Great Britan is arresting Muslim haters.

[SeaCaptain49]

No doubt the British brought a healthy dose of racism and their version of "manifest destiny" to a good bit of the globe in the 1800 & 1900s, but as was said upthread, I don't know of any of the countries they occupied which ended up the worse for the occupation.

Exactly. Most of those third world countries are worse off now then when they were "colonies".

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sure the imperialism and whatnot was wrong, i've never liked, promoted or agreed with it but let's make a wee point here. UK frankly in real terms means England. England wanted to invade and occupy and take, scotland was simply forced into service.

This is certainly noted and well understood. Imperialism was an English thing, and they just happened to bring the rest of Britain along with them; willing or not.

Also another thing to take note of is the fact that yes while the UK did run the worlds largest Empire and colonize more places than anyone else no one can say that they made the places they went worse. Everywhere they went, they improved the place.

Now, in this I have issue, because there's much much more to this story. Forced annexation aside, the UK did in fact make things better in the places they "set up shop." The problem is, they left the "shop" to the natives, that then attempted to run their respective countries in the same way their former administrators had.

If you allow me a parable, it's like a person who has a jalopy that runs, but just barely. Then one day some guy comes in, uninvited, gives it a new paint job, new motor, new tires, and changes the transmission from automatic to manual. This guy then proceeds to drive the owner around in the car for the next 50 years, only allowing the original owner to change the tires and wash it. Then one day the guy tells the owner he's moving back home. He hands the owner the keys, and tells him that now he'll have to drive himself and maintain the vehicle. The original owner then proceeds to crash his car into everything in the neighborhood.

That's pretty much what the UK did to many of its colonies after discovering that they could no long administer them. They ran well when the British were in control, but due to fears of the local populaces, the British purposefully excluded the people from learning how to administer their own govts. In the end they did quite a bit of harm, and left the locals hold the bag and schleping their way forward trying to mimic the "British way." Obviously they have failed.

 

[Mark-of-Scotland]

Mark you need to study your English history a bit more. I heard on the radio today that our Founding Fathers didn't get their ideas about personal freedom out of thin air. There was a document before the Magna Carta that outlined human rights, if I remember what I heard this morning correctly. You folks haven't had a history of individual rights since you were conquered. If you're going to make a case for individual rights, you're going to need to make it from the Englishers' point of view, by pointing to their own precedents.

The only thing remotley resembling human rights in the UK before the Magna Cart was the Assize of Clarendon, passed by Henry II in 1166. It helped to abolish trial by combat and trial by ordeal by requiring convictions to be based on evidence. People Cite the Magna Carta all the time. I don't think it's that big of a deal. Almost everything within it was repealed very quickly and the only thing that really stuck which was important was that criminals should be punished according to the law and not according to whatever the king felt like doing to the criminal on that particular day.

While i do wish to make a case for individual rights i don't really wish to make the case for the subjects of England. As far as i'm concerned England is a lost cause and should just be left to die in the filth of it's own making.

This is certainly noted and well understood. Imperialism was an English thing, and they just happened to bring the rest of Britain along with them; willing or not.



Now, in this I have issue, because there's much much more to this story. Forced annexation aside, the UK did in fact make things better in the places they "set up shop." The problem is, they left the "shop" to the natives, that then attempted to run their respective countries in the same way their former administrators had.

If you allow me a parable, it's like a person who has a jalopy that runs, but just barely. Then one day some guy comes in, uninvited, gives it a new paint job, new motor, new tires, and changes the transmission from automatic to manual. This guy then proceeds to drive the owner around in the car for the next 50 years, only allowing the original owner to change the tires and wash it. Then one day the guy tells the owner he's moving back home. He hands the owner the keys, and tells him that now he'll have to drive himself and maintain the vehicle. The original owner then proceeds to crash his car into everything in the neighborhood.

That's pretty much what the UK did to many of its colonies after discovering that they could no long administer them. They ran well when the British were in control, but due to fears of the local populaces, the British purposefully excluded the people from learning how to administer their own govts. In the end they did quite a bit of harm, and left the locals hold the bag and schleping their way forward trying to mimic the "British way." Obviously they have failed.

Well what can i say? England didn't leave the colonies they were ejected by an uppity bunch of natives who thought they could run the country better than the brits did. It's thjeir country and they have every right to run it how they please of course but well if 2000 years before hand rome had running water, architecture, games, art and proper culture and you're country is still living in a mud hut that a beaver could do a better job of then well you've not really got the hand of the whole"running a country thing" have you?

While it is of course their right to run their country however they wish you'd think they would have recognised a good thing when they had it and stayed as british Subjects. The commonwealth seems to have learned that lesson though because frankly if you've been to London recently you can clearly see they are indeed all becoming british citizens again...

 

[spencer rifle]

Thoughtcrime. "Speak no evil of those people." Depending on the fiq (school of Muslim jurisprudence) you follow, the fate of infidels is one of three options:
1. Convert
2. Only for People of the Book (Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians): they may surrender and submit to paying the jizya (head tax) with degrading humility. They must also obey all limitations placed on them, which often include dressing different than Muslims, giving right of way to Muslims, houses must be built lower than Muslim houses, wearing some distinguishing symbol on their clothes, etc.
3. Die

From the prosecutor in the Geert Wilders case:
“It is irrelevant whether Wilders’ witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations to be correct. What’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.”

Pat Condell says, “When the truth is no defence, there is no defence”