Poor judgement here by the 'Home Secretary" in providing publicity for the foul Mr. Savage. He's a hack for the sale of radio ad time and appeals to the dimwits that want us all to live in caves.
US shock-jock Michael Savage has asked Hillary Clinton to intervene on his behalf following UK home secretary Jacqui Smith's decision to name him on a list of 16 identified individuals she'd rather not see pass Blighty's immigration controls. Wacky Jacqui recently "named and shamed" Savage along with a couple of unpleasant …
..to say whatever he likes. No one is interfering with that.
He can go wherever he likes in the US as he is a US citizen; and no one (as far as I am aware) is interefering with his right to do so.
However, he has no specific right to come to the UK (or any other country) - any government can choose to close their border to any individual and they actually don't have to give a specific reason, although they generally do.
Prior to this, I had never heard of the man - and really not bothered if I don't hear about him again.
from two different continents that the bloody woman's got us into / is soon to get us into
Who's he going to complain to? The Home Office? No, that'll not get anywhere... the European Parliament? No, she'll just ignore whatever is said there.
So it's just back to being a "shock-jock" in the 'States then? Yup. And that'll make just as much difference.
1) His 'right to free speech' is not being infringed, just his right to enter a particular country. As far as I can tell there are no plans to hunt him down and shut him up, he's just not welcome over here. Surely it's up to our government (corrupt and flawed as it is) to decide this, not the US?
2) They're citing international regulations that protect individuals' human rights, exactly the same regulations that the US ignores whenever it feels like it (Guantanamo anyone?), now they want to hide behind those same regulations?
Nice to think Brown's government has our morals at heart and not condoning Mr. Savage but if he were a royal who dressed like a nazi or was Sir Savage as opposed to Mr. or was at least loaded there would of course be no ban...
That's the problem with bans like this, they really only seem to happen to unpopular people.
Following on from this idiots logic, we can naturally assume that the KKK grand wizard bloke is also banned because of his racist views. Is he saying that the fella from the KKK has as much right to come over here and spew his hatred as anyone else?
Personally I say let him come on over, I'm pretty sure the majority of Brits would just say "shut the f*** up" whilst the rest would ignore him, although some may steal his phone and shoes.
If I remember my legal training, Lord Denning IIRC, pointed out that laws can be enacted against anytime, place, thing. The example was , if the UK passed a law banning smoking in Paris then so be it, as soon as one of those transgressors entered in our jurisdiction we could lock'em up!
The only places we cannot legislate are those we have explicitly made a law to say 'we cannot legislate' ie South Africa, and Canada's constitutional reforms.
and with that PUB!
The US and the UK permit each other's citizens to travel without visas to each other's country for the most part. This is by treaty and I understand that if a country like the UK arbitrarily starts excluding people, that treaty falls out and visitors on quick business and tourist trips (of which there are quite a lot from the UK as you're traditionally a huge investor in the US) would have to start getting visas to enter the US.
This is unlikely to happen if it's just Mr. Savage excluded but if this is the start of a new trend towards political intervention in american affairs by 'shaming' medium sized US political players whose politics are non-violent but not favored by Her Majesty's current government then eventually there will be an unpleasant reaction.
Mr. Savage is not the first to land in this boat; MP Wilders precedes him. It is a stupid policy and I hope Her Majesty's next government comes to its senses.
..he's a news flash you braindead moron. Your laws (contary to what you believe) do not apply outside the USA.
Yes we Americans know that you people have no real freedom of speech. That your subject to monitoring and control by your government. We know that what you say and what you do is subject to government laws that filter out views that the government disagrees with.
But your court systems do get very excited about libel and slander. Which is what is happening to him. Mostly originated from elements in your government, your government-controlled media, and other media that is friendly to the ruling party.
And besides, it's you country's hysteria and unfounded panicing, has led to these stupid laws being founded in the first place.....
Yes. It's the USA's fault that British people have no freedom to dissent or talk out anymore lest they get fined, fired, banned, deported, or arrested for causing strife.
Or class conflict or upsetting the Muslims or whatever other brain-dead excuse that your government can dream up in order to eliminate the ability for people to disagree with them publicly and get heard.
Oh. Savage is not a shock Jock.
A shock jock is a person that goes and does toilet humour for the sake of shocking poeple.
He is a right wing political commentator who tends to get excited about his viewpoints. He isn't even extreme. Which is why your government would like to see him and other people like him minimized. They don't want to allow viewpoints into your country that run contrary to the status quo that they want to establish.
At least for now you people still have the internet and the ability to listen to other country's radio shows...
I wonder how long before that is going to be taken away from you?
Any Internet filtering laws yet?
As an American conservative, yes the most evil of all possible people in European eyes, what I find disturbing about all of this is that were my opinions widely known then apparently the United Kingdom would feel compelled to ban me as well. I am against gay marriage, socialism, abortion, do not trust government of any form, and worst of all am a hated Christian. Alll of that being said, I do not support or condone violence on behalf of those views (e.g. no bombing of abortion clinics). In effect, I hold the same core beliefs as Mr. Savage (not sure if he is Jewish or Christian). I have heard him and don't particularily like his show but that is because I find him grating. As far as I am aware of, he is not advocating violence on his show though I am sure somebody will pull something out of their butt using an isolated quote he used for entertainment value. I won't bother arguing about whether the UK can ban him or not, obviously you can, it is your country. What I would argue is that the UK has crossed a line where your decisions to ban people have gone from actively dangerous people (bombers, killers, revolutionaries, etc.) to people you don't agree with. I understand the argument around inciting but it appears that disagreement now equates to incitement. Once again, it's your line to draw, I am just personally dismayed that you have drawn it so close to me. No doubt many will respond that they are more than happy to keep me out of the UK but I suppose that will just go to prove my point.
P.S. Please don't respond with "yeah but America sucks because of X,Y, and Z." I know we can be inconsistant but the topic here is the UK action, You don't erase your mistakes by diverting attention to other mistakes.
My question would have to be....Why prevent him in the first place even if one has the right to do so. He's not all that influential in the US, and he's certainly not a radical that might damage society. By making a scene, the government was simply fueling his fire.
What was he visiting for? A speaking engagement? That would be awfully embarrassing, and to a semi-celebrity who makes money off of showing the world how dissatisfied and angry he is, you're pretty much asking him to rant and cry bloody murder over it.
"Why is the Reg giving what appears to be a sad and somewhat deranged poseur so much publicity?"
Don't know what the IT angle is, but the fact of the matter is it's showing people can be put on this list for no good reason. He's a loud-mouthed git (IMHO) but he doesn't incite violence, racism, or any of that.
@Bassey, " Surely she was just exercising her rights to freely express her view that he's a loud-mouthed git?". I support his defamation lawsuit -- she didn't call him a loud-mouthed git, she put him on a list with klansmen and terrorists. If this was some huge list it's one thing, but with only 16 members it's "the worst of the worst", and I think putting his name on there DOES defame his character. Will he have an angle to actually make a case? No idea.
If the US wants to let him over here, they'll just have to lighten up on who they're prepared to let into the US. Given that they appear to be aware of this aspect, it's not surprising that they've coming down on Jacqui's side.
She's got to get one right occasionally, exception to prove the rule and all that.
Nobody's rights are being infringed here. Entering the United Kingdom, other than from between the legs of a British woman, is not a right but a privilege. And furthermore, it is a privilege which is absolutely not extended to homophobic bigots.
We have enough of those here anyway.
... freedom of speech. He doesn't however have any right to come to another country, its a privalidge, we decide if we want to LET him in.
"Technically, by preventing him from entering, Jacqui is actually protecting his right to free speech."
No she's not, she saying say what you want. We are not giving you the prividge of coming to our country, in theory before the advent of the internet/tv/radio you might have a point, but not now.
To everyone going on about how the uk has no rights, yes we do, the papers love implying that we don't cause it sells papers so people can rage at the government, if anyway the papers are abusing there rights.
To be honest you lot complaining should do something about it, leave, or shut up. Pick one! The person who sits by idly is just as bad as the person comitting the crime!
I want to see this become even more public and then watch as he flounders through the legal system waiting for somebody to listen to his story of heartache and lost freedoms.
Wake up, idiot. Countries have been doing this for years, in fact the US has one of the largest lists of this kind promoting the restriction of movement between countries. Just because you have a bigger mouth, doesn't give you the right to spread your crap all over another country.
I want to read about this in the papers in about 2 months when he is whining about their being an injustice against his human rights (which btw, do not include free movement across borders). Nothing I like more than reading about these morons crying to the press about how they are persecuted.
I'm completely fed up with stupid half-wit septics trying to apply their fucked up laws in other countries. I remember once being in a line at a London airport (I forget which) and a septic tank in front of me was complaining to the customs official taking photographs of everyone in the line with a web cam (just like they do to foreigners in the US) that it was "against his constitutional rights". Well, if you are so worried about those rights FUCK OFF BACK TO THE STINKING CESS-PIT YOU CAME FROM, YOU WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT. You aren't in (or dealing with) America, so don't expect your worthless laws that protect the rights of people to carry heavy machine guns, but won't let them see a pair of tits on TV, to apply. Britain has one of the oldest systems of law in the world; and much as Wacky Jacqui and her lunatic friends attempt to pervert them, we aren't going to change them because of a whining septic.
I think they are trying to make the next election a cultural thing. But that is going to backfire like crazy, Labour has not done much for cultures and is a shinning example of the abuse of multi culturism.
The reason Labour let in so many immigrants is not for the benefit of the country, the immigrants, or the world, it was for the benefit of Labour taxation and a trough for them to enact bizarre public control systems and something to get their snouts into to buy their nappies and chandeliers, it would appear.
Don't think for one moment that Labour has ideals of fair play, they are as nihilist and as selfish as they come, and pretty incompetent to boot. They use race as a weapon, and a political spin point, they are racist in that way, they don't believe in any culture apart from the culture of the Labour MP, that is what they put in front of everything else, that is their master race.
Can't think of a more amusing pairing than Jacqui and Savage to provide a real tempest in a teapot. Somebody somewhere had a real brainstorm when they set this up.
Pass the popcorn.
Analysis: Dear Stupid Jacqui has, of course, put her foot in it again. And Savage knows a good publicity op when he sees one. The net result is that Jacqui's attempt to squelch Savage has in fact given the man wider publicity than ever before. Nice going, Jacqui dear!
It all reminds me of the Good Ol' Days when every American publisher yearned to read a headline about one of his productions, "BANNED IN BOSTON". Getting banned in Boston guaranteed best-seller status as the rest of the population rushed to see what all the fuss was about.
There, there, Jacqui dear, it's all okay. Go draft some more draconian police state regs and you'll soon feel all better.
I appreciate ElReg for posting these stories. Lets just break this down quickly enough for all.
-(1st amendment is for the USA only) The things Savage says may offend some people, but that is his right to do so. Free speech doesn't just mean protecting politically correct speech.
-Savage does not promote violence, which is what Jacqui is claiming his mere presence will start.
-Listing him in a public banning list with those other people does 'seem' like defamation....don't know about lawsuit though....
-If he weren't on the radio and was still as popular as just a blogger, how many of you would be still be whining that this story doesn't belong?
IMO it will be interesting to see if Hillary will act in the name of another American who isn't in line with her own political views.
The 1st amendment protects all types of free speech. It also only applies to the USA.
Michael Savage may say things that some people find offensive, but he doesn't promote violence. He's a Conservative talk show radio host and not some morning shock jock.
Grouping him with those other people appears as defamation to me, but who knows legally if he could win the suit?
The censorship Jacqui wants to apply to Savage will be applied to more and more people who she simply doesn't agree with if not challenged now. Even though I still doubt she has ever heard his show.
His name was probably passed across by some Obama appointee who has heard Savage and doesn't want him to be able to spread his political views to England. Then a little later Obama's own group will point to England banning him and use that as an excuse to try and silence him.
- If Savage was only a blogger but still as widely heard and popular the IT community would be much more on his side IMO.
-Please keep the US Gov and their 'no fly' list a separate issue.
Go on with reporting the Savage stories, this is the Canary in the coalmine test for Jacqui.
I will be the first to admit I do not know the specific rights (especially pertaining to freeom of speech) that you have in the UK. I will also be the first to admit I don't particularly care for Savage. However I do have to wonder at the fact that he was chosen as a poster-child for "hate" speech. For a list that is so small, I find it a matter of some concern that he is considered an example of undesirable aspects. Truth be told most individuals (myself included) share quite a number of his views. I find it hard to believe that speaking our minds is such a threat to the stability of the OK.
Anybody ever see "V" for vendetta?
I agree that it seems our beloved fuehrer has overstepped the 'actively dangerous' point. I for one never agreed with the hate speech laws, they have an overbroad definition of hate speech (i.e, as others have pointed out, that which the Authoritah! does not agree with. If mrs Clinton helps him, good, it's more brownie points for her. If he wins, good, it WAS defamation.
And no, I can't stand his views, I disagree with almost every one of them. Being nice to him will just make him angrier
Here I am a liberal, at least by most definitions used on both sides of the pond, and I find the actions by Jacqui Smith to be reprehensible, just as I have always found Michael Savage. I do realize that the US Constitution and the first ten rights, the Bill of Rights, are loosely based on the Magna Carta, with (slow) expansion to classes beyond the landed gentry. With that in mind, there is a reason for Yanks to be a bit apprehensive about what we see happening in Britain all the time when it comes to the treatment of the citizens by the government. So much of what we do is based on English law, that if you guys can water down what used to be a strong document, what could be done to the Constitution?
Even though I don't think anyone on the public list that Britain has "named and shamed" is worth much more than the sludge in a chemical toilet, I believe that as long as they don't try to incite violence or commit violence in the name of the their cause, they are free to spout off their crackpot theories. We'd even let Mrs. Smith talk around here, though most would probably cringe and ignore her, just like anyone with more than a primary school education does with Mr. Savage. The point here is that for an American, regardless of (most) political beliefs, the idea of the government making any moves that look to be suppressing or slandering a person is frightening, even if they are a foreign national. One could argue that Mrs. Smith, by putting him just on a "No Entry" list, isn't suppressing his voice, but it does look like the thin end of a wedge. One might look at it and think to themselves, "Should I ever voice an opinion that might be contrary to a ruling party's opinion in Britain, lest I get a lifetime ban as well?"
I don't condone Mr. Savage's actions at all, and he is just milking this publicity cow for all it's worth. He knows his crowd, and they are very... simple. They are very reactionary and likely to act rashly against anything they view as British regardless of how this pans out now. It might be as simple as boycott (which, given the median listener's income, probably means one less order of fish and chips from the local pub every month for every member of the Royal Family), to something as irritating as rude behavior to anyone perceived as being British in their area, even if they are a naturalized citizen of America, or downright harassment of travelers.
I don't know what kind of publicity it got across the pond, but after the French told Dubya to screw off and take his warmongering elsewhere (which went well), there was a fringe movement (including xenophobic bills in the House and Senate) to remove the name "French" from various legal definitions (french fries and french toast to be renamed "freedom" fries and "freedom" toast). That's the kind of followers that this idiot Mr. Savage has, and while it seems quaint and silly, for every 1,000 people who find it to be just harmless fun, there is that 1,001st person who takes it up as a personal grudge.
I guess it still is part of the American psyche that everyone is free (insomuch as you don't try to kill us, for varying values of "kill") and that outside interference in our policies of state or citizen actions are not tolerated (you have King George III to blame for that one, and the War of 1812 just reinforced it). "Don't Tread on Me" is more than just a rallying cry of the Revolutionary Amry and a former motto of the US Marine Corps, as it still does sum up the general US ethos when dealing with the world. Just don't ask me to defend the foreign policy of Dubya. The man wasn't much more than a jumped up brat with too much cocaine on the brain. Elections are such double-edges swords.
AC: "don't expect your worthless laws that protect the rights of people to carry heavy machine guns, but won't let them see a pair of tits on TV"
Uh ... AC, dear chap, I don't know where you got your information, but heavy machine guns are NOT legal for people to carry here in the states. Light MGs are allowed under certain circumstances, as long as you dot the Is & cross the Ts. In fact, I even had to sell my .50 Browning single shot long range target rifle. On the bright side, the .416 that replaced it seems to be a hair more accurate ... Or maybe I'm a better shot than I was when I bought the .50, and the .416 has a newer barrel.
As for tits on TV, there were several pairs on at 6PM (1800 hours) this evening, some even looked real (Bay Area, Dish TV, I was at my neighbor's house returning a couple puppies that seem to prefer my place to his). There was full-frontal nudity on TV, too, and a fair approximation of adults having sex ... if by adults you mean a fat overly tattooed man in his late thirties or early forties sweating on a late teen or early 20s girl with badly dyed blonde hair, too many piercings, the hips of a 14yo boy, and 40" plastic tits. Quite surreal, really.
Ben scrive: "I am against gay marriage, socialism, abortion, do not trust government of any form, and worst of all am a hated Christian."
::sighs:: Why is it that the wingnuts (left and right) are so paranoid? Sad, really. I blame the education system. Or lack thereof, as the case may be. Ben, if you are young enough you still have time to grow a brain of your own, instead of parroting what you've been told to parrot. Not that I'm going to hold my breath, mind.
But the UK isn't interfering with his right to free expression at all. He can express his opinions all he wants. The UK is merely asserting the right to decide who they will or will not allow across their borders. There is no law, anywhere, that requires the UK allow anyone who is not a British subject or EU citizen across their borders.
Given what the US is doing with regards to barring people from its borders, or even stopping them and everyone else in the aircraft from flying over its airspace I have no problem with the UK returning the favour. They should bar many more Americans actually.
So tell the skanky 'merkin to fuck off and be done with it.
First. Who? Never heard of him. When I saw "shock-jock", all I could think of were Stern and Imus.
Second. Sovereign immunity. HM Government can choose to do whatever it wants and Savage has little to say about it. Heck, if the TSA put him on our own no fly list, it would be years and years before he would even find out to to find out how to appeal. Although I'm willing to contribute to HM favorite charity if the government will let him in, if only so we can ban him.
Third. The US has this strange concept known as extrajurisdictional power. Let's say it's legal to smoke crack in Absurdastan. If I do, I can still be prosecuted by the US, since I'm a US citizen. On the other extreme, let's say I'm a semi-dictator from some Central American isthmus country that is perhaps helping out drug lords. I could be captured during an invasion, tried and imprisoned in the US. Ooops, not hypothetical.
Fourth, I got an email telling me about a new Pam and Tommy video, but when I went to look at it, all the money disappeared from my IRA.
Scratch the last, different topic.
The following quote shows that Savage does promote extreme mass violence:
"…I said so kill 100 million of them, then there would be 900 million of them. I mean would you rather us die than them? I mean what is it gonna take for you people to wake up? Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you're gonna have to make that choice sooner rather than later."
This quote alone shows that the ban is at the very least reasonable.
The only question is whether banning this nazi was sensible given the amount of publicity he would mik from it. I am sure he was delighted that he was banned.
There is no right to freely travel to other countires and no country gives an unrestricted right of entry to non-citizens, least of al the US. None of mister Savage's righst have been infringed. If he came to Britain then he would be much better protected than a UK citizen who travelled to the US because British courts have repeatedly ruled that all of the protections due to a citizen are also due to a non-citizen this is in sharp contrst to the US as guantanomo and other incidents starkly show.
The US should ban Jacqui Smith from entering for being a stupid, Marxist, tart... Oh crap, was that a hateful thing to say?
It's important to realize that the hate crimes that regulate hateful speech are contrary to the principle of freedom of speech. Thought and expression must be without limits, no matter how evil. Laws should only regulate actions, not words.
I'd welcome this guy with open arms to the UK to say whatever hateful crap he likes. Why? Because in doing so it is protecting the principle that allows legitimate people to say what they like as well.
Remember when they denied the Dutch MP Geert Wilders access to the UK? He was, and is, a legitimate person with a legitimate message (that is supported by the majority in his country). Yet, his views didn't agree with those of the government, so they packed him off back to the Netherlands. Of course, they couldn't allow him his right to say his piece and promote his message because they know full well that the majority of the British public agrees with him and wants the same action taken on immigration, asylum, and Islamification, as he does.
All suppression of speech does is protect the interests of governments, not people.
The whole travel without Visa thing has a number of caveats and exceptions, such as those with criminal records (Martha Stewart was refused entry) and those who have been listed as not to be let in. The situation won't fall down just because a loony shock-jock who by his own admission never wants to travel to the UK now can't travel to the UK.
RE: Savage suing Jacquie Smith:
Interesting one here is which jurisdiction he sues in. If he sues in the US he is basically stating that it is fine for one country to attempt to enforce their laws on another and accordingly he would have to accept that he has no case. If he tries to sue in the UK then not only would he naturally lose but if he did win the Home Secretary would just step in and overturn the verdict. And he would seriously damage his chances by not showing up in court in person, which he can't do.
::sighs:: Why is it that the wingnuts (left and right) are so paranoid? Sad, really. I blame the education system. Or lack thereof, as the case may be. Ben, if you are young enough you still have time to grow a brain of your own, instead of parroting what you've been told to parrot. Not that I'm going to hold my breath, mind
I am paranoid and don't have a brain because I don't trust governments? I would suggest that you are perhaps a bit naive and are in fact the one who lacked a proper education in world history. Government at best is a necessary evil and has an alarming propensity to become the oppresor of the governed all in the name of providing for and protecting them. Examples like Republican Rome, revolutionary France, the Weimar republic, the Bolshevik revolution, and Communist china were all in the end corrupted because men are also in the end corruptable. If you fail to realize this then I am afraid it is you who lacks the perspective and wisdom of age (not that I actually was alive during the time of Ceasar but you get the point). As for my "paranoid" comment about being a hated Christian I can only suggest that you are likely oblivious to the commentary in the press and online that is decidedly and increasingly hostile towards my faith.
Your comment about me "parroting what I've been told" seems to in fact be a mantra in itself used to dismiss a person without actually refuting him. Congratulations on using the most frequently parroted ad hominem attack out there.
P.S. I particularily like the addition of the ::sigh:: part, nice arrogant dismissive twist on the ad hominem.
'It's important to realize that the hate crimes that regulate hateful speech are contrary to the principle of freedom of speech. Thought and expression must be without limits, no matter how evil. Laws should only regulate actions, not words'
None of our rights are without limits for good reason. Words ARE actions and are rightly lmitted. This is just as true in the US as it is in the UK. There is a legitimate debate about where the limits should be, but there can be no sensible debate that there should be some limits. The classic example is shouting "fire" in a theatre but there are lots of other obvious examples. What should be protected is political speech and commentary but political commentary that advocates killing 100 million muslims as Mr Savage has done should not be protected.
People who publically advocate killing and especially those who advocate killing millions are exactly the people who should be banned from entering the UK. What is shocking is the platform this man has in the US and that anyone should be supporting him.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Noone is disputing this idiot's right to spew hatred and filth into the ears of the world's listening community, but it must be recognised that entry into a sovereign country is a privilege, not a right. For that reason, (although I'm the first to admit she's among the worst things to happen to Britain in recent history) Jacqui has every right to deny entry of whatever foreign citizens she wants.
@Alan Johnson Posted Saturday 16th May 2009 13:44
Advocating the government military to kill people who declare themselves your enemies, have killed thousands of people, and are still trying to kill you (during a time of military conflict) is hardly hate - perhaps better classified as self defense.
It is very telling when politicians and casual posters can't understand the difference.
That does not, however, make Michael Savage peasant to listen to.
@Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 18th May 2009 13:28 GMT
"Advocating the government military to kill people who declare themselves your enemies, have killed thousands of people, and are still trying to kill you (during a time of military conflict) is hardly hate - perhaps better classified as self defense.
It is very telling when politicians and casual posters can't understand the difference."
Self defence is killing people who are a threatening to kill you. Mr Savage was advocating killing 100 Million muslims. There is not even one muslim country in the world with which we or the US is in conflict and 100 million would imply killing everyone, men, women and children not just combatants The total death toll for WW2 was only 26 million. this is not self defence but mass murderr and I do understand the difference.
There are many many times more Muslims killed by Jews and Christians than there are Jews and Christians killed by Muslims. Would you argue that Muslims should advocate killing 100 million Jews or Christians for self defence? If someone did this would you defend their 'right' to travel to the US or UK to do so?
First of all, I'm no fan of my current local, state & national government. I vote, and will continue voting until I get it right. And then I'll vote to keep it that way. Along the way, I read up on the issues, and vote according to what makes sense for me and mine. I rarely vote a straight ticket, because it's rare that I agree 100% with any particular party. Can you say the same? If you can't say the same, and you are voting according to however your party tells you to vote, you are a tool of your political party of choice, and not a free thinker.
"As for my "paranoid" comment about being a hated Christian I can only suggest that you are likely oblivious to the commentary in the press and online that is decidedly and increasingly hostile towards my faith."
That was one of several things I was referring to as paranoia, but I find it somewhat telling that you choose to cherrypick that particular bit ... ANYway, I don't give a rat's ass what you claim as your faith. It's none of my business, and you can not prove to me that you have that faith, so why bring it up in such a completely off topic manor? Basically, if you don't want it, don't bring it.
"Your comment about me "parroting what I've been told" seems to in fact be a mantra in itself used to dismiss a person without actually refuting him. Congratulations on using the most frequently parroted ad hominem attack out there."
Not ad hominem. Truth rarely is. That's why it's used so frequently ... it's the truth!
"P.S. I particularily like the addition of the ::sigh:: part, nice arrogant dismissive twist on the ad hominem."
Nope. That ::sigh:: was one of pity, and sorrow over the loss of yet another human mind to the sheeple. It's no coincidence that the early Christian leaders used the word "flock" to describe their congregations. Again, if you are young enough you still have time to grow a brain of your own. If you want to. If not, it's your choice, and who am I to tell you what to do with your life?
@Alan Johnson Posted Monday 18th May 2009 17:48 GMT
"Self defence is killing people who are a threatening to kill you. Mr Savage was advocating killing 100 Million muslims."
You are misrepresenting the statement. According to the quote you provided, Mr. Savage brought up a hypothetical situation where his listeners "claimed there to be 1 billion psychotic muslims in the world" so Mr Savage suggested killing 1/10th of them.
When hypothetical psychotic people are trying to wipe you out, killing 1/10th of hypothetical psychotics is not self defense? Actually, it is not. Killing 1 billion hypothetical psychotics who are trying to kill you is self defense.
From your quote, Mr. Savage's response was not even an eye-for-an-eye, was not close to defense, was not even close to revenge. Killing 1/10th of an aggressors who is trying to actively exterminate you is referred to compassionate at the stake of their own well being.
"There is not even one muslim country in the world with which we or the US is in conflict and 100 million would imply killing everyone, men, women and children not just combatants"
There are no Muslim countries. A Country can not believe in a faith. People believe in faith.
If you go across the Central Asia, Middle East and North Africa, you will note varying levels of adherence to Islam... 90%, 70%, 99%. There is a way they got there - to genocide the existing communities until they no longer exist.
How is this done?
By making sure every man, woman, and child is labeled as a Muslim, Christian, New or other on their birth certificates & passports. If a Muslim changes their adherence from their label, they are killed.
Why are they killed? Because it it against the law to convert from Islam, punishable by death.
When governments are taken over through military coups and Islamic law is applied to a region of people, they are forced to all look like adherents, forced to speak the language of the aggressor, their culture is eliminated.
If you are not a Muslim in these countries, you have fewer rights under the law. These fewer rights encourages people to become adherents and change their labels.
In United Nations terminology - what is happening is referred to as Genocide.
"There are many many times more Muslims killed by Jews and Christians than there are Jews and Christians killed by Muslims."
This is a very miopic statement.
You need to include the Animists and holders of pagan faiths to get a clearer understanding.
Just looking at the population statistics across Central Asia, Middle East, and Northern Africa demonstrates this to be incorrect.
Nearly every major war that has been running for generations across the globe has terrorist Muslims who are trying to gain control of an area where they can genocide the local people group through the application of Islamic Law and forced conversion to Islam.
The common Muslim does not really want this, they are victimized almost as much as the non-Muslim, but because they are victimized less, they are fearful to speak up and place their families at risk - because they know the result is genocide for them.
"If someone did this would you defend their 'right' to travel to the US or UK to do so?"
Your position to defend global genocide, endorse suppression of local Muslim populations, and persecute those who speak in their defense is deplorable.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021