6 men plead guilty to planning terrorist attack in England

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/30/6-men-plead-guilty-in-uk-over-terror-plot-targeting-far-right-rally/?test=latestnews


Six men pleaded guilty in Britain on Tuesday to planning a terrorist attack on a demonstration by the far-right English Defense League which failed because the plotters arrived after the rally ended.:laugh2:



Jewel Uddin, Omar Mohammed Khan, Mohammed Hasseen, Anzal Hussain, Mohammed Saud and Zohaib Ahmed — all from Birmingham in central England — were charged with preparing an act of terrorism.Nice Christian names, right, Jahil?



The car was impounded, and counterterrorism officers were called in after a search of the vehicle uncovered sawed-off shotguns, swords, knives, a nail bomb and a partially assembled pipe bomb. There was also a note, filled with angry comments about enemies of Islam.That just cannot be true! After all, Jahil will explain that these men were not 'really' Islamic, right Jahil?

[Drummond]

You've beaten me to it by a few hours, Marcus.

Jafar will be delighted. Naturally, on the grounds that 'they're not Muslims', he should be able to start some libel actions .. yes ?

Here's one for him ... there's no mistaking what THIS says. From the Yorkshire Post ....

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/general-news/muslim-terrorists-tried-to-blow-up-edl-rally-in-dewsbury-1-5629249


SIX Islamic extremists have admitted planning a bloody attack on a far-right rally in West Yorkshire in a plot that failed only by chance despite one of them being under surveillance.

The six admitted preparing an act of terrorism between May 1 and July 4 last year when they appeared at London’s Woolwich Crown Court.

They had previously denied the charge but Jewel Uddin, 27, Omar Mohammed Khan, 31, Mohammed Hasseen, 24, Anzal Hussain, 24, Mohammed Saud, 22, and Zohaib Ahmed, 22, changed their pleas.

They will be sentenced on June 6 with Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC, the Recorder of Greenwich, warning them: “This will attract significant custody. There is no doubt about that.”

The murderous plan targeting the English Defence League (EDL) fell apart because the gathering in Dewsbury, finished earlier than expected.

Police and security services had no intelligence about the planned attack on June 30 last year, although Uddin was under surveillance in relation to another terrorist plan.

Ahmed was also on bail for possession of terrorist documents at the time of the plot.

All of the men except Hasseen travelled to the rally armed with two shotguns, swords, knives, a nail bomb containing 458 pieces of shrapnel, and a partially assembled pipe bomb, ready to cause mass injuries and deaths.

The nail bomb was an 18-inch (46cm) long rocket which was stuffed with shrapnel and was to be powered by explosives taken from at least two large fireworks.

Police estimated there could have been up to 750 EDL marchers at the Dewsbury event, but also dozens of officers and innocent passers-by.

The fanatics’ plan failed by chance, because they arrived at 4pm when the rally had dispersed by 2pm.

The planned atrocity was only uncovered because a traffic officer stopped Uddin and Khan on the M1 as they travelled home to Birmingham.

Checks showed their Renault Laguna was uninsured, so the car was impounded.

Two days later staff at the pound near Sheffield looked at the contents of the Renault and found the gang’s arsenal.

There were also 10 copies of a hate-filled note addressed to the enemies of Islam, the Queen and Prime Minister David Cameron.

It said: “This is a message to the enemies of Allah and his messenger. This is a message to the kafir (non-believer) female devil and self-proclaimed Queen Elizabeth and her accursed jubilee, fooling a nation of blind sheep to your self-proclaimed royalty and majesty.”

The document addressed the EDL directly, saying: “To the EDL (English Drunkards League). O enemies of Allah! We have heard and seen you openly insulting the final Messenger of Allah... you should know that for every action there is a reaction.

“Today is a day of retaliation (especially) for your blasphemy of Allah and his Messenger Muhammad. We love death more than you love life. The penalty for blasphemy of Allah and his Messenger Muhammad is death.

“What we did today was a direct retaliation of your insulting of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and also in retaliation of your crusade against Islam/Muslims on a global scale. It is of the greatest honour for us to do what we did.”

CDs of speeches by hate preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by an American drone in 2011, were also found.

Never mind, Jafar. Maybe ... they were joking ??

So, OK. Start your libel proceedings against the Yorkshire Post, Jafar, and let us know how they progress ...

... you WILL be taking action, won't you, Jafar ? Eh ? We can't have shifty paedophile Prophets being linked to this sort of thing, now, can we ??

[Marcus Aurelius]

First thing they should have prayed to Allah for was a watch that worked. Dumb asses.

[Drummond]

First thing they should have prayed to Allah for was a watch that worked. Dumb asses.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[aboutime]

Guess this finally proves that our warnings to jafar...went unheeded. :)

Wonder if he will have access to the Internet while Incarcerated in the U.K.??? :)

[Drummond]

Guess this finally proves that our warnings to jafar...went unheeded. :)

Wonder if he will have access to the Internet while Incarcerated in the U.K.??? :)

Funny you should ask. It so happens that there's a story in our press today about the suggestion that British prisoners may have a tougher time of it in future. Prisoners giving trouble might - for example (.. shock, horror ..) be deprived of ..

.... wait for it ...

.... SATELLITE TV VIEWING ...

Jafar's access to the Internet may be directly proportional to the number of Hamas operations he's been pleased to 'overlook' during his time supporting their wholly Islamic, yet 'not Islamic at all', terrorist activities ....

:blowup::blowup:

[aboutime]

Funny you should ask. It so happens that there's a story in our press today about the suggestion that British prisoners may have a tougher time of it in future. Prisoners giving trouble might - for example (.. shock, horror ..) be deprived of ..

.... wait for it ...

.... SATELLITE TV VIEWING ...

Jafar's access to the Internet may be directly proportional to the number of Hamas operations he's been pleased to 'overlook' during his time supporting their wholly Islamic, yet 'not Islamic at all', terrorist activities ....

:blowup::blowup:

​Ohhhhhh, Noooooo!

[Drummond]

​Ohhhhhh, Noooooo!

I won't dwell on this. All the same .. see ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20417212


All prisoners in England and Wales could be banned from watching channels such as Sky Sports in their cells, a government minister has indicated.

Offenders in private prisons are able to access pay-TV channels for a small weekly fee, but inmates in publicly run jails can only watch free-to-air ones.

Asked on Tuesday whether this would continue, Prisons Minister Jeremy Wright said "not for much longer".

It comes amid concerns some offenders are given too many privileges.

Some inmates of privately run prisons are currently given access to subscription-only channels.

The latest figures available, for December 2009, show that 4,070 prisoners in contracted-out jails had access to such channels in their cells - about 40% of inmates who were then held in private jails.

Since then the number of private prisons in England and Wales has risen to 14, while the prison population has also increased.

Prisoners in public-sector jails have access to eight free digital channels in-cell when they pay a fee for a television set. They are BBC1, BBC2, ITV1, Channel 4, Channel 5, E4, ITV3, Viva and Film 4.

[aboutime]

I won't dwell on this. All the same .. see ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20417212



Sir Drummond. Just like those WAR prisoners being held in GITMO, who are on a Hunger Strike.
They have more entertainment, freedom, and luxury in that place than 99% of the world's poorest people.
And they CRY, WHINE, COMPLAIN?

Which makes one wonder. "Who is the real Sucker in all of this?"

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Just like those WAR prisoners being held in GITMO, who are on a Hunger Strike.
They have more entertainment, freedom, and luxury in that place than 99% of the world's poorest people.
And they CRY, WHINE, COMPLAIN?

Which makes one wonder. "Who is the real Sucker in all of this?"

Well said.

For my money, every single Obama voter out there qualifies as a 'sucker'.

Have I correctly seen that Obama has suddenly become keen about closing Gitmo down again ?

Is he feeling sorry for the poor little tykes' "suffering" ?

Perhaps he and Revelarts can swap notes. http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?40501-NEW-Bi-Partisan-report-on-terror&p=634724#post634724

[aboutime]

Well said.

For my money, every single Obama voter out there qualifies as a 'sucker'.

Have I correctly seen that Obama has suddenly become keen about closing Gitmo down again ?

Is he feeling sorry for the poor little tykes' "suffering" ?

Perhaps he and Revelarts can swap notes. http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?40501-NEW-Bi-Partisan-report-on-terror&p=634724#post634724


Sir Drummond. That is nothing more than more BS political talk from him. Unless he wants to put all of the HUNGRY POW's in court.

[jafar00]

You've beaten me to it by a few hours, Marcus.

Jafar will be delighted. Naturally, on the grounds that 'they're not Muslims', he should be able to start some libel actions .. yes ?

Here's one for him ... there's no mistaking what THIS says. From the Yorkshire Post ....

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/general-news/muslim-terrorists-tried-to-blow-up-edl-rally-in-dewsbury-1-5629249



Never mind, Jafar. Maybe ... they were joking ??

So, OK. Start your libel proceedings against the Yorkshire Post, Jafar, and let us know how they progress ...

... you WILL be taking action, won't you, Jafar ? Eh ? We can't have shifty paedophile Prophets being linked to this sort of thing, now, can we ??

So tell me. Exactly what is Islamic about terrorism? You seem to be more of an expert than hundreds of Islamic scholars who say otherwise.

[red states rule]

So tell me. Exactly what is Islamic about terrorism? You seem to be more of an expert than hundreds of Islamic scholars who say otherwise.

you remind me of Sgt Schultz

You see nothing

You say nothing

You know nothing



http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0805/islam-red-obama-funny-anteater-sex-liberal-conservatism-demo-demotivational-poster-1211919595.jpg

[Marcus Aurelius]

So tell me. Exactly what is Islamic about terrorism? You seem to be more of an expert than hundreds of Islamic scholars who say otherwise.


So tell me. Exactly what ISN'T Islamic about terrorism? You seem to be more of an expert than hundreds of Islamic terrorists who say otherwise.

[aboutime]

So tell me. Exactly what is Islamic about terrorism? You seem to be more of an expert than hundreds of Islamic scholars who say otherwise.

As usual, and like so many other times here. Jafar has once again Asked another useless question, rather than answering any honestly.

Of course. Most of us know. Cowards are not permitted to speak against those who hold their FOOT on their neck, with threats of being crucified by the Religion of Peace????

[Drummond]

So tell me. Exactly what is Islamic about terrorism? You seem to be more of an expert than hundreds of Islamic scholars who say otherwise.

You've had some good answers provided to your post already.

Additionally, as I'm sure you're well aware, there's a thread on this forum which regularly lists various terrorist atrocities which Islamic terrorists perpetrate .. ON A DAILY BASIS ...

The 'Islamic scholars' you refer to. Now, BEING Islamic, isn't there the teensiest possibility that they may be inclined to find some way to favour Islam ? To try and sanitise it ? NO ?

Oh, and please tell me. Are you aware of Christian terrorists who go around beheading their captives ? Perhaps Buddhists do this ? Mormons ? Seventh Day Adventists ???

[jafar00]

You've had some good answers provided to your post already.

Additionally, as I'm sure you're well aware, there's a thread on this forum which regularly lists various terrorist atrocities which Islamic terrorists perpetrate .. ON A DAILY BASIS ...

The 'Islamic scholars' you refer to. Now, BEING Islamic, isn't there the teensiest possibility that they may be inclined to find some way to favour Islam ? To try and sanitise it ? NO ?

Oh, and please tell me. Are you aware of Christian terrorists who go around beheading their captives ? Perhaps Buddhists do this ? Mormons ? Seventh Day Adventists ???

Nope. Let me make it clearer. You describe terrorism as "Islamic", yet Islam does not condone, and in fact condemns terrorism.

By your logic, even though the Qur'aan specifically bans the consumption of Pork, Bacon must be Halal.

[NightTrain]

Nope. Let me make it clearer. You describe terrorism as "Islamic", yet Islam does not condone, and in fact condemns terrorism.


Then why does the world experience several savage attacks by muzzies every day?

[red states rule]

Nope. Let me make it clearer. You describe terrorism as "Islamic", yet Islam does not condone, and in fact condemns terrorism.

By your logic, even though the Qur'aan specifically bans the consumption of Pork, Bacon must be Halal.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8105U1WY9ro

[red states rule]

Then why does the world experience several savage attacks by muzzies every day?




The death toll continues to rise


<tbody>
Picture of the Week


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/boston-infidelophobia.jpg
Infidelophobia... It's kind of like Islamophobia
only with something worth complaining about.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/coexist.jpg (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/images/Coexistx800.jpg)









Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace
"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are harsh
to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" Quran 48:29


<tbody>
2013.05.01 (Gereshk, Afghanistan) - The Taliban murder a peace envoy and two guards.


2013.04.30 (Baghdad, Iraq) - Religion of Peace rivals bomb a Sunni mosque, killing four worshippers.


2013.04.30 (Tapuah, Israel) - A Palestinian stabs a 31-year-old Jewish father of five to death in an unprovoked attack at a bus stop.


2013.04.29 (Diwaniyah, Iraq) - Nine Iraqis at a restaurant are exterminated by al-Qaeda car bombers.


2013.04.29 (Amarah, Iraq) - Eighteen Shiites standing in a market are ripped to pieces by Sunni bombers.


2013.04.29 (Peshawar, Pakistan) - Sunni hardliners plant a bomb on a motorcyle that kills at least nine people waiting for a bus.

</tbody>


</tbody>


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[aboutime]

Then why does the world experience several savage attacks by muzzies every day?


NightTrain. What we will never be able to get from jafar on this topic, is honesty. He plays semantics, and rhetorical games with the words, and language, hoping we won't understand, or be able to fathom his endless trickery. His MUZZY is just too strong to ignore.

[Drummond]

Then why does the world experience several savage attacks by muzzies every day?:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Exactly !!

[Drummond]

Nope. Let me make it clearer. You describe terrorism as "Islamic", yet Islam does not condone, and in fact condemns terrorism.

By your logic, even though the Qur'aan specifically bans the consumption of Pork, Bacon must be Halal.

What a ridiculous argument this is.

Jafar, your case 'might' be credible (and only superficially so, at that), if it had only been the one fringe grouping, from one location, that had done all the so-called 'misinterpreting' of Islam. BUT, we see instances of terrorist savagery from those proudly proclaiming themselves to be Islamic, fighting for their 'faith' from MANY groups, from MANY locations.

Your judgment is especially curious, though, when considering your OWN support of Hamas ! Is it your contention that Hamas are not Islamic ? And that you're supporting a NON-Islamic, so-called 'cause' ??

Now, why, Jafar, would you ever do such a thing ?

[aboutime]

What a ridiculous argument this is.

Jafar, your case 'might' be credible (and only superficially so, at that), if it had only been the one fringe grouping, from one location, that had done all the so-called 'misinterpreting' of Islam. BUT, we see instances of terrorist savagery from those proudly proclaiming themselves to be Islamic, fighting for their 'faith' from MANY groups, from MANY locations.

Your judgment is especially curious, though, when considering your OWN support of Hamas ! Is it your contention that Hamas are not Islamic ? And that you're supporting a NON-Islamic, so-called 'cause' ??

Now, why, Jafar, would you ever do such a thing ?


Sir Drummond. JAFAR can't help it. His MUZZY keeps gettin' in the way, and is cause for disenfranchisement by Brain Farts.

[jafar00]

What a ridiculous argument this is.

Jafar, your case 'might' be credible (and only superficially so, at that), if it had only been the one fringe grouping, from one location, that had done all the so-called 'misinterpreting' of Islam. BUT, we see instances of terrorist savagery from those proudly proclaiming themselves to be Islamic, fighting for their 'faith' from MANY groups, from MANY locations.

Your judgment is especially curious, though, when considering your OWN support of Hamas ! Is it your contention that Hamas are not Islamic ? And that you're supporting a NON-Islamic, so-called 'cause' ??

Now, why, Jafar, would you ever do such a thing ?

What part of Islam supports terrorism? How hard is that to answer?

[red states rule]

What part of Islam supports terrorism? How hard is that to answer?

http://hinduexistence.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/unholy-jihad-and-islamic-terrorism.jpg?w=853&h=807

[Drummond]

What part of Islam supports terrorism? How hard is that to answer?

It's not hard at all. It cannot be. After all, so many Muslims manage it !!

You have a choice, Jafar. You can claim that all the reports we get of Muslim terrorism are totally fictitious (.. which presumably must include 9/11 .. it 'never happened' .. ???). Or, you can claim that the world's Muslims are wrong, and YOU, PERSONALLY, ARE RIGHT.

Then again, you can tell the truth.

Try it, Jafar, you might just find the experience liberating.

[Marcus Aurelius]

What part of Islam supports terrorism? How hard is that to answer?

The part that does nothing to stop it from within its ranks.

Dumb ass.

[Marcus Aurelius]

It's not hard at all. It cannot be. After all, so many Muslims manage it !!

You have a choice, Jafar. You can claim that all the reports we get of Muslim terrorism are totally fictitious (.. which presumably must include 9/11 .. it 'never happened' .. ???). Or, you can claim that the world's Muslims are wrong, and YOU, PERSONALLY, ARE RIGHT.

Then again, you can tell the truth.

Try it, Jafar, you might just find the experience liberating.

ding ding ding...we have a winner!

[aboutime]

Poor jafar. Not smart enough to recognize that Log in his own eye.

[red states rule]

The part that does nothing to stop it from within its ranks.

Dumb ass.

and the part that makes excuses for it like jafar

[jimnyc]

What part of Islam supports terrorism? How hard is that to answer?

Islamic people support terrorism and commit terrorist acts, even if not specifically written in Islamic writings. And it's their screwed up reading and translating of Islam that prompts them to commit evil acts. And whether written in Islam writings or not, terrorism is so entrenched in Islam that the 2 are becoming synonymous with one another. And quite frankly, the Muslim world acting like it's not an Islamic problem, is one of the main reasons that the problem continues. Unfortunately, SO many Islamic leaders and countries think like you do, act like "it's not Islam that is involved so look the other way".

Seriously, Jafar, why are Islamic countries not attacking terrorism like the USA? We all know terror attacks are much worse in these countries, so why are they not attacking the issue like so many others are?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Islamic people support terrorism and commit terrorist acts, even if not specifically written in Islamic writings. And it's their screwed up reading and translating of Islam that prompts them to commit evil acts. And whether written in Islam writings or not, terrorism is so entrenched in Islam that the 2 are becoming synonymous with one another. And quite frankly, the Muslim world acting like it's not an Islamic problem, is one of the main reasons that the problem continues. Unfortunately, SO many Islamic leaders and countries think like you do, act like "it's not Islam that is involved so look the other way".

Seriously, Jafar, why are Islamic countries not attacking terrorism like the USA? We all know terror attacks are much worse in these countries, so why are they not attacking the issue like so many others are?

Because if it is not in the Qur'aan, as Jahil claims, then he does not consider it his problem.

[taft2012]

SIX Islamic extremists have admitted planning a bloody attack on a far-right rally in West Yorkshire

I wonder what exactly qualifies as "a far-right rally"?

Theoretically, if an anti-Islamic rally qualifies as "far-right," then a counter-demonstration (like this planned terror attack) would logically be "far-left"?

No?

Or does all "hate" just get dumped on the right?

[stevecanuck]

So tell me. Exactly what is Islamic about terrorism? You seem to be more of an expert than hundreds of Islamic scholars who say otherwise.

This: كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِتَالُ

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What part of Islam supports terrorism? How hard is that to answer?

You support Hamas and Hamas engages in acts of terrorism. How do you justify supporting those Islamic terrorists? Or do you declare Hamas as not true muslims?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What a ridiculous argument this is.

Jafar, your case 'might' be credible (and only superficially so, at that), if it had only been the one fringe grouping, from one location, that had done all the so-called 'misinterpreting' of Islam. BUT, we see instances of terrorist savagery from those proudly proclaiming themselves to be Islamic, fighting for their 'faith' from MANY groups, from MANY locations.

Your judgment is especially curious, though, when considering your OWN support of Hamas ! Is it your contention that Hamas are not Islamic ? And that you're supporting a NON-Islamic, so-called 'cause' ??

Now, why, Jafar, would you ever do such a thing ?

Entire muslim nations engage in terrorism but Jafar turns a blind eye to all of that.

AND BY THE KORAN HE IS CORRECT TO DO SO. FOR JIHAD, WAR AGAINST INFIDELS, IS COMMANDED BY THE KORAN. THAT IS WHY THE ENTIRE SO-CALLED RELIGION IS A FRAUD. IT WAS FOUNDED UPON AND SPREAD BY THE SWORD.

Tyr, the true God of the Sword and Justice, rejects Islam and curses it for it's blasphemy. My Viking ancestors would have laughed at and slain their warriors as pigs designated for the roasting. -Tyr Ziu Saxnot

[red states rule]

You support Hamas and Hamas engages in acts of terrorism. How do you justify supporting those Islamic terrorists? Or do you declare Hamas as not true muslims?

Speaking of Hamas


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/TESVaclSvwI/AAAAAAAAkYI/OUzBRM4f1Bw/s1600/2009-01-08-hamas-firing-rockets-in-gaza-600.jpg


https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/3327582208/hC8B1805A/

[red states rule]

http://barenakedislam.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/apostate-vi.jpg?w=480&h=373

[Drummond]

I wonder what exactly qualifies as "a far-right rally"?

Theoretically, if an anti-Islamic rally qualifies as "far-right," then a counter-demonstration (like this planned terror attack) would logically be "far-left"?

No?

Or does all "hate" just get dumped on the right?

A nicely put case.

What you're commenting on is, purely and simply, a form of demonisation that's pretty common in the British press, and one that has its roots in the culture which our Labour Party created, and insisted stuck, throughout society, the last time they were in power.

Labour wanted a climate of total toleration towards both ethnic and religious minorities (even to the point where to even discuss immigration in less than approving tones opened one up to a charge of 'racism'). Those failing to comply were tagged with derogatory labels. The EDL was, and is, one such tagged group. They want Muslims and other groups to integrate, not to stand apart, in society. But Muslims insist on minimal integration, and they consider the EDL is a group ripe for targeting because they don't defer to Muslim expectations as others are expected to.

The EDL cannot reasonably be called Left wing. So instead, they are 'right wing'. And for the sake of demonisation, they then become a 'far right extremist group'.

And why ? Because they have the temerity to buck the Left-wing favoured status qo.

[Drummond]

You support Hamas and Hamas engages in acts of terrorism. How do you justify supporting those Islamic terrorists? Or do you declare Hamas as not true muslims?:clap::clap::clap:

... and if they are NOT 'true Muslims', why would Jafar wish to support them ?

[red states rule]

:clap::clap::clap:

... and if they are NOT 'true Muslims', why would Jafar wish to support them ?

as long as they are killing Jews - Jafar will wave the pom poms, and make excuses for their actions, at the same time

[logroller]

I wonder what exactly qualifies as "a far-right rally"?

Theoretically, if an anti-Islamic rally qualifies as "far-right," then a counter-demonstration (like this planned terror attack) would logically be "far-left"?

No?

Or does all "hate" just get dumped on the right?
In terms of far right and far left, these are the extreme views of the role of government in regulating society.
The far-right extremists are characterized by supremacism, oppression and even the genocide of those believed lesser than themselves, manifested through state-sanctioned activities. The far-left extremists are characterized by anti-capitalism, anti-individualism and often anarchism being pursued by way of violent revolution rather than established political structure. They're both pretty heinous-- one just thinks the government should do it, the other thinks the people should.

[red states rule]

In terms of far right and far left, these are the extreme views of the role of government in regulating society.
The far-right extremists are characterized by supremacism, oppression and even the genocide of those believed lesser than themselves, manifested through state-sanctioned activities. The far-left extremists are characterized by anti-capitalism, anti-individualism and often anarchism being pursued by way of violent revolution rather than established political structure. They're both pretty heinous-- one just thinks the government should do it, the other thinks the people should.

Today the far right is defined by people like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Tea Party Republicans. What do they have to do with supremacism, oppression and even the genocide of those believed lesser than themselves?

[logroller]

Today the far right is defined by people like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Tea Party Republicans. What do they have to do with supremacism, oppression and even the genocide of those believed lesser than themselves?
What do they Cruz, Lee and the tea party reps have to do with England?
... take notice, I said that was the manifestation to the extreme far-right/far-left. You'd consider Feinstein to be the far left too I'd bet, but she's not calling for open revolution and anarchy. She's not that extreme. The English defence league is not comprised solely of racists, but they're certainly a staunch component that breeds well among nationalist fervor. The edl has changed their spokesperson, taking it in a different, more anti-extremism / less anti-Islam direction.

[red states rule]

What do they Cruz, Lee and the tea party reps have to do with England?
... take notice, I said that was the manifestation to the extreme far-right/far-left. You'd consider Feinstein to be the far left too I'd bet, but she's not calling for open revolution and anarchy. She's not that extreme. The English defence league is not comprised solely of racists, but they're certainly a staunch component that breeds well among nationalist fervor. The edl has changed their spokesperson, taking it in a different, more anti-extremism / less anti-Islam direction.

It is hard to keep up with what libs consider "far right" Bush 41, Bush 43, McCain, and Romney were all tagged "far right"

Meanwhile Obama (and yes Feinstein) are considered "mainstream"

I am sure you would consider her mainstream as she supports Obamacare, wants to infringe on the 2nd Amendment. and increase spending and taxes, Na, not extreme at all :laugh2:

[logroller]

It is hard to keep up with what libs consider "far right" Bush 41, Bush 43, McCain, and Romney were all tagged "far right"

Meanwhile Obama (and yes Feinstein) are considered "mainstream"

I am sure you would consider her mainstream as she supports Obamacare, wants to infringe on the 2nd Amendment. and increase spending and taxes, Na, not extreme at all :laugh2:

It's a relative scale; to me the 99%ers are the extreme left. Politicians certainly will pander to them for their votes if they can, but inevitably those who maintain a more balanced view will find better luck at election time. I wouldn't say that Romney was far right, but i would say that the republican party is fractured and this made it difficult for Romney to garner mainstream appeal. The infighting in the party did him in.

[taft2012]

In terms of far right and far left, these are the extreme views of the role of government in regulating society. The far-right extremists are characterized by supremacism, oppression and even the genocide of those believed lesser than themselves, manifested through state-sanctioned activities. The far-left extremists are characterized by anti-capitalism, anti-individualism and often anarchism being pursued by way of violent revolution rather than established political structure. They're both pretty heinous-- one just thinks the government should do it, the other thinks the people should.

Using your definitions, the genocides of Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, and Stalin would qualify as "far right." Clearly not the case. Considering the genuine right wing principles of smaller government, less intrusiveness, and greater personal liberties, I think one would be hard-pressed to find a single example of right-wing genocide.


Then, consider the left-wing principle that government can solve any problem. When the solutions invariably fail to work, scapegoats are sought. Those moments of desperation are when scapegoating opposition becomes deadly.

[aboutime]

It is hard to keep up with what libs consider "far right" Bush 41, Bush 43, McCain, and Romney were all tagged "far right"

Meanwhile Obama (and yes Feinstein) are considered "mainstream"

I am sure you would consider her mainstream as she supports Obamacare, wants to infringe on the 2nd Amendment. and increase spending and taxes, Na, not extreme at all :laugh2:


red states rule. The One, and Only thing that is Mainstream about Obama, or any Democrat member of congress would be MAINSTREAM injections of Stupidity, and Ignorance. Shared according to Obama with those who haven't got equal shares of Stupidity, and Ignorance according to the DNC.

[red states rule]

red states rule. The One, and Only thing that is Mainstream about Obama, or any Democrat member of congress would be MAINSTREAM injections of Stupidity, and Ignorance. Shared according to Obama with those who haven't got equal shares of Stupidity, and Ignorance according to the DNC.

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1108/websters-newest-edition-democrats-liberals-funny-politics-1313300844.jpg

[red states rule]

It's a relative scale; to me the 99%ers are the extreme left. Politicians certainly will pander to them for their votes if they can, but inevitably those who maintain a more balanced view will find better luck at election time. I wouldn't say that Romney was far right, but i would say that the republican party is fractured and this made it difficult for Romney to garner mainstream appeal. The infighting in the party did him in.

What did Romney in was

1) he was a bad candidate

2) The liberal media openly showed their support for Obama by calling him a murderer, a tax cheat, a felon, and painting him as a racist

3) During the debates, the liberal mods did what they could to help Obama - one even jumped to his defense

4) Obama was promising free stuff to damn near everyone and who can run against - and win - against Santa Claus?