What does that have to do with anything? Are you claiming that Neo-Nazism is justifiable? We bloody well know that there's Islamic extremism in Europe. We've experienced it ourselves, we don't need you to tell us that.miditek wrote:And jihadism in Eastern Europe isn't exactly unheard of either now, is it?NeonVomit wrote:Neo-Nazism is pretty widespread in
Eastern Europe, especially Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine. Hell, there's places in Eastern Germany I wouldn't go to.
Uh, no, I believe Islamic extremists did it. Find a quote where I say anything like that.I know, you're probably like the rest of the moonbats that believe that 9/11, 7/7, and other attacks are part of a greater Zionist conspiracy that was underwritten by the Mossad.
As for the 7/7 attacks here in London, my sister was on the train at Liverpool Street at the time and was extremely lucky to get out unhurt and for an horrible half-hour I thought she was dead, so please kindly go fuck yourself you ignorant, sanctimonious, arrogant, judgemental, holier-than-thou dipshit, when you don't know what you're talking about.
So no, I don't think the fucking Mossad or Jews did 7/7 and no I don't use the incident as some sort of conspiracy theory to further a political viewpoint like I'm sure you would, you miserable prick.
Yet again, you're saying things with no actual proof or evidence. I never said anything of the sort and have personal reasons for not believing that.
What the fuck is wrong with you?I can't wait for you to graduate from law school and pass your bar exams. I can already forsee you handling a case in the United Khaliphate's Sharia Family Court TV channel. A young Pakistani woman that happens to also be a rape victim (at the hands of a gang of Somalis or Algerians) is brought in before the court. She is charged with adultery, and you are defending her against the obligatory death sentence. Not only would you plead her guilty, but would recommend that she be executed as Sharia Law demands. You do ask the judge for the court to be merciful, and to execute her quickly. The judge then responds by saying, "your wish is granted- take the accused out back and stone her now!"NeonVomit wrote:Yeah, basically all far-right politicians are closet Nazis. They're trying to justify themselves by saying they speak for some 'silent majority' (the BNP here does... but they're another story) and they're basically just racists.
When on earth did I ever say anything that would make you think that I would even consider supporting something like that? How the hell could I possibly be practising law in a European country while thinking Sharia law is anything like an answer to any problem?
I am a pretty big supporter of human rights and equal treatment before the law. Why the fuck would I agree with anything from Sharia law which is basically the opposite of ALL of that?
Find evidence and quotes where I say it is a good idea.
No it's not, you're a fucking idiot who cannot grasp the notion of someone having an opinion different to yours possibly having any merit. Find a single quote where I say anything to that effect.Your notion of a free society is to allow the imposition of Sharia Law to proceed as quickly as possible.NeonVomit wrote:But I suppose this bunch are alright because they don't hate Jews, just Arabs. And immigrants. Which is clearly fine and in line with what a free society requires.
And anyone who disagrees with your idiotic ideas is a terrorist sympathiser LOOK AT ME I CAN MAKE SWEEPING GENERALIST STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT YOU BELIEVE DESPITE HAVING NO PROOF ABOUT IT AS WELL BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH YOUR OPINION BECAUSE I'M SO CLEVER HURR DURRFree handouts for anyone crossing the border with or without a passport, and anyone that disagrees with your radically idiotic ideas is then, per the standard lefty playbook, a "racist".
It's not difficult to make your opposition seem ridiculous, just paint them as supporting the ultimate evil and you're halfway there. Did you learn all your debating techniques from Republicans and Democrats during election cycles? I expected better from you before you turned into some sort of insane caricature of yourself.
When the hell did I ever say that I thought national security is not an issue? When did I ever say borders should be open and unprotected? When did I ever say I thought unchecked immigration and poor integration weren't things to be concerned about? Because I don't hate and mistrust all immigrants and minorities?
Find a quote where I said anything like that.
Why are you putting words into my mouth? To make me into the perfect leftist? To make me ONE OF THEM RARRRGH (Just a heads up, I voted for the right-wing candidate in the last Cyprus elections, and voted for Uribe next-to-last Colombian elections, so there goes that theory of yours along with every other preconception you've had) because you can't deal with a rational debate that doesn't descend into hyperbole and doesn't involve the extreme views?
I have moderate views. Which means I'm neither 'lefty' nor 'righty'. Get that into your head. If that doesn't fit into your cookie-cutter shape of the way things are, well I'm sorry but you've got to do some trimming.
Ok, look, because I clearly have to put things to you as if you were a child, let's go over what I believe again.
I believe that equal treatment
before the law
and BY the law,
regardless of race,
favourite ice cream flavour,
is the cornerstone of any free society.
When someone is found
guilty by a court of law,
then they will be treated
as a criminal,
but not before.
Now, that's not very complicated, is it? How does any of that make me a proponent of Sharia law?
I seem to remember YOU advocating the public execution of drug dealers without trial if I'm not mistaken... please correct me if I'm wrong. (Doesn't matter if innocent people get taken down as well does it, etc.) That's a hell of a lot closer to Sharia law (oh wait, they DO do that in Sharia law as the concept of a 'fair trial' is beyond them) than anything I'd ever support, so you've already disproved your own theory again. Nice one.
Let's have a little Criminal Law 101.
The whole foundation of the Common Law system (e.g. the US justice system, which is closely based on the English & Welsh system) is it is the very antithesis of 'victim's justice', which Sharia law is based upon. Of course the victim of a crime is not going to be in a position to be impartial and fair, they've just been wronged and are biased.
So, while I think the perfect punishment for that kid who stole my apples is to chop his hands off (Sharia law), the judge, with reference to statute and case law, might think it more appropriate to have him apologise to me, pay my losses of the stolen apples, do a bunch of community service and hopefully he won't do it again (Common law). If he does steal my apples again, then he's dealt with less leniently. I, as a victim, might be angry that he didn't get his hands chopped off and feel like justice hasn't been served and he got off light (because, I dunno, maybe I'm REALLY ANGRY he stole my apples or something), but the objective, non-involved person will probably see the latter as more akin to a punishment proportionate to his crime.
Which is why we have these things called JUDGES and JURIES to decide such matters. Their job is to do what is best for society as a whole, not what would best please the victim or their family. Does the system always work properly? Of course not, but I think you'll agree it's preferable to what they do in Saudi Arabia.
Using your ideas about the treatment of drug dealers as a starting point, you seem to be more of a supporter of victim's justice, which is the basis of Sharia law... executing a drug dealer without a trial seems like the 'noble' and right thing to do, but they might, just might, be innocent and that possibility has to be eliminated before a sentence is carried out (under the old Common law adage of 'It is better to let a guilty man go free than put an innocent man to death', the latter of which happens continuously in Sharia law jurisdictions.) If he pleads guilty, he's then given the chance to argue why his sentence should be as light as possible. The judge doesn't have to agree with him, but the fact that he has that chance is what makes our judicial system what it is.
Now (assuming I thought in the same way as you do and used your methods of reasoning) with this view I could easily start saying you're an ardent supporter of Sharia law. But somehow, logic and rational thought tell me that you are not a supporter of Sharia law.
Of course, you would understand this rationale if you actually had any idea about how the law functions and why it does so in such a manner in Western society.
So please, seriously, don't say I support Sharia law, because you're making yourself look like an idiot.
See, this just shows what an incredibly poor understanding of anyone else's opinions you have.Here is NV's dream of a "free and open society in Europe" (and, if atall possible, in America as well.)
Find any posts where I express support for any aspect of Islamic extremism. Find ONE single thing that shows I agree with it.
Sorry for not agreeing with your twisted worldview... look, I understand you have nightmares about the Islamist bogeyman, but it really doesn't mean that someone who thinks something different is automatically one of them. I mean, my sister was almost blown up by them and I still manage to have something akin to a balanced view on the matter, what did they ever do to you in Tennessee to make you so angry?
Why is it so difficult for you to grasp the notion of PEOPLE DISAGREEING WITH YOU NOT BEING TERRORIST SYMPATHISERS?
Don't fucking judge me. I'm not the one with radicalist views here, you are.