Britain to target radical Muslim preachers after soldier's killing

London - The British government, facing criticism over the killing of a soldier by suspected Islamists in a London street, is to set up a new group to combat radical Muslim preachers and others whose words could encourage violence.

Prime Minister David Cameron's office said on Sunday the group aimed to fight radicalism in schools and mosques, tighten checks on inflammatory internet material, and disrupt the "poisonous narrative" of hardline clerics.

"It will assess the range of strategies to disrupt individuals who may be influential in fostering extremism. It needs to confront those religious leaders who promote violence head on," it said in a statement.

Question: Would you support this here in America? Would you support the Feds investigating certain mosques and clerics and taking measures to fight violent rhetoric in these mosques?

Dennis324 wrote:London - The British government, facing criticism over the killing of a soldier by suspected Islamists in a London street, is to set up a new group to combat radical Muslim preachers and others whose words could encourage violence.

Prime Minister David Cameron's office said on Sunday the group aimed to fight radicalism in schools and mosques, tighten checks on inflammatory internet material, and disrupt the "poisonous narrative" of hardline clerics.

"It will assess the range of strategies to disrupt individuals who may be influential in fostering extremism. It needs to confront those religious leaders who promote violence head on," it said in a statement.

Question: Would you support this here in America? Would you support the Feds investigating certain mosques and clerics and taking measures to fight violent rhetoric in these mosques?

That would be a horrid violation of the first and fourth amendment rights if it were done in the USA. This might well back fire in the UK, but they have to walk a fine line between firing up muslin extremists and the BNP.

No. No investigation unless it is warranted by evidence found in the commission of a crime.

No ties to crime, no investigation.

I think if there is evidence to suggest that muslim clerics are spewing violent rhetoric, it would be worth looking into.

Muslim clerics over there have been spreading the hate speech for years.

Pun wrote:Muslim clerics over there have been spreading the hate speech for years.

So has Jeremiah Wright, WBC, and many others......some, like the asshats at MSNBC, stream it live. Some, like the asshat at Marshall U., call for killing of others in class.

The speech it self is not enough or every single progressive would he in chains as well. The progressive outlook is just like Islam, it does not play well with freedom and liberty.

Look up Seditious Conspiracy.

Also Imminent lawless action, which is currently used by the SCOTUS and is defined as speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.

Also the SCOTUS has ruled that hate speech is permissable unless it will lead to imminent violence. Why do you think Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman is in prison? He and nine others were convicted of seditious conspiracy, which requires only that a crime be planned, not that it necessarily be attempted. His prosecution grew out of investigations of the World Trade Center 1993 bombings.


See, people often think "freedom of speech" means anything goes...but it doesnt. If the FBI determined that a muslim cleric was talking about his desire to overthrow our govt, or kill a certain group of people...they could arrest them...legally.

And if anyone reading this doesnt believe that, just start discussing plans to kill the president and see what happens.

We already have hate crimes, marc, so for better or worse, we alrdy have these sorts of things here and there. No new laws required, just let the all powerful executive modify its enforcement of existing laws. We're already in the hole

But for the main part i believe it must be combated just as traditional organized crime was. Cuz thats all it is. The motives may be slightly different, but it still costs money to wage jihad.

Pun wrote:We already have hate crimes, marc, so for better or worse, we alrdy have these sorts of things here and there. No new laws required, just let the all powerful executive modify its enforcement of existing laws. We're already in the hole

As long as anything considered "conservative" is demonized in the process and most of the media outlets are on board......it's all good.

Pun wrote:But for the main part i believe it must be combated just as traditional organized crime was. Cuz thats all it is.

Um, maybe a little bit better than organized crime was combated maybe? Given that organized crime is still a big issue?

Well of course something like that can never be el

Iminated lol. But same tactics in surveillance and evidence gathering. Least domestically

Pun wrote:But for the main part i believe it must be combated just as traditional organized crime was. Cuz thats all it is. The motives may be slightly different, but it still costs money to wage jihad.

I was just thinking about this. You know, John Gotti was taken down because of FBI survellance and wire tapping.