Turns out that the Boston bombers were of Islamic background, which won't surprise many people I guess.
Given the choice of losing personal freedom but gaining security would you take it? Or would you prefer to have liberty regardless of what islamic terrorism does?
I would take the second option, as I believe personal freedom to be one of the most important aspects of todays society. However I foresee this event been hijacked by western governments to move towards a more authoritative form of governing.
Liberty of Security. What do you want? watch
- Thread Starter
- 19-04-2013 18:29
- 19-04-2013 20:49
So they were Islamists then? What a surprise. I notice the BBC wouldn't dare suggest the obvious earlier this week incase they caused offence to the Islamic Community, so naturally they suggested the bombing was probably due to "right-wing extremism" (aka, the Tea Party). Will they ever learn?
Like yourself I would opt for liberty. But we need to come to terms with the implications of a 'progressive' immigration policy. Unfortunately it means treating the UK like a multicultural dustbin that is only too happy to import the world's dregs because we've convinced ourselves that mass immigration is the true path to an enriching future. Liberty is possible in a multicultural state where a large number of newcomers care little for law and order, but we need to be willing to fund it via the tax system. This means equipping the police with the tools they need. Crucially they need to be re-educated too to prevent another Rochdale, British people have rights too, this is forgotten far too often.
- 19-04-2013 21:13
Liberty. Anything else is admitting defeat - we're talking about terrorists after all.
Posted from TSR Mobile