Europe submits voluntarily

[whichphilosophy]

You are both right; We should allow the government to arbitrarily apply severe punishments to anyone who is declared by them or by the public at large to be a criminal, because habeas corpus is just a sign of weakness. What could possibly go wrong?

It's so fortunate that we have you two legal geniuses to help overturn 800 years of mistakes by so-called 'experts' who think they know better than the common man just because they studied law and/or criminology. Obviously we need to scrap courts, with their soft and weak judges, and replace them with trial by popular appeal, with the editors of the Sun and the Daily Mail as our final arbiters of what is acceptable,

The only problem I can foresee with this strategy is that the UK is a very small island, and there are not many suitable sites for concentration camps able to handle millions of people at a time, pits large enough to contain huge numbers of bodies without causing a health hazard, or suitable locations for giant crematoria.

If you are talking about the Somali criminal, the correct action was to deport him. The UK has no charter to protect violent foreign criminals with 30 convictions from deportation,but the EU has to the point of asininity. The UK is 2 million houses short, so even without concentration camps people pack into lesser spaces.

 

[bilby]

You are both right; We should allow the government to arbitrarily apply severe punishments to anyone who is declared by them or by the public at large to be a criminal, because habeas corpus is just a sign of weakness. What could possibly go wrong?

It's so fortunate that we have you two legal geniuses to help overturn 800 years of mistakes by so-called 'experts' who think they know better than the common man just because they studied law and/or criminology. Obviously we need to scrap courts, with their soft and weak judges, and replace them with trial by popular appeal, with the editors of the Sun and the Daily Mail as our final arbiters of what is acceptable,

The only problem I can foresee with this strategy is that the UK is a very small island, and there are not many suitable sites for concentration camps able to handle millions of people at a time, pits large enough to contain huge numbers of bodies without causing a health hazard, or suitable locations for giant crematoria.

If you are talking about the Somali criminal, the correct action was to deport him. The UK has no charter to protect violent foreign criminals with 30 convictions from deportation,but the EU has to the point of asininity. The UK is 2 million houses short, so even without concentration camps people pack into lesser spaces.

What a shame it is that the courts were too lazy to consult with you on the correct course of action, and instead foolishly interpreted the law using only their knowledge and expertise.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You are both right; We should allow the government to arbitrarily apply severe punishments to anyone who is declared by them or by the public at large to be a criminal, because habeas corpus is just a sign of weakness. What could possibly go wrong?

It's so fortunate that we have you two legal geniuses to help overturn 800 years of mistakes by so-called 'experts' who think they know better than the common man just because they studied law and/or criminology. Obviously we need to scrap courts, with their soft and weak judges, and replace them with trial by popular appeal, with the editors of the Sun and the Daily Mail as our final arbiters of what is acceptable,

The only problem I can foresee with this strategy is that the UK is a very small island, and there are not many suitable sites for concentration camps able to handle millions of people at a time, pits large enough to contain huge numbers of bodies without causing a health hazard, or suitable locations for giant crematoria.

If you are talking about the Somali criminal, the correct action was to deport him. The UK has no charter to protect violent foreign criminals with 30 convictions from deportation,but the EU has to the point of asininity. The UK is 2 million houses short, so even without concentration camps people pack into lesser spaces.

What a shame it is that the courts were too lazy to consult with you on the correct course of action, and instead foolishly interpreted the law using only their knowledge and expertise.

It was an open and shut case. The law as modified by the Law of Equity per the maxim I already mentioned

He who comes into equity must come with clean hands

 

[repoman]

Sounds like judges as wrong as Dred Scott judges but in opposite direction.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It seems that foreign criminals and jihadis are protected by the left and political correct doo gooders!

If some laws facilitate this behavior, then some of these laws should be toughened up. The electorate demands it.

The laws that facilitate the behaviour is free speech and freedom of religion.

I don't think there's any way to get at them legally without:

1) suspending free expression
2) suspending rule of law

I like our democratic freedoms. If good people fail at convincing bad people, we just need to work on our arguments, rather than dismantling western civilisation. That's just how I see it.

 

[bilby]

It seems that foreign criminals and jihadis are protected by the left and political correct doo gooders!

If some laws facilitate this behavior, then some of these laws should be toughened up. The electorate demands it.

If you are going to quote from Mein Kampf, it's conventional to provide an attribution, rather than just present it as though it is your own work. People can get quite upset by plagiarism.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It seems that foreign criminals and jihadis are protected by the left and political correct doo gooders!

If some laws facilitate this behavior, then some of these laws should be toughened up. The electorate demands it.

The laws that facilitate the behaviour is free speech and freedom of religion.

I don't think there's any way to get at them legally without:

1) suspending free expression
2) suspending rule of law

I like our democratic freedoms. If good people fail at convincing bad people, we just need to work on our arguments, rather than dismantling western civilisation. That's just how I see it.

By allowing Jihadists and Criminals, our values are already eroded.

Advocating and participation in terrorism, crime and racism are not covered under freedom of expression.

The Rule of Law applies all and deporting these bums is in accordance with the principles that allow Judges to exercise their independance.

On the other hand Brussels Rules By (Roman) Law Such a system helped suckle the Nuremburg laws of the NSDAP by incorporating Roman Laws distinguishing between Romans (later Germans) from black people and others. Franco wet-nursed his regime on these. Both added to these. Current wet-nurse completions are entrenched in EU Law.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It seems that foreign criminals and jihadis are protected by the left and political correct doo gooders!

If some laws facilitate this behavior, then some of these laws should be toughened up. The electorate demands it.

The laws that facilitate the behaviour is free speech and freedom of religion.

I don't think there's any way to get at them legally without:

1) suspending free expression
2) suspending rule of law

I like our democratic freedoms. If good people fail at convincing bad people, we just need to work on our arguments, rather than dismantling western civilisation. That's just how I see it.

By allowing Jihadists and Criminals, our values are already eroded.

If we allowed criminals they wouldn't be called criminals. The word criminals means that we don't allow them.

You also need to look up what the word Jihadi means. Nearly all Muslims participating in a Jihad are not hurting anyone. A Muslim volunteering at a homeless shelter is participating in a Jihad. For example.

Advocating and participation in terrorism, crime and racism are not covered under freedom of expression.

Hmm.... think this through. What is considered terrorism is pretty arbitrary. Is the Rojava Kurds engaged in terrorism because they are fighting ISIS? Who gets to decide what is terrorism? Rule of law means that the rules need to be universal.

The reason "the war on terror" following 9/11 was such a complete a fucking total disaster was because every dictator in a Muslim country used fighting terrorism as an excuse to wipe out any political opposition in their country. What we call terror groups is not obvious, and is arbitrary. Sometimes armed conflict is justified. Nelson Mandela was a terrorism. I think his "crimes" are justified.

The Rule of Law applies all and deporting these bums is in accordance with the principles that allow Judges to exercise their independance.

On the other hand Brussels Rules By (Roman) Law Such a system helped suckle the Nuremburg laws of the NSDAP by incorporating Roman Laws distinguishing between Romans (later Germans) from black people and others. Franco wet-nursed his regime on these. Both added to these. Current wet-nurse completions are entrenched in EU Law.

Because what they focused on wasn't if they fought, or if they were terrorists. They focused on war-crimes. How about we do the same today?

 

[whichphilosophy]

The laws that facilitate the behaviour is free speech and freedom of religion.

I don't think there's any way to get at them legally without:

1) suspending free expression
2) suspending rule of law

I like our democratic freedoms. If good people fail at convincing bad people, we just need to work on our arguments, rather than dismantling western civilisation. That's just how I see it.

By allowing Jihadists and Criminals, our values are already eroded.

If we allowed criminals they wouldn't be called criminals. The word criminals means that we don't allow them.

You also need to look up what the word Jihadi means. Nearly all Muslims participating in a Jihad are not hurting anyone. A Muslim volunteering at a homeless shelter is participating in a Jihad. For example.

Advocating and participation in terrorism, crime and racism are not covered under freedom of expression.

Hmm.... think this through. What is considered terrorism is pretty arbitrary. Is the Rojava Kurds engaged in terrorism because they are fighting ISIS? Who gets to decide what is terrorism? Rule of law means that the rules need to be universal.

The reason "the war on terror" following 9/11 was such a complete a fucking total disaster was because every dictator in a Muslim country used fighting terrorism as an excuse to wipe out any political opposition in their country. What we call terror groups is not obvious, and is arbitrary. Sometimes armed conflict is justified. Nelson Mandela was a terrorism. I think his "crimes" are justified.

The Rule of Law applies all and deporting these bums is in accordance with the principles that allow Judges to exercise their independance.

On the other hand Brussels Rules By (Roman) Law Such a system helped suckle the Nuremburg laws of the NSDAP by incorporating Roman Laws distinguishing between Romans (later Germans) from black people and others. Franco wet-nursed his regime on these. Both added to these. Current wet-nurse completions are entrenched in EU Law.

Because what they focused on wasn't if they fought, or if they were terrorists. They focused on war-crimes. How about we do the same today?

JIHADI vs JIHAD which you clearly defined and is one definition.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/jihadi?s=t

an Islamic fundamentalist who participates in or supports jihad, especially armed and violent confrontation.

Also your definition

noun
1.
(Islam)
a person who takes part in a jihad
(as modifier): jihadi groups

We can take in refugees and needed skills and labour on contract but are not obliged to keep career criminals.

 

[DrZoidberg]

By allowing Jihadists and Criminals, our values are already eroded.

If we allowed criminals they wouldn't be called criminals. The word criminals means that we don't allow them.

You also need to look up what the word Jihadi means. Nearly all Muslims participating in a Jihad are not hurting anyone. A Muslim volunteering at a homeless shelter is participating in a Jihad. For example.

Advocating and participation in terrorism, crime and racism are not covered under freedom of expression.

Hmm.... think this through. What is considered terrorism is pretty arbitrary. Is the Rojava Kurds engaged in terrorism because they are fighting ISIS? Who gets to decide what is terrorism? Rule of law means that the rules need to be universal.

The reason "the war on terror" following 9/11 was such a complete a fucking total disaster was because every dictator in a Muslim country used fighting terrorism as an excuse to wipe out any political opposition in their country. What we call terror groups is not obvious, and is arbitrary. Sometimes armed conflict is justified. Nelson Mandela was a terrorism. I think his "crimes" are justified.

The Rule of Law applies all and deporting these bums is in accordance with the principles that allow Judges to exercise their independance.

On the other hand Brussels Rules By (Roman) Law Such a system helped suckle the Nuremburg laws of the NSDAP by incorporating Roman Laws distinguishing between Romans (later Germans) from black people and others. Franco wet-nursed his regime on these. Both added to these. Current wet-nurse completions are entrenched in EU Law.

Because what they focused on wasn't if they fought, or if they were terrorists. They focused on war-crimes. How about we do the same today?

JIHADI vs JIHAD which you clearly defined and is one definition.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/jihadi?s=t

an Islamic fundamentalist who participates in or supports jihad, especially armed and violent confrontation.

Also your definition

noun
1.
(Islam)
a person who takes part in a jihad
(as modifier): jihadi groups

We can take in refugees and needed skills and labour on contract but are not obliged to keep career criminals.

That's just colloquial usage. It's usage that has become common parlance because of racists. I don't know about you, but I suggest we do our best to prevent racists from butchering the language by using words wrongly. It helps communication if we make an effort to use words correctly. Same goes for Mujahedin.

"In its roots, Mujahideen (an Arabic word) refers to any person performing Jihad. In its post-classical meaning, Jihad refers to an act which is spiritually comparable in reward to promoting Islam during the early 600s AD. These acts could be as simple as sharing a considerable amount of your income with the poor. Some Islamic sects believe that armed-conflicts cannot be branded as Jihad unless it has been ordered by Messiah."

What's wrong with calling them Islamic terrorists? That's what you mean, isn't it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

We normally don't allow career criminals to get refugee status. Very special circumstances are needed to get around that. Where on Earth did you get the silly notion that we did? The problem with spouting all the nonsense that you, Angelo and Tswizzle is doing is that you risk believing your own lies.

Here's the Canadian info page on it. They follow the same UNHCR rules as everybody else does. See, no criminals allowed in.

https://www.pardonapplications.ca/articles/how-will-my-criminal-record-affect-my-refugee-status/

 

[angelo]

You are both right; We should allow the government to arbitrarily apply severe punishments to anyone who is declared by them or by the public at large to be a criminal, because habeas corpus is just a sign of weakness. What could possibly go wrong?

It's so fortunate that we have you two legal geniuses to help overturn 800 years of mistakes by so-called 'experts' who think they know better than the common man just because they studied law and/or criminology. Obviously we need to scrap courts, with their soft and weak judges, and replace them with trial by popular appeal, with the editors of the Sun and the Daily Mail as our final arbiters of what is acceptable,

The only problem I can foresee with this strategy is that the UK is a very small island, and there are not many suitable sites for concentration camps able to handle millions of people at a time, pits large enough to contain huge numbers of bodies without causing a health hazard, or suitable locations for giant crematoria.

If you are talking about the Somali criminal, the correct action was to deport him. The UK has no charter to protect violent foreign criminals with 30 convictions from deportation,but the EU has to the point of asininity. The UK is 2 million houses short, so even without concentration camps people pack into lesser spaces.

What a shame it is that the courts were too lazy to consult with you on the correct course of action, and instead foolishly interpreted the law using only their knowledge and expertise.

The judiciary and courts have meekly submitted to the death cult!

 

[angelo]

[/

You also need to look up what the word Jihadi means. Nearly all Muslims participating in a Jihad are not hurting anyone. A Muslim volunteering at a homeless shelter is participating in a Jihad.

You are joking of course? Jihad means war on all non Muslims! Read the fucking later mumbling of Mo in the Koran. ISIS and all Muslims terrorists follows the life and teaching Muhammad to the letter! The muzzle imams and most mozzies themselves know this and is the reason they don't condemn Islamic murdering of infidels.

 

[angelo]

You are both right; We should allow the government to arbitrarily apply severe punishments to anyone who is declared by them or by the public at large to be a criminal, because habeas corpus is just a sign of weakness. What could possibly go wrong?

It's so fortunate that we have you two legal geniuses to help overturn 800 years of mistakes by so-called 'experts' who think they know better than the common man just because they studied law and/or criminology. Obviously we need to scrap courts, with their soft and weak judges, and replace them with trial by popular appeal, with the editors of the Sun and the Daily Mail as our final arbiters of what is acceptable,

The only problem I can foresee with this strategy is that the UK is a very small island, and there are not many suitable sites for concentration camps able to handle millions of people at a time, pits large enough to contain huge numbers of bodies without causing a health hazard, or suitable locations for giant crematoria.

Without being so dramatic, your reply is typically a left reply.

 

[DrZoidberg]

[/

You also need to look up what the word Jihadi means. Nearly all Muslims participating in a Jihad are not hurting anyone. A Muslim volunteering at a homeless shelter is participating in a Jihad.

You are joking of course? Jihad means war on all non Muslims! Read the fucking later mumbling of Mo in the Koran. ISIS and all Muslims terrorists follows the life and teaching Muhammad to the letter! The muzzle imams and most mozzies themselves know this and is the reason they don't condemn Islamic murdering of infidels.

Have you ever bothered looking anything up? It's an honest question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

 

[bilby]

You are both right; We should allow the government to arbitrarily apply severe punishments to anyone who is declared by them or by the public at large to be a criminal, because habeas corpus is just a sign of weakness. What could possibly go wrong?

It's so fortunate that we have you two legal geniuses to help overturn 800 years of mistakes by so-called 'experts' who think they know better than the common man just because they studied law and/or criminology. Obviously we need to scrap courts, with their soft and weak judges, and replace them with trial by popular appeal, with the editors of the Sun and the Daily Mail as our final arbiters of what is acceptable,

The only problem I can foresee with this strategy is that the UK is a very small island, and there are not many suitable sites for concentration camps able to handle millions of people at a time, pits large enough to contain huge numbers of bodies without causing a health hazard, or suitable locations for giant crematoria.

Without being so dramatic, your reply is typically a left reply.

Oh, thank you. I don't think it is particularly 'left', but it's very kind of you to say so.

 

[angelo]

[/

You also need to look up what the word Jihadi means. Nearly all Muslims participating in a Jihad are not hurting anyone. A Muslim volunteering at a homeless shelter is participating in a Jihad.

You are joking of course? Jihad means war on all non Muslims! Read the fucking later mumbling of Mo in the Koran. ISIS and all Muslims terrorists follows the life and teaching Muhammad to the letter! The muzzle imams and most mozzies themselves know this and is the reason they don't condemn Islamic murdering of infidels.

Have you ever bothered looking anything up? It's an honest question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

Do you have any idea who the contributors to Wikipedia are?

Anyway, this form Wikipedia refutes your post.......

]) is an Arabic word which literally means striving or struggling, especially with a praiseworthy aim.[1][2][3][4] It can have many shades of meaning in an Islamic context, such as struggle against one's evil inclinations, an exertion to convert unbelievers, or efforts toward the moral betterment of society,[1][2][5] though it is most frequently associated with war.[6] In classical Islamic law, the term refers to armed struggle against unbelievers,[2][3] while modernist Islamic scholars generally equate military jihad with defensive warfare.[7][8] In Sufi and pious circles, spiritual and moral jihad has been traditionally emphasized under the name of greater jihad.[9][3] The term has gained additional attention in recent decades through its use by terrorist groups

 

[angelo]

You are both right; We should allow the government to arbitrarily apply severe punishments to anyone who is declared by them or by the public at large to be a criminal, because habeas corpus is just a sign of weakness. What could possibly go wrong?

It's so fortunate that we have you two legal geniuses to help overturn 800 years of mistakes by so-called 'experts' who think they know better than the common man just because they studied law and/or criminology. Obviously we need to scrap courts, with their soft and weak judges, and replace them with trial by popular appeal, with the editors of the Sun and the Daily Mail as our final arbiters of what is acceptable,

The only problem I can foresee with this strategy is that the UK is a very small island, and there are not many suitable sites for concentration camps able to handle millions of people at a time, pits large enough to contain huge numbers of bodies without causing a health hazard, or suitable locations for giant crematoria.

Without being so dramatic, your reply is typically a left reply.

Oh, thank you. I don't think it is particularly 'left', but it's very kind of you to say so.

You would be proud of what leftist have accomplished in Venezuela I take it!

 

[bilby]

Without being so dramatic, your reply is typically a left reply.

Oh, thank you. I don't think it is particularly 'left', but it's very kind of you to say so.

You would be proud of what leftist have accomplished in Venezuela I take it!

Only as much as you are proud of what the rightists accomplished in South Africa, or Chile, or Saudi Arabia, or any number of other failed extremist right-wing states.

'Leftist' isn't an insult. 'Moronic racist' is an insult; 'Fascist' is an insult; 'Ignorant git' is an insult. But 'leftist' isn't.

 

[DrZoidberg]

[/

You also need to look up what the word Jihadi means. Nearly all Muslims participating in a Jihad are not hurting anyone. A Muslim volunteering at a homeless shelter is participating in a Jihad.

You are joking of course? Jihad means war on all non Muslims! Read the fucking later mumbling of Mo in the Koran. ISIS and all Muslims terrorists follows the life and teaching Muhammad to the letter! The muzzle imams and most mozzies themselves know this and is the reason they don't condemn Islamic murdering of infidels.

Have you ever bothered looking anything up? It's an honest question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

Do you have any idea who the contributors to Wikipedia are?

Anyway, this form Wikipedia refutes your post.......

]) is an Arabic word which literally means striving or struggling, especially with a praiseworthy aim.[1][2][3][4] It can have many shades of meaning in an Islamic context, such as struggle against one's evil inclinations, an exertion to convert unbelievers, or efforts toward the moral betterment of society,[1][2][5] though it is most frequently associated with war.[6] In classical Islamic law, the term refers to armed struggle against unbelievers,[2][3] while modernist Islamic scholars generally equate military jihad with defensive warfare.[7][8] In Sufi and pious circles, spiritual and moral jihad has been traditionally emphasized under the name of greater jihad.[9][3] The term has gained additional attention in recent decades through its use by terrorist groups

No, it doesn't. How is your reading comprehension? The topic is whether or not Jihad is synonymous with armed conflict. The above quote proves you wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Without being so dramatic, your reply is typically a left reply.

Oh, thank you. I don't think it is particularly 'left', but it's very kind of you to say so.

You would be proud of what leftist have accomplished in Venezuela I take it!

Aha... the black and white fallacy. Doesn't it bother you that Hitler killed all those Jews? Since you're not a lefty that must mean that you support everything Hitler did.

 

[angelo]

Oh, thank you. I don't think it is particularly 'left', but it's very kind of you to say so.

You would be proud of what leftist have accomplished in Venezuela I take it!

Only as much as you are proud of what the rightists accomplished in South Africa, or Chile, or Saudi Arabia, or any number of other failed extremist right-wing states.

'Leftist' isn't an insult. 'Moronic racist' is an insult; 'Fascist' is an insult; 'Ignorant git' is an insult. But 'leftist' isn't.

The victims of the USSR , East Germany, Zimbabwe, Eastern Block, Venezuela, and other socialist South and Central American nations would disagree with you, even if some of them don't know any better. To me and many others "leftists" and their intolerant supporters is insulting.