Anybody else in favour of slotting this cnut.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by The_Wonderer, Jun 19, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Not really, why give him the satisfaction of martyrdom.
  2. I love the way it states: ''He has been barred from associating with the likes of Osama Bin Laden.'' Why not add Madelaine Mccann and Lord Lucan whilst your at it.
  3. Probably because he wants the virgins in tthe land of milk and honey ?

    I can see why he's heading to the Smoke - it's not called Londinistan for nothing is it?

    And the do-gooders in the 'red/orange' councils will welcome him with open arms, probably with a brand-new refurnished/refurbished home with all mod cons iaw his 'Yuman rights' !!

  4. I never feel that Martyrdom shit anymore. I used to agree that slotting the likes of Gerry Adams and Martain Mcguiness back in the day wasnt worth while because of Martydom and then i spent a lot of time in the sandpit in the last few years and realised that every single person who gets wasted is deemed by somebody who cares for them as a martyr. Martyrdom is only relevant to that person or his community etc. If its not relevant to you then so be it. If that fecking murdering pric Bin laden was raked tomorrow thousands of wailing cnuts all over the world might be chuntering about him being a martry but i wont, i only see him as near satan himself.He never died for my cause so he is'nt my Martyr.
  5. Yeah I never thought of that, but then again, he's not going to get it anyway.
  6. I should have added "and his suppoerters". Sticking guys like this in jail cut off from every one for years and years is real punishment, killing them lets them off the hook so to speak, one bang and it's all over. In jail cut off from every one they have to live every day with their continuing failure to promote their cause, that is a concept I find cheering.
  7. And piss down the the drain 100s of thousand of pounds of more of our needy taxpayers money on another undesirable immigrant. 55 pence for 1x7.62mm in the swede i say.
  8. Me too; but slotting them wont cost the tax payer as much eh?

    In fact; Fook it! lets slot them all together, then they can collectively be martyrs and have one big party with allah.
  9. If he gets slotted walking down the street instead of blowing himself up (highly unlikely) or in combat (even less likely) he shouldn't be considered a martyr by anyone. I do think locking them up for years away from everything is more of a punishment but they're not away from everything, as we have recently seen. And the cost is too much (prisoners get more per day to feed them than matelots. But let's not go there.)

    I'm with Lukep. We know where he is, one 5.56mm round, one Bootneck sniper, end of chat.
  10. Let us also not forget that you and I will be paying for his keep and of course his legal team, a pox on all lawyers.

    The government should ignore the ruling and put him on a plane to Jordon having first informed the Jordanian security services that he is on his way, as I am sure they will have a nice reception party waiting for him.
  11. It would hurt him more if you cut his hair and beard and gave him a wash the dirty smelly bastard
  12. I totally agree mate. I had the misfortune of having to go into Long Larton a few years ago and being used to having to go into Cat C prisons as a rule found it most unnerving. The prisoners Cannot speak to one another and are only allowed to slop out at certain times of the day.

    However in this guys case he should be deported back to Jordan and let them deal with him in their own special way.
  13. He is returning to London because his bail conditions specify that he must remain, under curfew, in his home in Acton.

    He cannot be deported back to Jordan because of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, sponsored by the Biritsh government with cross-party support and agreed by all Western European states back in 1950. No signatory to this legally binding document can, under article 6, deport any person to a state where they face torture, regardless of whether they are a British or alien national.

    The question remains: if the government have a case against him, why hasn't he been charged anytime in the last 6 years? Whilst it is true he has espoused doing horrible things to kuffir, Christian fundis are little different, except that because they are advocating eliminating certain non-religious minorities that is not considered to be legally equivalent. Is it any wonder that Muslims feel they are being singled out? Why when a small minority of Muslims are calling for the killing of Christians and Jews is it a crime but when a small minority of Christians (and , for the record Muslims) make similar calls for the extermination of abortionists and gays is it suddenly acceptable? Were the authorities more consistent they might have some cause for complaint.

    End of rant.
  14. A solution to deporting him to Jordan would be to ask some of the Muslim states if they would accept him. if one was found then repatriate him there. Afghanistan comes to mind, he could be legally slotted then whilst making his way to his Taliban friends.
  15. Couldnt agree more, deport him and let the Jordanians torture him some more :crazy:
  16. Thingy please point me to an Article where within the UK the Christian Church has called for the EXTERMINATION of bortionists and gays. I find this pretty hard to believe, My neck will wind if proven wrong
  17. If there were categorically no chance of him being deported the government would not be appealing. Meanwhile the licenses to print money lawyers continue to rake it in at the taxpayer’s expense. They should covertly put him on a plane to Jordan and when it hits the fan just say, ‘I don't know anything’.
  18. I said some Christians, mind you I should have perhaps said all Christians who believe in the literal truth of the whole of the Bible, but not apparently the reintroduction of slavery, and are campaigning to legislate their beliefs thereby imposing them on everyone. Those who believe in the literal truth of the whole Bible, and have articulated these beliefs in Parliament.

    If you visit the Christian Institute website they spell out what they are campaigning for and their Biblical literalism for the WHOLE Bible - which demands that gays, amongst others, are exterminated. You might also like to explore Stephen Green's Christian Voice website.

    The CI have recently amended their website to sound more emollient, but their basis of faith on the site up until the last time I looked at it (last Summer) clearly stated that they believe in the literal Bible and their right to practice their beliefs. The Bible version used by evangelicals is the NIV (New International Version) which does not condemn so-called homosexual acts, but homosexual offenders (their mistranslation of arsenokoitoi). Whilst academics recognise this refers to 'practice' most conservative evangelicals I know do not make that distinction and believe that homosexual offenders means homosexuals. Their Bible demands that homosexuals are killed.

    However all this said, the CI do assert the following:

    ...if the state should command what God forbids or forbid what God commands then the duty of the Christian must be to obey God rather than man (Acts 4:19; 5:29)

    The CI has taken a proactive role since its inception to try to deny gays basic rights that Christians take for granted for themselves by arguing that conferring rights upon gays amounts to special rights because gays choose to be gay. Whilst such belief is legitimate, their publications and arguments frequently betray their real opinions, as they suggest that gays collectivly possess character traits that made them ALL prone to dying before the age of 40; spread disease, are economically sucessful; are ALL paedophiles; are undermining society - yet they are all really heterosexuals. This argument does not bear scrutiny. A number of their supporters have suggested that gays aren't entitled to human rights at all such as the right to life because gays aren't human, and have felt perfectly free to say so on BBC's Newsnight with impunity. Were this to be used against any other group it would be condemned. Their opinions are shared by amongst others Robert Mugabe and several African Anglican Bishops and US televangelists.

    Finally when I was researching my criminology dissertation several years ago I received death threats from a couple of Christian fundis, demanding I abandon my research. I published it later, instead. When I reported it to the police after receiving the second, near identical letter, they told me they couldn't take any action because it would infringe the Christians' civil liberties. Strange then that a year later a Muslim radical should be arrested and imprisoned for calling for Christians and Jews to be killed in a demo in London. As a result of this I strongly believe that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander too! In view of this I believe that the imprisonment of people like Abu Qatada is deeply hypocritical. After all if Christian fundis have the de facto* "right" to make death threats, why don't fundi Muslims have the same "right"?

    Bugger, I bit! :oops:

    *De jure it is not a liberty but a supposed criminal offence under section 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.... but only if you're a Muslim. :roll:
  19. Thingy
    It is only recently that a church of England vicar conducted a ceremony (similar to a wedding) for two other CofE clergymen. Perhaps the church are going in the right direction but remember that the firm is 2000 years old and can be rather stuck in ti's ways.

Share This Page