European refugee crisis: tensions mounting, nations reacting

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T

tanach

Guest
I am concerned about our society here. I saw a news report and footage on television this morning of a far right wing political party called Britain First marching through a town with a large immigrant population consisting mainly of muslims, waving Union and English flags.The worrying thing is that they have thousands of supporters on Face Book more in fact than our two main political parties combined. The leaders claim they are Christian but don't look it.
 

Agricola

Senior Member
Dec 10, 2012
2,638
88
48
UK is going to hell with the Islamification of this nation well under way with Cameron even telling Muslims they should strive to have a government led and run by Muslims and military leaders. Cameron is like a scared kid who has been victim of bullying, he is too scared to stand up to Muslims and the threat they bring, instead telling them and giving them everything they want in fear of reprisals and what they will do next.

When the Queen dies and Charles takes over, another muslim lover, then we will have no serious objectors with any kind of power left against Islam.
 

Yeraza_Bats

Senior Member
Dec 11, 2014
3,632
175
63
35
According to Christian creed, isn't the man the authority over the woman? Doesn't the Christian God also condone mass ethnic cleansing, specifically against the Amalekites, and the Philistines (1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and utterly destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys ---- 18:6 When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistines, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with tambourines and lutes.18:7 As they danced, they sang: “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.”)? Doesn't the Christian bible (New Testament) condone enslaving those who owe debts, too? There are a whole host of immoral practices and teachings in the Christian bible, in fact, it's more violent than the Quran is.

But you know what you have in common with all those peaceful Muslims who don't murder, rape, pillage, steal, cheat and enslave, AoK? It's the fact that you've chosen not to follow all the violent, ugly tenets within the book you like. But I'll see your Sharia with my Law of the Prophets, I'll see your painting of Christians as idolaters with my painting of all Muslims as mass murdering psychopaths. I'll see your ownership of females with my total authority over females, and I'll see your jihad with my herem. You're the pot calling the kettle black.

So, you believe that the Lord commanding His people to fight with a nation that once stood against Him is = to allah telling his people to kill all those who refuse to believe in muhammads teachings?


Also, there may be peaceful muslims, but islam is not a peaceful religion, no. Read Christ's teachings, and then read the quran. You will not find any commandments to gather against anyone in Christ's words, His mission was to spread the Gospel. Allahs, on the other hand, IS to force those who dont believe to either accept in allah by saying aloud "there is no god but allah" ect ect, or be killed. I actually just posted a few on the thread about a Christian killing his islamic child in the bible thread. I do not believe you really know either the bible or the quran.

And again, I have found no verse that claims men own women. But in the quran, woman have half the standing as a man.

But yeah, of course, any atheist will tell you that being commanded to love your wife to the point youd give your life for her is 100% equal to women have half the standing as a man, yeah.
 
Feb 24, 2015
13,204
168
0
Islam is an idea, a label. But to a degree it does not exist, it just polarizes and perpetuates the label. Once you get the label, then a nutter can murder you and walk away, and the government or society turn a blind eye.

Now to those in society who do not care, the psychopaths this is a dream come true. The more brutal you are, the better, just find the excuse. The righteous poor man who just wants to defend their business and family are the victim. No one stands for them, because to stand for them is to deny Islam, because the only issue is what does Islam say.

The counter narrative is justice matters, what happens to the individual is everything. Love, truth and justice, bringing crimes home to the people who commit them, that brings social stability.

Against a people who believe in the label and chaos this brings, you have to be brutal, zero tolerant, and force real justice and answering for their behaviour in the courts. That is why european jails are filling with muslims, because they do not respect or care for each other or the society in which they live.

So giving aid to refugees is not a simple task or talking about people who really want help in the way we think about it. They want help and then they want to take over and inforce their injustice on all and take what they believe to be their rights.

We in the west believe people can live by their conscience. What happens when you deny your conscience and only live by what a teacher tells you is right? You end in anarchy and social war.
 
Aug 12, 2015
539
7
0
You don't claim to be a Christian or a muslim?...yet you claim to be able to judge the intention and use of the scriptures...well according to the scriptures themselves, its impossible for you to understand the purpose and intention of our scriptures ...and common sense with the evidence of what is seen in Christian culture and muslim culture declares what your trying to assert is just nonsense .... The western Christian culture is the culture that gives dignity and honor with love to women. The muslim culture is a culture of rape and slavery for women, any honest person can see that.
You don't get to have it both ways. If all Muslims are to follow the Quran to the letter and thus make their women wear the hijab and assert total authority over their women, nomatter what culture they reside in (Western or Eastern), then Christians must also follow the bible to the letter. And the bible says men have authority over women, women aren't to speak in church, women aren't to usurp authority from a man, and that women must dress modestly. The issue here is not "which religion gives women no rights", because neither religion gives women many, if any, rights. THe issue is which culture gives women more rights.

It's not "Western Christianity" that affords Western freedoms to women, it's Western secularism that affords women those freedoms. If Western Christians followed Paul's instructions, women would have their heads covered, they'd have to remain silent in church, they'd have no power to usurp a man, and men would be the "head" of women, but Western Christians don't follow those instructions because Western secular law doesn't allow them to.

That's why in countries like Syria, Iraq, and Iran, Christian women are expected to cover up just like Muslim women, and are expected to defer to men in all matters, and are given less social and legal powers than men are: the BIBLE and the QURAN both teach those things. I don't need to be a theological genius to work that out. Those instructions are plain to see.
 

Yeraza_Bats

Senior Member
Dec 11, 2014
3,632
175
63
35
You don't get to have it both ways. If all Muslims are to follow the Quran to the letter and thus make their women wear the hijab and assert total authority over their women, nomatter what culture they reside in (Western or Eastern), then Christians must also follow the bible to the letter. And the bible says men have authority over women, women aren't to speak in church, women aren't to usurp authority from a man, and that women must dress modestly. The issue here is not "which religion gives women no rights", because neither religion gives women many, if any, rights. THe issue is which culture gives women more rights.

It's not "Western Christianity" that affords Western freedoms to women, it's Western secularism that affords women those freedoms. If Western Christians followed Paul's instructions, women would have their heads covered, they'd have to remain silent in church, they'd have no power to usurp a man, and men would be the "head" of women, but Western Christians don't follow those instructions because Western secular law doesn't allow them to.

That's why in countries like Syria, Iraq, and Iran, Christian women are expected to cover up just like Muslim women, and are expected to defer to men in all matters, and are given less social and legal powers than men are: the BIBLE and the QURAN both teach those things. I don't need to be a theological genius to work that out. Those instructions are plain to see.
Although a commandment for women to not speak at a church might seem horrible to someone who does not follow Gods word, it is not really one that causes real harm, when I am at church I do not speak, I sit and listen. Because I came to learn, and not to teach. I do not feel that by not talking Im being hurt at all, I am not the teacher, and if I disagree with a teaching I will probly talk with my friends and family after the sermon about it, and the bible does not say that women can never talk about Gods word ever.

The quran, however, does literally put women as less then men, by definition.
 
Aug 12, 2015
539
7
0
Although a commandment for women to not speak at a church might seem horrible to someone who does not follow Gods word, it is not really one that causes real harm, when I am at church I do not speak, I sit and listen. Because I came to learn, and not to teach. I do not feel that by not talking Im being hurt at all, I am not the teacher, and if I disagree with a teaching I will probly talk with my friends and family after the sermon about it, and the bible does not say that women can never talk about Gods word ever.

The quran, however, does literally put women as less then men, by definition.
So does the bible!

Matthew 5:32 and 19:19 contain permission for men to divorce their wives if they're unfaithful, but contain no instruction allowing women to divorce their husbands.

Mark 10:29-30 contains prophesy that God will reward men who desert their wives and children for "God's cause".

Luke 2:22 tells us that even Mary was "unclean" after giving birth to Jesus.

1 Corinthians 11:3 tells us that men are the head of women.

11:5 - 7 tell us that women have to cover their heads or have their hair shaved off as penalty for not covering their heads, and that while man is the image and glory of God, women are the glory of men.

11:8 tells us that men aren't of the women, but that women are of the men.

11:9 tells us that men weren't created for women, but the other way around.

14:34-35 tells us women must be silent in church and must take orders from men.

Ephesians 5:22-24 tells us that women must submit to their husbands in everything. Collosians 3:18 and 1 Thessalonians 4:4 contain similar instructions.

1 Timothy 2:9 tells us women are to dress modestly, "shamefaced", and without braided hear or jewellery.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 tells us that women must "learn in silence with all submissiveness" for "I suffer a woman not to teach, nor to usurp any authority over man".

1 Timothy 2:14-15 essentially describes male superiority: men came first and sinned second. But women, thankfully, will be justified by going through painful labour.

1 Timothy 5:3-9 tell us that widows must only be helped if they have no nephews, that if any are under the age of 60 they must not help a widow or be helped as a widow, and that young widows should remarry and have children, but are to be shamed for life because they "cast off their first love". But this is apparently better than the alternative, which is "idle, single" women turning into "busybodies and gossipers".

1 Peter 3:1 tells us wives should be in subjection to their husbands, and 3:7 tells us that women are "weaker vessels" in relation to their husbands.

That's just the New Testament. The old Testament condones the rape of slaves, the rape of women who are conquered, it instructs a rapist to marry his victim because she's "defiled", which means she's no use to any righteous man. It condones slaughtering women and children (even pregnant ones at times) and capturing prepubescent girls to become slaves, concubines or both.

It certainly seems to me like the bible puts men as better, more powerful, more authoritative, less sinful, more important and much stronger and useful than women. Frankly, I don't think it's any different than Islam in that respect, except that most Western Christian men don't actually follow these instructions practically, in their everyday lives. And look, I'll tell you the truth, neither do many Western Muslims. Most Muslim women in the West cover their heads, but as for the rest -- the total submission to your husband, having no say in anything, having no authority, no place -- I know plenty of Muslim couples who don't do things that way.

I don't know how many times I have to make the point, but I'll make it again. Both the Bible and Quran teach the inferiority of women to men. Both the bible and Quran teach women to dress modestly, cover their heads, and submit to males. But not every Muslim and Christian (particularly in the West) follow those instructions. Why? Because secular laws don't allow for it.
 
Aug 12, 2015
539
7
0
The scary part is that it was only 50 or so years ago that Western secular laws did allow for women to be treated as inferior people. And lots of men, mostly right wing conservative ones, fought hard against the liberation of women, even back then, just a few decades ago. Eastern societies just haven't got that far yet. But take heart: Iran, to name one country, has in recent years made massive leaps in women's rights. Women in Iran now have recourse for divorce, women in Iran can also now be educated. It takes time, but don't fool yourself into thinking Christians and Westerners have always championed the woman's cause, because they haven't.
 
Last edited:
Aug 12, 2015
539
7
0
UK is going to hell with the Islamification of this nation well under way with Cameron even telling Muslims they should strive to have a government led and run by Muslims and military leaders. Cameron is like a scared kid who has been victim of bullying, he is too scared to stand up to Muslims and the threat they bring, instead telling them and giving them everything they want in fear of reprisals and what they will do next.

When the Queen dies and Charles takes over, another muslim lover, then we will have no serious objectors with any kind of power left against Islam.
What the UK needs to do is codify a constitution that explicitly separates church and state and gets rid of the monarchy. Then, there's no legal recourse for any religiously motivated laws or bills to put through Parliament. Securing the rights of the people to practice any religion they wish, on equal legal ground with any irreligious person is fundamental in establishing the securities and freedoms we've come to expect in a Western secular state.

The Americans did it over seventy years ago, and they're the only country in the world who have, so far. Constitutionally, it is utterly impossible for a religious person's religion to exempt them from the law in the US. The same is true in the UK, in everyday practical terms, but only insofar as the Monarchy sees fit. That's not fair. It's important both in securing the rights of atheists, Christians and Muslims to practice freely and peacefully, but also in penalizing those whose practice is not peaceful, to legally and constitutionally separate church and state.
 

Yeraza_Bats

Senior Member
Dec 11, 2014
3,632
175
63
35
So does the bible!

Matthew 5:32 and 19:19 contain permission for men to divorce their wives if they're unfaithful, but contain no instruction allowing women to divorce their husbands.

Mark 10:29-30 contains prophesy that God will reward men who desert their wives and children for "God's cause".

Luke 2:22 tells us that even Mary was "unclean" after giving birth to Jesus.

1 Corinthians 11:3 tells us that men are the head of women.

11:5 - 7 tell us that women have to cover their heads or have their hair shaved off as penalty for not covering their heads, and that while man is the image and glory of God, women are the glory of men.

11:8 tells us that men aren't of the women, but that women are of the men.

11:9 tells us that men weren't created for women, but the other way around.

14:34-35 tells us women must be silent in church and must take orders from men.

Ephesians 5:22-24 tells us that women must submit to their husbands in everything. Collosians 3:18 and 1 Thessalonians 4:4 contain similar instructions.

1 Timothy 2:9 tells us women are to dress modestly, "shamefaced", and without braided hear or jewellery.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 tells us that women must "learn in silence with all submissiveness" for "I suffer a woman not to teach, nor to usurp any authority over man".

1 Timothy 2:14-15 essentially describes male superiority: men came first and sinned second. But women, thankfully, will be justified by going through painful labour.

1 Timothy 5:3-9 tell us that widows must only be helped if they have no nephews, that if any are under the age of 60 they must not help a widow or be helped as a widow, and that young widows should remarry and have children, but are to be shamed for life because they "cast off their first love". But this is apparently better than the alternative, which is "idle, single" women turning into "busybodies and gossipers".

1 Peter 3:1 tells us wives should be in subjection to their husbands, and 3:7 tells us that women are "weaker vessels" in relation to their husbands.

That's just the New Testament. The old Testament condones the rape of slaves, the rape of women who are conquered, it instructs a rapist to marry his victim because she's "defiled", which means she's no use to any righteous man. It condones slaughtering women and children (even pregnant ones at times) and capturing prepubescent girls to become slaves, concubines or both.

It certainly seems to me like the bible puts men as better, more powerful, more authoritative, less sinful, more important and much stronger and useful than women. Frankly, I don't think it's any different than Islam in that respect, except that most Western Christian men don't actually follow these instructions practically, in their everyday lives. And look, I'll tell you the truth, neither do many Western Muslims. Most Muslim women in the West cover their heads, but as for the rest -- the total submission to your husband, having no say in anything, having no authority, no place -- I know plenty of Muslim couples who don't do things that way.

I don't know how many times I have to make the point, but I'll make it again. Both the Bible and Quran teach the inferiority of women to men. Both the bible and Quran teach women to dress modestly, cover their heads, and submit to males. But not every Muslim and Christian (particularly in the West) follow those instructions. Why? Because secular laws don't allow for it.

Matthew 5:32 is Christ telling His followers that any man who leaves His wife for anything besides sexual immorality is guilty of making her a victim of adultery, so nope.

Matthew 19:19 is honor thy father and thy mother, that doesnt fit anything you stated, so nope.

Mark 10:29 seems to be about those who go off to spread the Gospel, and in no way reflects injustice of women at all, and really is just mentioning leaving home, parents siblings and family. So nope.

Luke 2:22, I really cant see your point, how does this show injustice for women?

1 cor 11:3- Haha, the people of CC talk about this alot, yeah God put men to be in charge of the family and lead, and commanded that women let them lead. Did you know that God also commanded that men love their wives like Christ did, to the point of giving their life for them? There is no word on "well, men! Youre wives are all yours, do whatever you want!"
But of course the athiest will leave that part out in order to make it look monsterous, yeah :p

1 cor 11:5 I do not see dressing modestly as injustice at all. Yeah, no one does this, men or woman, but that doesnt make it an "evil" law, and I kinda wish the world followed this one more.

11:8 Eve was made off a part of Adams body, yeah. And both Adam and Eve are made from the breath of God.

11:9 Yes, Eve was made as a companion for Adam. God said it is not good for man to be alone, so He created women to be the companion of men, and gave us the ability to have children together, therefore ensuring we would not be alone.

14:34-35 I already brought that one up, I do not believe that being silent at church hurts anyone, most of the people when at a sermon sit and listen. Its part of the learning experience. And yeah, women should totally talk to their husbands about the word of God, I want a wife who will talk with me about it often :p I dont see how this hurts anyone.

Eph 5:22-24 Yes, again God has made the man the head of the family. And just as women should obey their husband, men are to obey the commandments of God, I already shared with you what His commandments were for men :p If a man breaks His commandments and uses his place for evil, dont you believe that God will hold Him accountable? But if a woman suffers at the hand of an evil man for the sake of obeying God, dont you believe that she will be blessed by Him?

1 Tim 2:9 God hates vanity and materialism, yeah. He also gives commandments on men how to look and dress, there is no allowing men to do these things while not letting women do these things. This is not injustice

1 Tim 2:11 Already covered that one

1 Tim 2:14 Yeah, Eve ate the fruit first, and through that child bearing now causes pain. But even with the pain, Im sure most Christian women would tell you they are honored to give birth to a child for God, it is totally a gift. And keep in mind, the bible tells ALL of us that we are fallen, sinful and wicked and are only saved because it is more pleasing to God to do so rather than destroy us, and Adam is guilty of eating from the fruit to, as they were both cast out of the garden. No where does the bible say women are wicked, and men are righteous. Not one of us is righteous, no not one.

1 Tim 5:3-9 Wow this one is all over the place. So letting family take care of family first is a bad thing? Wow. I did not know this, I better avoid helping my mom from now on. These verses here seem to be about how to take care of a widow, that this should be for an older woman who was faithful to her husband, which makes absolute sense cuz like really, how many 60 year old women are going to want to go back out and get married again after losing their husband? This seems like a wonderful thing to me, commanding that we take care of any older women in our family who have lost their husband. Does this not take care of the woman entirely?

And the last one again covers men being put in charge of the family, just like when a man goes to work he is commanded to obey his employer, that we are to obey authorities, and that we all must obey God first. It seems the secular world considers having people be in charge of anything is an extreme evil.

And I didnt really read all of what you posted after this, but the women being more evil and all that, where do you get that? Everyone of us has been condemned, not a single one of us are righteous. So the fact that we are told women are unrighteous as well as men is an injustice to women to you? Okay then.


As for the quran though, it actually DOES preach that women are more sinful then men, in fact muhammad himself said that the majority of hell was made up of women. He also preached that women had half the standing of men, that when a woman had to explain something, she had to have another women to correct her for getting her words wrong, because women are not very intelligent, and needed someone to keep her testimony in check, and that a womans word is one half of a mans. The quran also does teach for men to beat their wives when they dont obey, find that in the bible for me.
 

Agricola

Senior Member
Dec 10, 2012
2,638
88
48
Omni, we already allow people to practice thier religion in peace, that is why we allow muslims on Rememberance Sunday to chant "British soldiers can burn in hell" and "British soldiers are terrorists". That is why we allow Muslims to build the largets Mosque in Europe, that is why we allow Muslims to replace the non-muslim populations in numerous cities.

Seperation of CHurch from State will have no effect on the rise of Islam, if anything it will hasten it. What do you think will happen when we have a majority of Muslim MPs and a Muslim Prime Minister, with Muslims leading the armed forces? This is what Cameron was encouraging.
 
Aug 12, 2015
539
7
0
Omni, we already allow people to practice thier religion in peace, that is why we allow muslims on Rememberance Sunday to chant "British soldiers can burn in hell" and "British soldiers are terrorists". That is why we allow Muslims to build the largets Mosque in Europe, that is why we allow Muslims to replace the non-muslim populations in numerous cities.
Agricola, chanting hate and intimidating people is not practicing religion in peace. Many of those protesters were arrested. As for those who chanted in peace, well, it is their right. It's also your right to form a counter-protest, if you so wished. As for "replacing populations", that's not a fair representation of what's happening. Many ethnic groups form small close-knit communities when they emigrate. Muslims of whichever cultural persuasion are no different. We don't specifically set out to substitute white English communities with Pakistani Muslims, but it happens because of various factors. Look at New York as a perfect example of how a multicultural city often becomes: you have Chinatown (mostly East Asians), the Bronx (mostly Irish), Little Italy (mostly American Italians), Harlem (mostly African Americans). It's not just the UK, or London, and it's not just Muslims. ALL cultures do this, all over the world.

Seperation of CHurch from State will have no effect on the rise of Islam, if anything it will hasten it. What do you think will happen when we have a majority of Muslim MPs and a Muslim Prime Minister, with Muslims leading the armed forces? This is what Cameron was encouraging.
A codified separation of church and state, and a constitutional bill of rights, mean that legally, religion is not allowed to influence legal precedents. The constitutional part of this means that no law can be created against or contrary to any precedent within that constitution. It means that there is absolutely no way that Muslim doctrine or Christian doctrine (whether the PM is Muslim or Christian or atheist or Buddhist or whatever) can affect legal policy.

So even if the London Mayor was a Muslim, he can do nothing which is against the constitution and/or the separation of religion and state.

That's why it's important to create these foundations now, before a Muslim or an Evangelical Christian gets into power. It's only a matter of time before multiculturalism and progressivism bring us politicians who are Muslims, atheists, Jews, Buddhists, whatever. We've had Christian politicians for centuries. The point is, if we establish a secular constitution, then NONE of these people -- whether they are judges, politicians, police officers -- can let their religions influence policy or garner legal favour.
 

Agricola

Senior Member
Dec 10, 2012
2,638
88
48
Tell that to the people who lived in Northern Sudan and NIgeria.
 
T

tanach

Guest
UK is going to hell with the Islamification of this nation well under way with Cameron even telling Muslims they should strive to have a government led and run by Muslims and military leaders. Cameron is like a scared kid who has been victim of bullying, he is too scared to stand up to Muslims and the threat they bring, instead telling them and giving them everything they want in fear of reprisals and what they will do next.

When the Queen dies and Charles takes over, another muslim lover, then we will have no serious objectors with any kind of power left against Islam.
The main problem is that a far right party in power would not stop at Islam. When Hitler took power it started with Jewish
persecution and went on to persecution of rival parties, trade unions and in fact anyone who opposed his rule. The only group that appears to have been safe were Catholics because he was in league with Musolini and it served his purpose to keep the Pope and the Italian fascists happy.
 

Desdichado

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2014
8,768
838
113
The main problem is that a far right party in power would not stop at Islam. When Hitler took power it started with Jewish
persecution and went on to persecution of rival parties, trade unions and in fact anyone who opposed his rule. The only group that appears to have been safe were Catholics because he was in league with Musolini and it served his purpose to keep the Pope and the Italian fascists happy.
Britain First has already made those bloody intentions clear. They propose hanging traitors.

On it's face, of course, hanging traitors doesn't sound like such a bad thing. When you expand the definition of "traitor" to everyone who may disagree with Britain First on policy, then you have problems. It seems that is what Britain First is intent on doing.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,707
3,650
113
We best keep our eyes on Europe in the coming weeks. At the beginning of the month, the U.S. came under increasing pressure -- which continues -- to take in Syrian and other refugees. Obama has said we can take in as many as 65,000 of them.

Yeah, right. We're $18.3 trillion in debt, already have as many as 30 million illegal aliens within our borders, have an economy that is crippled despite the government's efforts to paint it as rosy, and can't afford to fight a war if it becomes necessary. What the hell are we going to do with 65,000 Syrians and others, among whom will undoubtedly be still more terrorists seeking to wage jihad against the West.

Could the clown in the White House by any more ignorant?
In the light of yesterday's carnage in France, I wonder if there has been any 2nd thoughts from the bleeding hearts?
 
T

tanach

Guest
Oh and it's not just Syrian refugees - they have all jumped on the bandwagon - we don't know what we're getting and that includes terrorists!
I would hope that what happened in Paris would be a wake up call for our Government and the rest of the EU but I doubt it.
I really can see that the situation will get worse. I expect to see a rise in popularity of extreme right wing party's in Europe before long. France is holding local elections in a few weeks time. I think the National front will be doing very well there.
 
Last edited:
T

tanach

Guest
Britain First has already made those bloody intentions clear. They propose hanging traitors.

On it's face, of course, hanging traitors doesn't sound like such a bad thing. When you expand the definition of "traitor" to everyone who may disagree with Britain First on policy, then you have problems. It seems that is what Britain First is intent on doing.
Extreme right wing parties like Britain First pull very few votes in Britain. Our system is such that the two main Parties dominate the political field. In our election last May the new United Kingdom Independence Party,(UKIP) gained 4,000,000 votes but ended up with only one member for Parliament.
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
In the light of yesterday's carnage in France, I wonder if there has been any 2nd thoughts from the bleeding hearts?
No... just as they don't mind spending other people money ...they don't mind sending killers into other peoples towns and communities ....Funny how these liberals with these high ideas, never really have to pay the price for those ideas. Obama for instance will be guarded by the secret service the rest of his life (with guns) as he tries to disarm the American people and fill our nation with people who we know will have cold blooded killers in their numbers.