Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I'm just praying the Tories or Labour attempt to appease that group. Somebody other than the BNP. It needs no legs

At 10/7/09 04:04 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 10/7/09 03:12 PM, DiscipleofCthulhu wrote: Laws get abused everywhere, and we are just as merciless in implementing the law wheresoever we find it.

This is the point I was making.

Perhaps what I failed to point out eloquently is that we are merciless in prosecuting those who abuse the law. Governments will fail, they will abuse the law, however they are not above the law and they will be punished.

The British legal system my not be entirely secular, correct: we are human. However it is not openly religious and it at least claims to promote equality and various freedoms. Its the best we have.

That is only a recent development! And whose to say the legal framework we have wouldn't introduce those ideas and values into Islamic law if it were made legally binding to those who follow Islam in the UK???

Indeed it is a recent development, we cannot forget we have a history of theocratic laws. However, we have put theocracy behind us, we recognize secular laws to be the way forward. Sharia does not. Key Point. These freedoms may be incorporated to be made legally binding for those that follow Islam, however this indicates one law for the Muslims and another for everyone else. This is moving towards the Separate But Equal principle, and it is renown how well that worked. Its also a basic tenet of both laws (and pretty well all laws) that only one law applies to all people in one country.

At 10/3/09 06:42 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

Laws get abused in the UK as well.

Laws get abused everywhere, and we are just as merciless in implementing the law wheresoever we find it. The British legal system my not be entirely secular, correct: we are human. However it is not openly religious and it at least claims to promote equality and various freedoms. Its the best we have.

Sharia law has no place outside of a mosque.

I'm afraid, bigoted though it may seem, I am forced to agree here. Really, there should be only one legalistic system, as anything else contradicts the old "all men are equal before the eyes of the law" dictum. I will be damned if I see sharia law in Britain (or indeed any non-secular law), and I believe if you come to Britain, you are fully entitled to carry with you your own culture and beliefs, as long as they do not impinge on ours.

Actually, looking over some articles, they already can have the sharia law option. The act that enabled them to do this was the same as the one that enabled jews to have their cases tried in jewish courts

To clear this Islamic law thing up again. The introduction of Islamic (sharia) law into the UK will have ZERO effect on you! You will not be bound by it in any way. It will not effect you in any way. What it will mean if introduced is an option for Muslims.

Does this mean it will be entirely different from all the other cases where sharia law is implemented? certainly in all sharia law countries it is the overruling law, that everyone is subject to it, indeed even in the moderate Islamic countries like the old Ottoman empire, if a Muslim was involved in an offence then all other laws that non-Muslims where permitted to use became sub-ordinate to sharia law (in which, incidentally, any unbeliever testimony against Muslims was not accepted). Does this mean that this flavor law is truly sharia? sharia is by definition mutually exclusive with other laws.

As I British person, I find this rather funny.

I'm a Briton, and Iooking over this thread, i'd like to know what the perceived problem with socialism and a socialized economy is? over here, the most humane and socially aware policies have been implemented by socialist governments, like the National Health Service and the Striker rights acts. What is the issue that the Right have?

At 6/7/09 02:32 AM, b0b3rt wrote:

Note that by definition, information obtained from a torture subject is independently verifiable.

Why should information obtained from a torture subject be independently
verifiable? if it extracted as a last resort, as it usually is, there may be no other means of getting the information. Bear in mind torture is a very messy and inaccurate way of acquiring information, as you will be putting someone who really doesn't want to tell you something under considerable duress, that may alter their testimony. The questions have the be very carefully phrased to misinterpretations are pruned out, and we all ready know that under enough torture, people will admit almost anything, so compared to intercepting messages and informants, its a pretty bad system. Typically, in the history of mankind, people rarely rely on information taken by torture.

I tend to say Compatriot rather than mate, but i'm weird

At 6/16/09 03:10 PM, PrawDuhJee wrote:

The word mate is used to describe the relationship between spouses.

Typical American, unable to comprehend any sort of system that does not mean what they think it does.

I know it sounds like a bit of a non-sequitur, but which genius decided that the Jewish Nation should be put, right in the middle of the Arab nations? The wonderful mastermind of this must have known that Israel would be fighting on all fronts to maintain itself, so either he was a fool, or he actually wanted continuous war in the middle east, which sounds like typical western thinking, get someone to fight for you.

At 6/16/09 06:09 PM, springheeledjack wrote: How the fuck is it the UNs fucking business to intrude on the palestinian peoples lives and invade their soil

I agree wholeheartedly with you Springheeledjack on that, theres a phrase for people who claim they are democratic and then displace a coulpa millions people, and that phrase is "oppressive, hypocritical bastards"
. Anyway do not EVEN try to deny that jews took part in displacing and oppressing palestinians. Its bullshit.

I think you might be mistaken here, the Jews have picked up where the UN left off

At 6/16/09 05:22 PM, springheeledjack wrote:

oh so thats why we allow them to murder Palestinian civilians

I'm sorry, who forced the Palestinians to move from there homelands and become refugees? was it Israel? no, Israel played a part, but for the most part, it was UN soldiers, supposed peace keepers, who displaced them. Now to call their attack on Palestine as anything other then keeping the status quo the UN instated would be foolishness. Incidentally, Israel takes large measures to protect its civilians, whereas Hamas puts its rocket launchers in schools and hospitals so when israel bombs it Israel looks like the bad guys. Its the different between and official army and a terrorist organization/freedom fighter organization/ fill in your name for it here

Sadly this isn't an option, Israel wouldn't exist without the UN powers-that-be and they are meant to be the Western powers greatest ally in the area. What message do we send to other possibly friendly Arab nations in the middle east if we nuke our old friend and ally Israel?

Sadly, torture leaves you unable to claim the moralistic high ground, which is becoming oh-so important in the great and glorious global system we call the UN.

I would of course shake hands with his beard tendrils

If you talk solely of militaristic power, then sure, the US is a force to be reckoned with. But think, most US consumer products are made abroad in places like China and Indonesia. The American economy is dependant mostly on Arab and Russia oil. What would they acheive with a self imposed blockade? Starvation?

At 5/15/09 07:08 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 5/13/09 10:37 PM, X-TERRORIST-X wrote:

At 5/12/09 03:04 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

There isn't as many gangs because, let's face it, there isn't as many black people. Don't label me as racist because of that, it's the gods-honest truth.
True or not, it's definately a racist comment.

Could I offer a possible, rational explanation why black people may be more likely to be in gangs? It has already been said that racism still exists in the form of lower wages, and we know that poorer people are more likely to result to crime. Possibly it is this social injustice that means you will find more black people in gangs, because they come from poorer families and are less able to feed themselves otherwise?