How Was This Ever Going To Be A 'silent Rally'?

[agchristie]

How damaging does this reflect on Tommy Robinson?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4593476/Far-right-protestors-tussle-police-silent-rally.html

[trt]

Its not just the EDL that cause trouble on marches Vetuste, Muslims do as well, and probably some/most were not even born in the UK.

Just to remind you, the police didn't stop them from screaming at our marching soldiers, coming back from war, calling them killers, and burning poppy's!!!.

I know which side I would march on, what about you!

[naomi24]

v_e, //Defer normal prejudices for a moment //

You're asking the impossible.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //I'm out. //

It appears that you are 'in' again - so any chance of answering the point I made?

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, no. I'm 'out' of discussion with you on this subject. I've no interest in indulging you in your fatuous arguments.

[Khandro]

andy-hughes; //merely pointing him out as the attention-seeking self-important self-righteous fool that he is.//

Is that a mirror before you?

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - I understand if you don't wish to discuss something with me, but that can be conveyed without the need to be rude about it.

I hope you will remember this position, and perhaps refrain from condescending to me on future threads, to the benefit of all concerned.

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - // andy-hughes; //merely pointing him out as the attention-seeking self-important self-righteous fool that he is.//

Is that a mirror before you? //

I am not biting today, you'll need to look elsewhere for a personal thread-derailing spat of the sort you so love to create.

[-Talbot-]

andy-hughes
But if you wish to raise the concept of perception, I know you far too well to believe that you perceive that an absence of condemnation equates to tacit approval or agreement.


Regardless of 'tacit approval or agreement'... it is a fact that there are posters on here who are happy to ignore Islamic extremism but never miss a chance to have an anti EDL or Britain First rant.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, nothing rude there. Simply a statement of fact.

[scooping]

Don't understand the point of passing a law against incitement to racial hatred when no-one seems to be done for it (on either end of the spectrum).

[andy-hughes]

Talbot // But if you wish to raise the concept of perception, I know you far too well to believe that you perceive that an absence of condemnation equates to tacit approval or agreement.


Regardless of 'tacit approval or agreement'... it is a fact that there are posters on here who are happy to ignore Islamic extremism but never miss a chance to have an anti EDL or Britain First rant. //

I don’t believe that your point contradicts what I am saying.

I fall firmly into the category you describe, I almost never condemn extremist behaviour, and I am first off the blocks to have a pop at the EDL.

But I would be horrified if I thought that anyone took my absence of condemnation as approval – as I have said, I simply think it can be taken for granted, and does not need reinforcement as a viewpoint.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // andy-hughes, nothing rude there. Simply a statement of fact. //

I am not going to take the thread down the road of a personal exchange between us, but I cannot let your post go unchallenged.

If you want to call my argument fatuous, then go right ahead, but to dignify your rudeness with the notion that your opinion is a fact is simply incorrect.

Hopefully you can remain true to your word, and remain 'out', and not simply be popping back to be inaccurate as well as rude.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //I am not going to take the thread down the road of a personal exchange between us//

But you are doing just that. Carry on if you must. I've said my bit.

[agchristie]

Talbot - do you really think that there are posters who are 'happy to ignore Islamic extremism'?

Maybe folk are being critical of EDL because the pictures reflect the reality of an organisation who were at the rally organised by TR.

There have been enough threads previously resulting in comments about Islamic extremism and I can't think of any poster who has refrained from negative comment at some point.

[douglas9401]

One might condemn on an occasional basis, just to prove that no brainwashing has taken place.

[-Talbot-]

agchristie
Talbot - do you really think that there are posters who are 'happy to ignore Islamic extremism'?



Yes I do.

[agchristie]

Talbot - it's that word 'perception' again I guess...

[vetuste_ennemi]

OK, Aggy, everybody condemns terrorist acts. I agree.

But many refuse to acknowledge the connection between terrorism and Islam: "Nothing to do with Islam", "Perversion of a great faith", "Islam means peace", "Not all Muslims..." , "If you kill one man it is as if you killed the whole world", "Jihad is going to the gym" and numerous other lies, half-truths, irrelevancies and distortions.

The fact is the terrorist see themselves as jihadists who are prepared to die for their faith while killing God's enemies. Jihad is as old as Islam ("I have been ordered to fight until religion is only for Allah", "I have been made great by terror..."). There is nothing unIslamic about killing infidels, there are only theological and legal principles which establish the conditions under which this is allowed.

When ISIS was founded (2014?) and started ravaging Syria and Iraq a fatwa was issued (probably from al-Azhar university) signed by several hundred leading Sunni Islamic scholars. (I'm possibly the only person on this thread who's read it. It's quite short, you should hunt it down and read it too.) The sheikhs' main objection to ISIS was that only the Caliph could order offensive jihad, and that al-Baghdadi (who had naughtily named himself Abu Bakr after the first caliph) was not a legitimate caliph. We in the West were hearing about Christians, Jews and the wrong kind of Muslims being killed, girls being enslaved and sold in slave markets. None of these things are mentioned in the fatwa, far less condemned by it. And there's a very good reason for that: almost everything ISIS was doing which shocked the world had direct precedent in the actions and commands of the Prophet.

Back to the here and now. There are very conservative strains of Islam in Britain which believe in all the goals of jihad, that is to force the "House of War" (that's us) to submit to Islam. Extreme imams and sheikhs from places like Pakistan, Saudi and Yemen are coming to the UK all the time to tour and preach in British mosques. Here's a recent example:

"Muhammad Naqib ur Rehman and Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman [are conducting a] seven-week UK tour, Sacred Journey, which runs until September 4...
The clerics led a high-profile campaign in Pakistan in praise of Mumtaz Qadri, who was executed in January after murdering Pakistani politician Salman Taseer in 2011 for opposing Pakistan's strict blasphemy laws. ".
(You might find this comment on that tour interesting: http://www.wewillinspire.com/inspires-statement-on-those-honouring-mumtaz-qadri/ )
Two clerics who called a murderer a martyr! Seven weeks preaching in places like Rotherham!

So there is plenty of "extremism" (falling short of incitement to terrorist acts, I'm sure) being taught in British mosques. If this fact is denied then all pro forma condemnations of terrorist atrocities amount to diddly squat.

[andy-hughes]

vetuste - Fascinating as it is to watch you flash your educational credentials, is there any danger of you avoiding the history lesson, and actually addressing the OP?

[Garaman]

v_e, did you post your recommendations for dealing with the threat of terrorism as I might have missed it?