
> country.
>


The comment is wrongly phrased, as it is based on a false assumption
that UK is a "free, self-respecting country."

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:36:16 +0000, aracari wrote:

> Right thanks. So we can now expect the police to start shooting 15yo kids
> for being *suspected* terrorists. Such an escalation doesn't really
> surprise me.

If it saves the life of one Hitlerjugend it'll be worth it.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:48:42 -0800, Winston & Julia Smith wrote:

> If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.

The Christians can fack off to the Vatican City and the Jews to Israel.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:36:19 +1100, Petzl wrote:

> I believe the UK (A Christian Nation) would be feeding the same hogwash in
> recognizing Islam as anything more  than the horror cult it is

The UK is NOT a xtian nation, most people are either agnostic, or, if
intelligent, atheist.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:25:11 +0000, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:36:19 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>
>> I believe the UK (A Christian Nation) would be feeding the same hogwash in
>> recognizing Islam as anything more  than the horror cult it is
>
>The UK is NOT a xtian nation, most people are either agnostic, or, if
>intelligent, atheist.

The UK has as head of State the Queen who is also Head of the Nation

The Coronation Oath, your Majesty declared  'to the utmost of her
power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel'

Therefore the Constitutional Monarchy places the UK under God (whose
compound redemptive Name is Lord Jesus Christ) Not the moon-god Allah
that the cult (Islam is not a religion) worships

petzl
--
CDP Senate Candidates in each State
QLD Linda Brice, 
VIC Ewen McDonald, 
WA Gerard Goiran, 
NSW Paul Green

Australia has had enough. NO MORE MOSLEMS
<http://www.cdp.org.au/docs/A5_Musilm_Poll_Flyer.pdf>
Vote 
Christian Democrat first,  
The Opposition Member second 
Your sitting member last
2nd last the anti-environment party the "Greens"

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:52:23 +1100, Petzl wrote:

> Therefore the Constitutional Monarchy places the UK under God (whose
> compound redemptive Name is Lord Jesus Christ) Not the moon-god Allah that
> the cult (Islam is not a religion) worships

Wooo Wooo! 

Nutter alert!

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:23:48 +0000, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:52:23 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>
>> Therefore the Constitutional Monarchy places the UK under God (whose
>> compound redemptive Name is Lord Jesus Christ) Not the moon-god Allah that
>> the cult (Islam is not a religion) worships
>
>Wooo Wooo! 
>
>Nutter alert!

You denied that the UK was not a Christian Nation.
I'm pointing out that this may not be so
Australia is a Christian Nation 
This is not being enforced by our politicians who are also trying to
spin that it is a secular one 
This is to accommodate "Multiculturalism"
Fact is Islam under Australian and UK constitution is not even a
religion, 
Islam is a cult that preaches hate and violence towards Christians and
Jews.

petzl
--
CDP Senate Candidates in each State
QLD Linda Brice, 
VIC Ewen McDonald, 
WA Gerard Goiran, 
NSW Paul Green

Australia has had enough. NO MORE MOSLEMS
<http://www.cdp.org.au/docs/A5_Musilm_Poll_Flyer.pdf>
Vote 
Christian Democrat first,  
The Opposition Member second 
Your sitting member last
2nd last the anti-environment party the "Greens"

"Petzl"  wrote in message 
news:ats1j35sel82hjua61fcqaoippqiqma2mr@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:23:48 +0000, Phil Stovell 
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:52:23 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>>
>>> Therefore the Constitutional Monarchy places the UK under God (whose
>>> compound redemptive Name is Lord Jesus Christ) Not the moon-god Allah 
>>> that
>>> the cult (Islam is not a religion) worships
>>
>>Wooo Wooo!
>>
>>Nutter alert!
>
> You denied that the UK was not a Christian Nation.

If I may attempt to disentangle your double negative, you are correct. The 
Church of England, an ostensibly christian church, is the established church 
of the State. So in those terms, the UK (including, mutatis mutandis,  its 
constituent parts) is a "christian nation".

> I'm pointing out that this may not be so

In what way?

> Australia is a Christian Nation
> This is not being enforced by our politicians who are also trying to
> spin that it is a secular one

To no avail. The Acts of Supremacy of 1534 & 1559 apply in Australia as far 
as I remember,
as do the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1562 (specifically the Preface & Article 
37).

> This is to accommodate "Multiculturalism"

Culture has something to do with religion, but not everything. Enjoying a 
curry, for example does not imply one is a Muslim or a Hindu. 
Multiculturalism has more to do with tolerance than it does with 
establishment.

> Fact is Islam under Australian and UK constitution is not even a
> religion,

Islam is not within the ambit of separation as described above but then 
Islam is not historically a mainstream religion in the UK or, as far as I am 
aware, in Australia, so the point scarcely arises.
However, by any definition Islam IS a religion and this is independent of 
any legislation, constitutional or otherwise.

However, if you can find me the UK, or the Australian "constitution", you 
will do what historians have more or less conspicuously failed to do for 
over two hundred years. Sure, there's a corpus of law dealing with State 
relationships but that's a far cry from labelling anything a "constitution".

> Islam is a cult that preaches hate and violence towards Christians and
> Jews.

Permute these three religions within the above statement and you might be 
closer
to the true position.

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:12:26 +1100, Petzl  wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:23:48 +0000, Phil Stovell 
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:52:23 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>>
>>> Therefore the Constitutional Monarchy places the UK under God (whose
>>> compound redemptive Name is Lord Jesus Christ) Not the moon-god Allah that
>>> the cult (Islam is not a religion) worships
>>
>>Wooo Wooo! 
>>
>>Nutter alert!
>
>You denied that the UK was not a Christian Nation.


ding - ding - ding -

please baton down all hatches

"judith"  wrote in message 
news:2922j3dgudmq4n251s76v0mb7l9t3549in@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:12:26 +1100, Petzl  wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:23:48 +0000, Phil Stovell 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:52:23 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>>>
>>>> Therefore the Constitutional Monarchy places the UK under God (whose
>>>> compound redemptive Name is Lord Jesus Christ) Not the moon-god Allah 
>>>> that
>>>> the cult (Islam is not a religion) worships
>>>
>>>Wooo Wooo!
>>>
>>>Nutter alert!
>>
>>You denied that the UK was not a Christian Nation.
>
>
> ding - ding - ding -
>
> please baton down all hatches

Don't panic, Mr Mainwaring!!

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 23:49:02 GMT, "Janitor of Lunacy"
 wrote:

>
>"Petzl"  wrote in message 
>news:ats1j35sel82hjua61fcqaoippqiqma2mr@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:23:48 +0000, Phil Stovell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:52:23 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>>>
>>>> Therefore the Constitutional Monarchy places the UK under God (whose
>>>> compound redemptive Name is Lord Jesus Christ) Not the moon-god Allah 
>>>> that
>>>> the cult (Islam is not a religion) worships
>>>
>>>Wooo Wooo!
>>>
>>>Nutter alert!
>>
>> You denied that the UK was not a Christian Nation.
>
>If I may attempt to disentangle your double negative, you are correct. The 
>Church of England, an ostensibly christian church, is the established church 
>of the State. So in those terms, the UK (including, mutatis mutandis,  its 
>constituent parts) is a "christian nation".
>
>> I'm pointing out that this may not be so
>
>In what way?
>
>> Australia is a Christian Nation
>> This is not being enforced by our politicians who are also trying to
>> spin that it is a secular one
>
>To no avail. The Acts of Supremacy of 1534 & 1559 apply in Australia as far 
>as I remember,
>as do the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1562 (specifically the Preface & Article 
>37).
>
>> This is to accommodate "Multiculturalism"
>
>Culture has something to do with religion, but not everything. Enjoying a 
>curry, for example does not imply one is a Muslim or a Hindu. 
>Multiculturalism has more to do with tolerance than it does with 
>establishment.
>
>> Fact is Islam under Australian and UK constitution is not even a
>> religion,
>
>Islam is not within the ambit of separation as described above but then 
>Islam is not historically a mainstream religion in the UK or, as far as I am 
>aware, in Australia, so the point scarcely arises.
>However, by any definition Islam IS a religion and this is independent of 
>any legislation, constitutional or otherwise.
>
>However, if you can find me the UK, or the Australian "constitution", you 
>will do what historians have more or less conspicuously failed to do for 
>over two hundred years. Sure, there's a corpus of law dealing with State 
>relationships but that's a far cry from labelling anything a "constitution".
>
>> Islam is a cult that preaches hate and violence towards Christians and
>> Jews.
>
>Permute these three religions within the above statement and you might be 
>closer
>to the true position.
>
>
Islam does not recognize our or your "Lord Jesus Christ" as the one
true God and as such in the UK Australia Canada USa France Denmark
Germany etc, makes Islam a cult not entitled to legal recognition (or
tax breaks). In Australia they are not even entitled by our
constitution citizenship

Australia preamble (added to make Australia a Christian Ntion)"humbly
relying on the blessing of Almighty God" referred to Christianity and
was inserted by the demand of Christians. Without which Federation
would of not happened

Australia started federation on the insistence that we became a
Christian Nation. No referendum has ever changed this. 

petzl
--
CDP Senate Candidates in each State
QLD Linda Brice, 
VIC Ewen McDonald, 
WA Gerard Goiran, 
NSW Paul Green

Australia has had enough. NO MORE MOSLEMS
<http://www.cdp.org.au/docs/A5_Musilm_Poll_Flyer.pdf>
Vote 
Christian Democrat first,  
The Opposition Member second 
Your sitting member last
2nd last the anti-environment party the "Greens"

"Petzl"  wrote in message 
news:o062j359miqkrv2nb4fmo9q8so8im7jver@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 23:49:02 GMT, "Janitor of Lunacy"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Petzl"  wrote in message
>>news:ats1j35sel82hjua61fcqaoippqiqma2mr@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:23:48 +0000, Phil Stovell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:52:23 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Therefore the Constitutional Monarchy places the UK under God (whose
>>>>> compound redemptive Name is Lord Jesus Christ) Not the moon-god Allah
>>>>> that
>>>>> the cult (Islam is not a religion) worships
>>>>
>>>>Wooo Wooo!
>>>>
>>>>Nutter alert!
>>>
>>> You denied that the UK was not a Christian Nation.
>>
>>If I may attempt to disentangle your double negative, you are correct. The
>>Church of England, an ostensibly christian church, is the established 
>>church
>>of the State. So in those terms, the UK (including, mutatis mutandis,  its
>>constituent parts) is a "christian nation".
>>
>>> I'm pointing out that this may not be so
>>
>>In what way?
>>
>>> Australia is a Christian Nation
>>> This is not being enforced by our politicians who are also trying to
>>> spin that it is a secular one
>>
>>To no avail. The Acts of Supremacy of 1534 & 1559 apply in Australia as 
>>far
>>as I remember,
>>as do the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1562 (specifically the Preface & Article
>>37).
>>
>>> This is to accommodate "Multiculturalism"
>>
>>Culture has something to do with religion, but not everything. Enjoying a
>>curry, for example does not imply one is a Muslim or a Hindu.
>>Multiculturalism has more to do with tolerance than it does with
>>establishment.
>>
>>> Fact is Islam under Australian and UK constitution is not even a
>>> religion,
>>
>>Islam is not within the ambit of separation as described above but then
>>Islam is not historically a mainstream religion in the UK or, as far as I 
>>am
>>aware, in Australia, so the point scarcely arises.
>>However, by any definition Islam IS a religion and this is independent of
>>any legislation, constitutional or otherwise.
>>
>>However, if you can find me the UK, or the Australian "constitution", you
>>will do what historians have more or less conspicuously failed to do for
>>over two hundred years. Sure, there's a corpus of law dealing with State
>>relationships but that's a far cry from labelling anything a 
>>"constitution".
>>
>>> Islam is a cult that preaches hate and violence towards Christians and
>>> Jews.
>>
>>Permute these three religions within the above statement and you might be
>>closer
>>to the true position.
>>
>>
> Islam does not recognize our or your "Lord Jesus Christ" as the one
> true God and as such in the UK Australia Canada USa France Denmark
> Germany etc, makes Islam a cult not entitled to legal recognition (or
> tax breaks). In Australia they are not even entitled by our
> constitution citizenship

OK, if you don't want to answer the question, that's fine by me.

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 23:49:02 GMT, "Janitor of Lunacy"
 wrote:

>> You denied that the UK was not a Christian Nation.
>
>If I may attempt to disentangle your double negative, you are correct. The 
>Church of England, an ostensibly christian church, is the established church 
>of the State. So in those terms, the UK (including, mutatis mutandis,  its 
>constituent parts) is a "christian nation".
>
>> I'm pointing out that this may not be so
>
>In what way?

This the question?
I'm also stating that the UK is a Christian Nation

This means that those that do not recognize Jesus Christ as Lord are a
cult not a religion and not entitled to political input

petzl
--
CDP Senate Candidates in each State
QLD Linda Brice, 
VIC Ewen McDonald, 
WA Gerard Goiran, 
NSW Paul Green

Australia has had enough. NO MORE MOSLEMS
<http://www.cdp.org.au/docs/A5_Musilm_Poll_Flyer.pdf>
Vote 
Christian Democrat first,  
The Opposition Member second 
Your sitting member last
2nd last the anti-environment party the "Greens"

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:51:19 +1100, Petzl wrote:

> This the question?
> I'm also stating that the UK is a Christian Nation
> 
> This means that those that do not recognize Jesus Christ as Lord are a
> cult not a religion and not entitled to political input

I'm an atheist so I must be a cult and unable to vote.

> 
> petzl
-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:14:28 +0000, Janitor of Lunacy wrote:

> 
> "judith"  wrote in message
> news:2922j3dgudmq4n251s76v0mb7l9t3549in@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:12:26 +1100, Petzl  wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:23:48 +0000, Phil Stovell 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:52:23 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Therefore the Constitutional Monarchy places the UK under God (whose
>>>>> compound redemptive Name is Lord Jesus Christ) Not the moon-god Allah
>>>>> that
>>>>> the cult (Islam is not a religion) worships
>>>>
>>>>Wooo Wooo!
>>>>
>>>>Nutter alert!
>>>
>>>You denied that the UK was not a Christian Nation.
>>
>>
>> ding - ding - ding -
>>
>> please baton down all hatches
> 
> Don't panic, Mr Mainwaring!!

Don't tell him, Pike!

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On 6 Nov, 21:23, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:52:23 +1100, Petzl wrote:
> > Therefore the Constitutional Monarchy places the UK under God (whose
> > compound redemptive Name is Lord Jesus Christ) Not the moon-god Allah that
> > the cult (Islam is not a religion) worships
>
> Wooo Wooo!
>
> Nutter alert!

Indeed, especially as he seems to think that Muslims are mooning to
Allah when they pray.

--
 x   If you have been, was He pleased with the sight?
/|\

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:03:36 -0800, Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> On 6 Nov, 21:23, Phil Stovell  wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:52:23 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>> > Therefore the Constitutional Monarchy places the UK under God (whose
>> > compound redemptive Name is Lord Jesus Christ) Not the moon-god Allah
>> > that the cult (Islam is not a religion) worships
>>
>> Wooo Wooo!
>>
>> Nutter alert!
> 
> Indeed, especially as he seems to think that Muslims are mooning to Allah
> when they pray.

I thought they'd lost their contact lenses.

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On 7 Nov, 02:51, Petzl  wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 23:49:02 GMT, "Janitor of Lunacy"
>
>  wrote:
> >> You denied that the UK was not a Christian Nation.
>
> >If I may attempt to disentangle your double negative, you are correct. The
> >Church of England, an ostensibly christian church, is the established church
> >of the State. So in those terms, the UK (including, mutatis mutandis,  its
> >constituent parts) is a "christian nation".
>
> >> I'm pointing out that this may not be so
>
> >In what way?
>
> This the question?
> I'm also stating that the UK is a Christian Nation
>
> This means that those that do not recognize Jesus Christ as Lord are a
> cult not a religion

Which is utter rubbish.

> and not entitled to political input

Also rubbish.

--
 x    If you have been, did your God go too?
/|\

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:48:42 -0800, Winston & Julia Smith wrote:

> Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
> from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
> country.

I doubt it. They'll just recruit traitors within. There's plenty of them
look at the long line of russian moles double agents and their dirty ilk.
And that's just among the higher classes. They'll find a way. No, the only
thing that will stop all of this terrorism is outright total inhilation
of the enemy. Put fluoride in their water, sap their vital body fluids
until they become too weak to procreate! You'll have to do something about
whiskey imports of course. If they start drinking whiskey to circumvent
what you've done to their water supply you'll be  stuffed.

> 
> If Islam is banned, then we only have to find and expel Muslims.
> Otherwise we have to differentiate between "Immediate Terrorist" and
> "Potential Terrorist" which is another level of complexity entirely.
> 
> Muslims won't be missed. What have Muslims contributed to Britain that
> another (a)religious could not have done?

Well erm a lot of the poorer housing estates would go to wrack and ruin if
they weren't inhibited shureley?
 
> 
> MI5: Al-Qa'eda recruiting UK children for terror
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/05/nevans305.xml
> 
> Muslim children as young as 15 are being recruited by al-Qa'eda to
> wage "a deliberate campaign of terror" in Britain, the head of MI5 has
> said.

They are over the age age of criminale responcesibilty are they not?
They should be processed.
 
> Jonathan Evans used his first speech since taking over the security
> service to warn that Islamists were "radicalising, indoctrinating and
> grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism."
> 
> He said MI5 had identified 2,000 individuals who pose a direct threat
> to national security and public safety but warned the number of
> potential terrorists living in this country could run to 4,000.

If it's illegal then they should be arrested charged tried and do the time.

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:02:57 -0800, Old.Jinglebollocks wrote:

> On 5 Nov, 20:48, Winston & Julia Smith
>  wrote:
>> Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
>> from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
>> country.

Yeah

>>
> 
> 
> The comment is wrongly phrased, as it is based on a false assumption
> that UK is a "free, self-respecting country."

Yeah

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:30:52 +0000, Phil Stovell 
wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:51:19 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>
>> This the question?
>> I'm also stating that the UK is a Christian Nation
>> 
>> This means that those that do not recognize Jesus Christ as Lord are a
>> cult not a religion and not entitled to political input
>
>I'm an atheist so I must be a cult and unable to vote.

I'm a "muzzie" and you're full of shit.

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:48:00 +0000, kangarooistan wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:30:52 +0000, Phil Stovell 
> wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:51:19 +1100, Petzl wrote:
>>
>>> This the question?
>>> I'm also stating that the UK is a Christian Nation
>>> 
>>> This means that those that do not recognize Jesus Christ as Lord are a
>>> cult not a religion and not entitled to political input
>>
>>I'm an atheist so I must be a cult and unable to vote.
> 
> I'm a "muzzie" and you're full of shit.

Oh no I'm not!

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

On Nov 7, 11:54 am, strangelove 
wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:02:57 -0800, Old.Jinglebollocks wrote:
> > On 5 Nov, 20:48, Winston & Julia Smith
> >  wrote:
> >> Muslims again. Of course all this can be solved if Islam is banned
> >> from our country entirely - and indeed any other free, self-respecting
> >> country.
>
> Yeah
>
>
>
> > The comment is wrongly phrased, as it is based on a false assumption
> > that UK is a "free, self-respecting country."
>
> Yeah

==========================================

Will Muslims really GET 72 VIRGINS when they die?

> Very often, the Western Media has potrayed Muslims as being sex crazy
> and wanting to die and martyr themselves, just so that they can get
> 72
> virgins when they enter paradise.
> Help banish the myth that the West and the Jews keep propogating
> against Islam

> http://www.justjihad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17

=========================

One solution would be to get Irish Catholics to do your bombing for
you, as they would gladly give an arm and a leg to get inside the
Virgin Mary's knickers. We were all tormented by sexy Mary's beauty
at
school, as there were statues and images of her in every room. As
adolescent boys in Dublin we all masturbated to the fantasy of going
to heaven and pulling down the Virgin Mary's dirty knickers and then
performing oral sex on the Virgin Mary, giving the Virgin Mary
exquisite sexual pleasure in her anus, vagina and clitoris, and then
giving the Virgin Mary a good hard fucking and listening to Mary's
moans and groans and screams of ecstasy. Irish Catholics love the
Virgin Mary with a true love, and so we want to give the Virgin Mary
as much sexual pleasure as we can when we go to heaven and get inside
Mary's knickers. Any Irish Catholic worth his salt will gladly shoot
and bomb his way into Heaven to get a look at Mary's firmly rounded
buttocks, and then to stick our penises up the Virgin Mary's anus.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



On Nov 11, 11:48 am, "simple_langu ...@yahoo.com"

<simple_langu ...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 8:07 am, Mirza Ghalib <mghali ...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > EUROPE: New Groups Unite Those Who Renounce Islam
> > Radio Free Europe, Sept 11, 2007 http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/09/60CFCE43-996A-4CFF-9234-...

> Good article. Thank you!

===========================

Irish Catholics (Irish born) over the age of 55 can identify with the
religious abuse suffered by Muslims. The symbols and the fake
doctrines are slightly different, but the emotional damage is much
the
same in the case of Ireland in the 1950s and Muslim countries today.

Even the symbols are part of the same continuum in both Catholicism
and Islam.
In particular, if you look at the Crescent displayed above Mosques,
and then walk into a Roman Catholic church and look at the statue of
Mary,
you will see the very same symbol - the Crescent - sticking out from
Mary's ankles..... or sometimes under her feet......

The Crescent is "The Horns of Ishtar" - and the Crescent above the
Mosque and the Crescent under Mary's feet are one and the same:- a
representation of a vague and fading memory of one feature of the
terrifying apparitions that appeared in the sky 3,400 years ago when
another major planet passed near the earth..... giving rise to the
three major world religions.....

Symbols aside, the victims of Irish Catholicism in the 1950s, and the
victims of Islam today, need to get together and to help one another
to recover from religious abuse.

Irish Catholics over the age of 55 can make a valuable contribution
to
helping Muslims to recover from what their parents and teachers have
done to them, just as Irish Catholics have picked up the pieces, and
have forgiven their mothers and fathers and teachers for the
viciously
cruel religious abuse they visited upon us, and then we have lived
our
lives as best we could in the shadow of that early religious abuse.

Let's get together on this. If you grew up in Ireland in the 1950s,
then you experienced almost exactly the same religious abuse that
Muslims are suffering today.

Let all Muslims turn to Irish-born people over the age of 55 years
for
advice on coping with the emotional legacy of religious abuse.

=========================================================