Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Riotandantony
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 62
Bi-curious Female, 66
0 miles · Highland

Forum

Its tragic when our soldiers lives are lost, but what they are doing is a valid and worthwhile war, for our own safety and that of the ordinary Afghan people, most of whom don't want the Taliban, leftists in the UK say we should not interfere in other countries - but in the week a GB army officer said that most of the Taliban they captured were actually foreign fighters and that then IED bomb makers were trained in Iran - who also arm and fund Hezbollah in Lebanon, it seems these people are only too willing to do down their own side whilst ignoring the tyrants wishing to expand their own evil islamo-fascist empires.
Theres' nothing wrong with escorts,sex workers, strippers etc also going swinging - it should be legalised as far as I'm concerned.
Though I've never paid for sex personally, I've known a few sex workers and found them to be perfectly decent and interesting ladies.
All these legalistic approaches are still not dealing with the issue.
The Establishment has twice before tried to silence the BNP in the courts over some moderate comments it's leader made about islam, they failed as it would have been seen as the undemocratic political harassment it was.
Gordon Brown's clunking fist or - actions will not solve people's very real concerns, which none of the three major partys took up, over the quagmire of our immigration system, until this is done, support for the BNP will grow, or if they are suppressed, worse still, an alienated public may start taking the law into their own hands.
The issue with the Iranian election is that it is considered that it was fixed , with the results of the national election being announced before even the local results had come in ! etc
The election was not even democracy as we would know it anyway, all candidates have to be approved by the mullahs, and dissent is silenced on TV etc
In any case, for the ordinary people of Iran, it has become more than this, it is a way of protesting against a totalitarian islamo-fascist regime whose head honcho claims he gets his messages from god (rather like the pope and Peter Sutcliffe !).
I wish the Iranian freedom fighters the best of British luck in struggling against a vile tyranny.
Quote by foxylady2209
I feel that all schools should teach the history and culture of the main faiths (there's about 5 of them). But in the same spirit as geography and history are taught - as factors that influence human society.
I also feel that no child should be indoctrinated in ANY religion - either by school or parents. You cannot choose the beliefs your child will have - all you can do is force them to mimic yours. Belief comes from inside - by virtue of experience and knowledge.
The minimum age for baptism or formal entry into any religious group should be 18 and should follow a long period of learning about many different belief systems.
If children cannot be held responsible for their criminal behaviour (as in the news today) then they sure as hell can't make any decision about their immortal soul - and no-one has the right to take that choice from them.

Cat amongst the pigeons time ! Heres the question ; if the minimum age for baptism etc should be 18, should this also apply for the invasive underage religeous surgical proceedure called circumsision ?! this is a sex site - so it should be discussed.
My own view is that this operation should not be performed on those below the age of 18 - children are not old enough to make the decision.
I'd be interested to hear views of other forumites.
ps ; for some reason the qoutes got mixed up in the above post ?! I don't think religeon should be taught in schools etc !
Quote by kentswingers777
Those who proclaim the supposed virtues of the various faith schools, whether christian,islam etc, including NuLabour, would do well to remember that both Gerry Adams of Sinn Feinn and Paisley have said that their respective denominational schools contributed to the sectarianism that plagues NI society.

The same thing could be said in Scotland.
Religion only causes to divide people. The hatred between Celtic and Rangers north of the border, is unbelievable.
All in the name of religion.
You're telling me ! Much of Scottish society, especially here in the Highlands, is caught between the twin bigotrys of catholicism and the Free Presbetyrians (called the "wee frees" up here).
Behind the scenes they still have considerable sway in local politics, ensuring their own get council posts etc.
Relatively recently, the Free Church ministers would spy on couples leaving pubs and follow them home, if they spent the night with each other and were unmarried, the women would be denounced as every sort of low life whore from the pulpit the following Sunday.
One woman I know of from the west coast used to be invited to her village "do" every year, then one year she was'nt, this puzzled her so she made enquiries, and it eventually got back to her that the good burghers of the area had seen her wearing jeans that were too tight and thus decided she was not the sort of woman they wanted around !
The sooner this shower are consigned to the dustbin of human history - the better.
I think all schools should teach religion but.....all religions. Also I feel that faith schools are biased and encourage their own beliefs, which is fine but look at Scotland and Ireland for good reasons why south of the border they should not be here.
Those who proclaim the supposed virtues of the various faith schools, whether christian,islam etc, including NuLabour, would do well to remember that both Gerry Adams of Sinn Feinn and Paisley have said that their respective denominational schools contributed to the sectarianism that plagues NI society.
Quote by browning
Right outside the commons and not a copper in sight?, bit fishy to me..........

I've got a nagging suspicion that the secret state is fomenting attacks against the BNP in order to goad them into taking retaliatory action and ending up in a gang war with the left, thus making the BNP look like a load of drunken skinheads and diverting the left/anarchists away from focussing on the establishment.
Children's minds should not be indoctrinated with any form of religion, nor should taxpayers money be used to fund faith schools, prison, army or hospital chaplains, or to repair old churches under the guise of "ancient buildings".
All this talk about the BNP being "nasty rough men" or what have you and throwing eggs etc still will not solve any issues, the hard fact is that people voted for them largely as a result of succesive governements failure to control immigration, and then attempt to cover up this failure with spin.
According to the Migration Watch website ( ) set up by Sir Andrew Green, ex ambassador to Syria, immigration will add 7 million people to the English population over the next 20 years, thats 7 times the population of Birmingham - like it or not the UK people don't like this happening, and unless the govt does something meaningful about it, then the BNP will just get stronger and race relations deteriorate.
Its worth mentioning that many ethnic communities also oppose further mass immigration, so it can hardly be called "racist" !
Quote by Waterpistol
We do live in a democracy, I don't think the BNP or anyone else should be banned, whether they are from the right such as the BNP, the left such as the communist party, or the anarchists such as the Class War Federation.
I do - Because given the opportunity, the BNP would not allow you the freedom that you currently enjoy ... They poison people's minds and would destroy everything that's left of civil liberties in this country. You wanna cure cancer you cut it out and throw it away.
Quote by Riotandantony
Sometimes controversial or uncomfortable views must be discussed for the benefit of society, however "raw" these are.
Banning views is not actually dealing with the issue.
Absolutely, and it's a failure to discuss certain issues that's led to a rise in support for fascist scum (I choose my words carefully). So, yes discuss immigration, culture and identity and work out how to address it better - as sweeping it under the carpet just paves the way to neo-Nazism.
I still don't think they, or anyone else should be banned ! You are right to say that issues such as immigration, culture and identity etc should be discussed, but the fact is for too long, none of the major partys or media have done so.
The BNP gain support because they are seen as the only party (apart from possibly UKIP) who are discussing immigration etc.
For too long the left, liberals and pc jobsworths have smeared anyone who critiscises the mess our current immigration policy is in, or dislikes the creeping islamisation of our society as "racist" or "islamophobic" or some such rubbish.
(oh, and by the way, I'm neither racist nor a bnp member !)
I Know Obama is still on his honeymoon, so this is going to sound a bit harsh, but there was'nt much meat on the bones of the speech.
Also, it was reported on C4 news that at one section of the speech he critiscized France's ban on the Islamic veil in public institutions etc. This law is popular amongst the majority of French, including moderate muslims, and was partly done to counteract gangs of muslim male youths "thugging - out" Algerian & Morrocan girls of muslim descent, so I think he was well out of order critiscizing this and pandering to fundamentalists.
This is a complex one ! I'm coming into it from a different angle in that I keep lurchers (thats a type of working dog for those of you who don't know !), which is a type of dog also favoured by travellers.
Briefly, how I always put it is that I have found both extremes within the gypsy community - some really nice people who are kind to their dogs and honest...and some real dodgy types (I'm being polite here !).
Some gypsies have maintained their culture into modern times, some seem to have lost their way, which can lead to problems, anyway, enough of the politics - I've got to feed my lurcher puppies !
We do live in a democracy, I don't think the BNP or anyone else should be banned, whether they are from the right such as the BNP, the left such as the communist party, or the anarchists such as the Class War Federation.
Sometimes controversial or uncomfortable views must be discussed for the benefit of society, however "raw" these are.
Banning views is not actually dealing with the issue.
Maybe it is, but I think the new talk of constitutional reform is just the politicians trying to take the heat off themselves.
Arthur Scargill's marxist ideology did a good job of leading the miners to defeat, why let him do the same thing with the whole country ?
Here's a controversial discussion point ! ; one wonders why the hell human dross such as Baby P's parents and the Karen Mathews and her moronic porn addicted boyfriend Craig Meehan were allowed to have kids ?
A difficult question I know, and I guess each case has to be taken individually and can't be turned into a political dogma, but its a question society ought to ask itself.
A glaring omission from the debate about tax evasion is the millions lost through offshore banking and tax havens etc - the rest of us have to make up the burden for these company's infrastructure.
Checkout the Tax Justice Network website for more info.
Quote by Freckledbird

This reminds me of the harsh old British saying "Those who can, do - those who can't, teach" !
Perhaps if leftist teachers want to start examining bias in education they could start looking at what is being taught in "faith schools" such as those run by muslims, and for that matter, christians teaching creationism and other such unscientific twaddle.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
"I never was waiting for the communist call" ; the Sex Pistols ("Holidays In The Sun").

'Schools' run by Muslims, are run for Muslims and children who attend are taught by an Imam, in a similar way to how a Sunday school attendee is taught by a priest. They run outside (after or before the usual school day) 'normal' school; if a Muslim child lives in this country, they are still required to attend mainstream, normal state school (or private school if they pay). Other faith schools such as Catholic schools, teach the tenets of their religion. The parents of children who attend such schools, are aware of, and embrace that.
In everyday state schools, children are taught about a wide range of beliefs of different religions and cultures. Creationism is taught as well as evolution. A balanced and unbiased approach.
Hope that helps.
No, it does'nt help ! some "faith schools" are funded by the govt (ie, us the taxpayer), whether they are christian evangelist, muslim, sikh, jewish or whatever - children should not be indoctrinated at taxpayers expense.
Also, you describe the teaching of creationism as "balanced", it is'nt balanced, it is unscientific twaddle, for "balance", why not allow hippies to teach that there are pixies in the woods, animal rights cultists to say animals are the same as humans, or muslims to say it is fine for there Prophet Mohammed to marry his wife, Aisha, when she was only six years old and to commence having sex with her when she reached the age of nine ?
Quote by kentswingers777
This is exactly the kind of thing some people want nowadays.

Even though I have heard nothing about this for a while, it makes me wonder how left wing people who run a national union, can even think about such a thing.
Yes some newspapers seem to promote war but....there are others that would put up the white hankie at the first sign of the Taliban or others blowing their noses.
These people who run the NUT, are the very same people who despise the armed forces, and would have us with no defence from invaders. Shame on them.

This reminds me of the harsh old British saying "Those who can, do - those who can't, teach" !
Perhaps if leftist teachers want to start examining bias in education they could start looking at what is being taught in "faith schools" such as those run by muslims, and for that matter, christians teaching creationism and other such unscientific twaddle.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
"I never was waiting for the communist call" ; the Sex Pistols ("Holidays In The Sun").
Quote by Staggerlee_BB

Pacifism is merely the flip side of tyranny, the jackboot or fundamentalist mullah is allowed to rule where people to not resist it.

Have you ever heard of Ghandi........pacifism and resistance aren't mutually exclusive.
As for "snide remarks" have you ever heard of humour ?Debate and comedy (good or bad....your choice)aren't mutually exclusive
Ghandi ? now here's a sacred cow to kill ! - the partition of India was one of the bloodiest events of the 20th century - Ghandi sat back on his dhoti and watched the slaughter of millions of innocents in his cause- again in the name of religion - this time hindu vs muslim.
Also - you use an "Aunt Sally" tactic of setting up anyone who argues against pacifism and for the defeat of religeous fundamentalism as some sort of bloodthirsty fiend - shooting the Taleban is what war is all about - what do you expect soldiers to do ? play tiddlewinks with them !?
Staggerlee - snide comments won't win you the debate either ! the fact is that pacifists have both the luxury and the freedom to make sanctimonious comments because previous and current generations of men and women fought bravely for their democratic right to do so.
As for the comment about invading Ireland to deal with the IRA ! much of the IRA membership and support actually came from within certain sections of the catholic part of the population, and therefore had to be dealt with there. Moreover, in the USA, the FBI did actually eventually start to take action against IRA fund raising.
Neither is it accurate to state that we only invade muslim countries, NATO took military action against christian Serbia to defend Bosnian muslims.
Pacifism is merely the flip side of tyranny, the jackboot or fundamentalist mullah is allowed to rule where people to not resist it.
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Soooooooo as I understand it...military action in Afghanistan is justified because Osama Bin Laden was in hiding there and the the taleban are by extension supporters of al queda.
What would be the result of capturing or killing Bin Laden ??
If in the 70's/80's the ruling council of the I.R.A. had been removed the resulting power struggle would quite possibly led to the implosion of the republican paramilitaries...is this the aim of the allied forces in Afghanistan ??
Removing the head of al queda would do little or nothing,my understanding is that they are structured not along military lines but as a series of autonomous cells who though co-operative act as independant bodies,cut off the head the body remains alive.
Is the military presence there to free the Afghan people from the yoke of taleban oppression ??
The taleban are not defeated they have retreated to the Pakistan border to regroup and have found fertile soil for their beliefs,unless the proposal is for a permanent military occupation of Afghanistan
they will return, and there will be hell to pay for the general population.(Even if a permanent occupation of Afghanistan were possible where does this leave Pakistan??)
There is no possible positive outcome for an armed solution to the problems of the middle east,our invasions and occupations only radicalise more previously moderate muslims,and our futile blind ignorant attempts to solve the problems only serve to make them worse...There is only one way to bring peace to the area and that is by diplomacy.

You continually talk of diplomacy as though it is a magic wand for everything, ok, there are some elements of the Taleban who have joined just because they are poor and get paid to, and these can and should be peeled off by economic and diplomatic efforts. BUT, as many fundamentalists continually say when they are interviewed by journalists " you do not understand that unlike you, we love death more than you love life" ; something that anti war protestors refuse to get their ideologicaly addled heads around. Do you seriously believe that these people are interested in diplomacy other than as a ploy to regroup or gain concessions ?
Currently, in Pakistan, the puny governement conceded control of the Swat Valley region to the Taleban in return for an agreement that they lay down their arms this "peace in our time" was soon broken several weeks later and they advanced to within 70 miles of the capital, using the Swat Valley as a staging post ; do you really trust these people ?
Quote by DeeCee
A few points, Al Queda had actually launched other attacks before 9/11 such as the attack on the US embassy in Kenya.

Ok, so they have been behind many bombings... but it wasnt until the WTC attacks that all out war was declared on them.
several years down the line the official line still seems to be the approach that you take.. ie, they need to be wiped out or at the very least prevented from achieving their aims in areas that they consider their homelands or concerning matters that relate to their religious beliefs.
What gives you/they/us the right to try and dictate what goes on in far off lands or in respect of the beliefs of different cultures?
Im only singling you out because You seem to use the same rhetoric as the American and British "intelligence" reports and associated media ( covertly racist propaganda)?
can you safely say, that you arent a possible victim of that propoganda?
You ask what gives us the right to go and fight in far off lands - well if those far off lands are used as springboards for terror in the west and to subjugare their own people and their neighbours - I'd say we have every right ! and no, you can't get away with calling anyone who critiscises islam a "racist" this has been used far too often as a slur to stifle debate.
A few points, Al Queda had actually launched other attacks before 9/11 such as the attack on the US embassy in Kenya.
In response to Staggerlee's statement that life has not got better for Afghanistanis, I'd say it has (though obviously not far enough in the way of improvements has been made), they have a parliament, and are due to hold elections next August, music and dancing is now allowed, whearas under the Taleban it was banned - see the excellent documentary made by Havan Marking "Afghan Star", and more girls are now going to school - though of course the Taleban is doing its best to prevent this by blowing up schools etc, the list goes on, and as the Taleban & Al Queda and their mindless bigots are gradually defeated both politically and militarily - the situation for Afghani people of all tribes and both sexes will get better.
The don would of course be the manager of SH I'm afraid !, but then again I'm with the anarcho-blasphemeous triads of course !
I much prefer shaved pussies - much better for oral sex as there's no hairs to get in the way.
I'm also a dab hand at shaving pussies and rusty sherrifs badges, of course, being a perfectionist I have to check for any bristly bits with my tongue afterwards - purely in the interests of professionalism you understand...
XXX
Don't fob me off with some smug circular pacifist logic Staggerlee ! the fact is that in periods of history it has been necessary to meet evil violent dogmas, whether nazism in the 30's or islamic fundamentalist terror now, with a strategy that involves both politics, and yes, police and military action.