Downing St condemns Trumps hateful Tweets

[Bulletguy]

 

Lunatic twitter Trump who retweeted inflammatory racist tweets from vile hate group Britain First has been condemned by Downing Street. Theresa May's official spokesman said, Britain First used "hateful narratives which peddle lies and stoke tensions". Labour's Jeremy Corbyn called the retweets "abhorrent" and "dangerous".

 

Even Johnson managed to make a sensible statement and not screw up. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson later tweeted that Britain First "is a divisive, hateful group whose views are not in line with our values".

 

Veteran Tory MP Sir Nicholas Soames said Mr Trump had finally proved he is "wholly unsuited" to the role of president. Sir Nicholas i applaud you....you are absolutely correct. Not just unsuited though....unfit. One thing for sure.....we don't want Trump here. He's not welcome. He can stay there and rot in his Twitter world of hateful Islamaphobic bile.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42172032

 

Typically Britain First are positively salivating with Fransen having an orgasm over pussy grabber Trump and the sycophantic nutjob addresses him 'personally' via Twitter "on behalf of myself and every citizen of Britain" (hmm....that sound familiar anyone?). *-)

 

https://twitter.com/BritainFirstHQ/status/935936476054990849

[antony1969]

Roughly 7 or 8 of your own insults and hateful names thrown in that post in a thread you started about hateful posts ... Anyone ???

[Guest pelmetman]

Trump should know there's no such thing as a violent Muslim :-| ........

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5130171/Woman-left-horrific-head-wound-racist-attack.html

 

Well in the single celled minds of Bullet & Co that is 8-) .........

 

 

[StuartO]

On Radio 4 this morning an American who thinks we should wake up to the need to deal with the muslim threat was being challenged about supporting the disemination of videos showing muslims doing threatening things and the interviewer kept on and on about the inaccuracy of a statement that one video about a Dutch muslim doing something horrid was hate-filled and inaccurate because the particular muslim was Dutch born and not a migrant.  There was no suggestion that the muslim's horrid actions were misrepresented yet the BBC Interviewer was trying to discredit the American and the act of diseminating the video purely because of the (somantic?) inaccuracy about his migrant status.  As the American said, does it matter whether he was a first, second or third generation immigrant, or is it his actions (and the fact that he is a muslin, as a factor in his motivation) we should be taking serious note of?

 

I don't understand why we are supposed to ignore threatenning behaviour by muslims, acting as muslims, even if some muslims or even most muslims aren't behaving badly.

 

[Guest pelmetman]

StuartO - 2017-11-30 9:06 AMI don't understand why we are supposed to ignore threatenning behaviour by muslims, acting as muslims, even if some muslims or even most muslims aren't behaving badly.

Because in the eyes of folk like Bullet anyone who dares to point that out is a Islamophobe ;-) ........Welcome to the club Stuart :D ..........

[colin]

StuartO - 2017-11-30 9:06 AMOn Radio 4 this morning an American who thinks we should wake up to the need to deal with the muslim threat was being challenged about supporting the disemination of videos showing muslims doing threatening things and the interviewer kept on and on about the inaccuracy of a statement that one video about a Dutch muslim doing something horrid was hate-filled and inaccurate because the particular muslim was Dutch born and not a migrant.  There was no suggestion that the muslim's horrid actions were misrepresented yet the BBC Interviewer was trying to discredit the American and the act of diseminating the video purely because of the (somantic?) inaccuracy about his migrant status.  As the American said, does it matter whether he was a first, second or third generation immigrant, or is it his actions (and the fact that he is a muslin, as a factor in his motivation) we should be taking serious note of?

 

I don't understand why we are supposed to ignore threatenning behaviour by muslims, acting as muslims, even if some muslims or even most muslims aren't behaving badly.

Because a person is Muslin does not mean any particular act is done in the name of Islam.Would you say that a white thug who says he is CofE represents Christians?Yes there are problems in some areas, but so is there with Roman Catholics and Protestants.

[Guest pelmetman]

colin - 2017-11-30 10:17 AM

 

Because a person is Muslin does not mean any particular act is done in the name of Islam.

Would you say that a white thug who says he is CofE represents Christians?

Yes there are problems in some areas, but so is there with Roman Catholics and Protestants.

 

ISIS claim to do everything in the name of Islam :-| ........

 

They certainly seem to be following the teachings of the Koran to the letter ;-) .......

 

 

[colin]

pelmetman - 2017-11-30 10:34 AM

 

colin - 2017-11-30 10:17 AM

 

Because a person is Muslin does not mean any particular act is done in the name of Islam.

Would you say that a white thug who says he is CofE represents Christians?

Yes there are problems in some areas, but so is there with Roman Catholics and Protestants.

 

ISIS claim to do everything in the name of Islam :-| ........

 

 

Yes that is correct, but not all Muslims are members of ISIS, and I would point out ISIS kill more Muslims than any other group.

[Guest pelmetman]

colin - 2017-11-30 10:39 AM

 

pelmetman - 2017-11-30 10:34 AM

 

colin - 2017-11-30 10:17 AM

 

Because a person is Muslin does not mean any particular act is done in the name of Islam.

Would you say that a white thug who says he is CofE represents Christians?

Yes there are problems in some areas, but so is there with Roman Catholics and Protestants.

 

ISIS claim to do everything in the name of Islam :-| ........

 

 

Yes that is correct, but not all Muslims are members of ISIS, and I would point out ISIS kill more Muslims than any other group.

 

Correct.....ISIS are Sunni so are happy to kill Shia's as well as Kafirs :-| ......

 

But that's the "Religion of Peace" for you ;-) .........

 

 

[Violet1956]

StuartO - 2017-11-30 9:06 AMOn Radio 4 this morning an American who thinks we should wake up to the need to deal with the muslim threat was being challenged about supporting the disemination of videos showing muslims doing threatening things and the interviewer kept on and on about the inaccuracy of a statement that one video about a Dutch muslim doing something horrid was hate-filled and inaccurate because the particular muslim was Dutch born and not a migrant.  There was no suggestion that the muslim's horrid actions were misrepresented yet the BBC Interviewer was trying to discredit the American and the act of diseminating the video purely because of the (somantic?) inaccuracy about his migrant status.  As the American said, does it matter whether he was a first, second or third generation immigrant, or is it his actions (and the fact that he is a muslin, as a factor in his motivation) we should be taking serious note of?

 

I don't understand why we are supposed to ignore threatenning behaviour by muslims, acting as muslims, even if some muslims or even most muslims aren't behaving badly.

These re-tweets are to be condemned for the reasons given by our Prime Minister. Well done Mrs. M. As for the term “the Muslim threat”, in you first sentence Stuart just think about how acceptable that would be if applied to other religious groups e.g. “the Jewish threat”. I know it is most unlikely that you intended any sleight on all followers of Islam as the rest of your observations indicate you do not. Nevertheless, terminology matters a great deal when conveying who exactly is posing any threat when we are facing threats from Islamist fundamentalists not Muslims in general. I don’t see anything in the condemnation of these re-tweets from all quarters of the political spectrum in the UK or in the semantic argument put forward by the interviewer amounts to ignoring or not taking serious note of violence based on religious hatred. To the contrary the aim is to reduce any threat of violence based on religious hatred. Britain First, and Ms Fransen in particular, continue to stir up religious and racial hatred. She and her cohort are no better than the purveyors of Islamic fundamentalist garbage. Worst still Trump is so intellectually challenged that he does not understand even the basics of cause and effect. Veronica

[colin]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 11:32 AM

 

Worst still Trump is so intellectually challenged that he does not understand even the basics of cause and effect.

 

Veronica

 

Trump is playing to his fan base.

[StuartO]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-01 2:32 AM

StuartO - 2017-11-30 9:06 AMOn Radio 4 this morning an American who thinks we should wake up to the need to deal with the muslim threat was being challenged about supporting the disemination of videos showing muslims doing threatening things and the interviewer kept on and on about the inaccuracy of a statement that one video about a Dutch muslim doing something horrid was hate-filled and inaccurate because the particular muslim was Dutch born and not a migrant.  There was no suggestion that the muslim's horrid actions were misrepresented yet the BBC Interviewer was trying to discredit the American and the act of diseminating the video purely because of the (somantic?) inaccuracy about his migrant status.  As the American said, does it matter whether he was a first, second or third generation immigrant, or is it his actions (and the fact that he is a muslin, as a factor in his motivation) we should be taking serious note of?

 

I don't understand why we are supposed to ignore threatenning behaviour by muslims, acting as muslims, even if some muslims or even most muslims aren't behaving badly.

These re-tweets are to be condemned for the reasons given by our Prime Minister. Well done Mrs. M. As for the term “the Muslim threat”, in you first sentence Stuart just think about how acceptable that would be if applied to other religious groups e.g. “the Jewish threat”. I know it is most unlikely that you intended any sleight on all followers of Islam as the rest of your observations indicate you do not. Nevertheless, terminology matters a great deal when conveying who exactly is posing any threat when we are facing threats from Islamist fundamentalists not Muslims in general. I don’t see anything in the condemnation of these re-tweets from all quarters of the political spectrum in the UK or in the semantic argument put forward by the interviewer amounts to ignoring or not taking serious note of violence based on religious hatred. To the contrary the aim is to reduce any threat of violence based on religious hatred. Britain First, and Ms Fransen in particular, continue to stir up religious and racial hatred. She and her cohort are no better than the purveyors of Islamic fundamentalist garbage. Worst still Trump is so intellectually challenged that he does not understand even the basics of cause and effect. Veronica

I don't believe I am anti-Muslim or ant-migrant (in the global, hate-mongering sense, simply because I see an increasing threat from terrorist who are Muslims, acting (in their way of thinking) to serve Allah and Islam. Nor do I want to be told I must not express such concern lest someone else starts to feel hatred when I have encouraged no such thing. 

It seems silly to me for a BBC interview to resort to what seems to me to be a trivial side argument about migrant status in order to shout someone down on the issue of increasing terrorist threat from people who do it for religious reasons. It's their motivation which brings religion into it, not me wanting to have a go at muslims or Islam in general. 

[antony1969]

POTUS Trump is President because of the very same wets that are whinging about his tweets ... They are to blame just as they are to blame for the rise of right wing politics in Europe ... Enjoy him and I personally can't thank you enough for him ... Tweet on Mr President , tweet on

[Violet1956]

StuartO - 2017-11-30 11:59 AM

Violet1956 - 2017-12-01 2:32 AM

StuartO - 2017-11-30 9:06 AMOn Radio 4 this morning an American who thinks we should wake up to the need to deal with the muslim threat was being challenged about supporting the disemination of videos showing muslims doing threatening things and the interviewer kept on and on about the inaccuracy of a statement that one video about a Dutch muslim doing something horrid was hate-filled and inaccurate because the particular muslim was Dutch born and not a migrant.  There was no suggestion that the muslim's horrid actions were misrepresented yet the BBC Interviewer was trying to discredit the American and the act of diseminating the video purely because of the (somantic?) inaccuracy about his migrant status.  As the American said, does it matter whether he was a first, second or third generation immigrant, or is it his actions (and the fact that he is a muslin, as a factor in his motivation) we should be taking serious note of?

 

I don't understand why we are supposed to ignore threatenning behaviour by muslims, acting as muslims, even if some muslims or even most muslims aren't behaving badly.

These re-tweets are to be condemned for the reasons given by our Prime Minister. Well done Mrs. M. As for the term “the Muslim threat”, in you first sentence Stuart just think about how acceptable that would be if applied to other religious groups e.g. “the Jewish threat”. I know it is most unlikely that you intended any sleight on all followers of Islam as the rest of your observations indicate you do not. Nevertheless, terminology matters a great deal when conveying who exactly is posing any threat when we are facing threats from Islamist fundamentalists not Muslims in general. I don’t see anything in the condemnation of these re-tweets from all quarters of the political spectrum in the UK or in the semantic argument put forward by the interviewer amounts to ignoring or not taking serious note of violence based on religious hatred. To the contrary the aim is to reduce any threat of violence based on religious hatred. Britain First, and Ms Fransen in particular, continue to stir up religious and racial hatred. She and her cohort are no better than the purveyors of Islamic fundamentalist garbage. Worst still Trump is so intellectually challenged that he does not understand even the basics of cause and effect. Veronica

I don't believe I am anti-Muslim or ant-migrant (in the global, hate-mongering sense, simply because I see an increasing threat from terrorist who are Muslims, acting (in their way of thinking) to serve Allah and Islam. Nor do I want to be told I must not express such concern lest someone else starts to feel hatred when I have encouraged no such thing. 

It seems silly to me for a BBC interview to resort to what seems to me to be a trivial side argument about migrant status in order to shout someone down on the issue of increasing terrorist threat from people who do it for religious reasons. It's their motivation which brings religion into it, not me wanting to have a go at muslims or Islam in general. 

I believe I acknowledged that you were not having a go at Muslims or Islam Stuart. I maintain the term "Muslim threat" is an abhorrent one although there was nothing abhorrent about your intention when you used it.

[John52]

This 'Special Relationship' seems very one sided..

America's biggest celebration is the anniversary of day they kicked the British Government out.

America never supported Britain in either war until they were attacked themselves.

Trump constantly humiliates the British Government.

So why do they suck up to America and shun their European neighbours?

Is it just because America is more right wing?

 

[StuartO]

Violet1956 - 2017-12-01 3:28 AM

StuartO - 2017-11-30 11:59 AM

Violet1956 - 2017-12-01 2:32 AM

StuartO - 2017-11-30 9:06 AMOn Radio 4 this morning an American who thinks we should wake up to the need to deal with the muslim threat was being challenged about supporting the disemination of videos showing muslims doing threatening things and the interviewer kept on and on about the inaccuracy of a statement that one video about a Dutch muslim doing something horrid was hate-filled and inaccurate because the particular muslim was Dutch born and not a migrant.  There was no suggestion that the muslim's horrid actions were misrepresented yet the BBC Interviewer was trying to discredit the American and the act of diseminating the video purely because of the (somantic?) inaccuracy about his migrant status.  As the American said, does it matter whether he was a first, second or third generation immigrant, or is it his actions (and the fact that he is a muslin, as a factor in his motivation) we should be taking serious note of?

 

I don't understand why we are supposed to ignore threatenning behaviour by muslims, acting as muslims, even if some muslims or even most muslims aren't behaving badly.

These re-tweets are to be condemned for the reasons given by our Prime Minister. Well done Mrs. M. As for the term “the Muslim threat”, in you first sentence Stuart just think about how acceptable that would be if applied to other religious groups e.g. “the Jewish threat”. I know it is most unlikely that you intended any sleight on all followers of Islam as the rest of your observations indicate you do not. Nevertheless, terminology matters a great deal when conveying who exactly is posing any threat when we are facing threats from Islamist fundamentalists not Muslims in general. I don’t see anything in the condemnation of these re-tweets from all quarters of the political spectrum in the UK or in the semantic argument put forward by the interviewer amounts to ignoring or not taking serious note of violence based on religious hatred. To the contrary the aim is to reduce any threat of violence based on religious hatred. Britain First, and Ms Fransen in particular, continue to stir up religious and racial hatred. She and her cohort are no better than the purveyors of Islamic fundamentalist garbage. Worst still Trump is so intellectually challenged that he does not understand even the basics of cause and effect. Veronica

I don't believe I am anti-Muslim or ant-migrant (in the global, hate-mongering sense, simply because I see an increasing threat from terrorist who are Muslims, acting (in their way of thinking) to serve Allah and Islam. Nor do I want to be told I must not express such concern lest someone else starts to feel hatred when I have encouraged no such thing. 

It seems silly to me for a BBC interview to resort to what seems to me to be a trivial side argument about migrant status in order to shout someone down on the issue of increasing terrorist threat from people who do it for religious reasons. It's their motivation which brings religion into it, not me wanting to have a go at muslims or Islam in general. 

I believe I acknowledged that you were not having a go at Muslims or Islam Stuart. I maintain the term "Muslim threat" is an abhorrent one although there was nothing abhorrent about your intention when you used it.

Then you are being pendant about terminology rather than interested in the important issue.  Of course it is a "muslim problem" because of the scale of it and its clear association with people acting as Muslims, stemming from both the behaviour of the would-be terrorists and the failures of non-extremist Muslims to take active steps to help society to deal with it.

Letting yourself get held back (and holding others back) by somantic side issues is just silly. Get real!

[Guest pelmetman]

colin - 2017-11-30 11:58 AM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 11:32 AM

 

Worst still Trump is so intellectually challenged that he does not understand even the basics of cause and effect.

 

Veronica

 

Trump is playing to his fan base.

 

So the behaviour of some Muslims shouldn't be challenged for fear of upsetting the majority? :-| .......

 

We tried that...... and we now have 1000's of victims of child rape in this country *-) .......

 

Yep...... some folk really don't understand cause and effect :-S .........

 

 

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 12:28 PM

StuartO - 2017-11-30 11:59 AM

Violet1956 - 2017-12-01 2:32 AM

StuartO - 2017-11-30 9:06 AMOn Radio 4 this morning an American who thinks we should wake up to the need to deal with the muslim threat was being challenged about supporting the disemination of videos showing muslims doing threatening things and the interviewer kept on and on about the inaccuracy of a statement that one video about a Dutch muslim doing something horrid was hate-filled and inaccurate because the particular muslim was Dutch born and not a migrant.  There was no suggestion that the muslim's horrid actions were misrepresented yet the BBC Interviewer was trying to discredit the American and the act of diseminating the video purely because of the (somantic?) inaccuracy about his migrant status.  As the American said, does it matter whether he was a first, second or third generation immigrant, or is it his actions (and the fact that he is a muslin, as a factor in his motivation) we should be taking serious note of?

 

I don't understand why we are supposed to ignore threatenning behaviour by muslims, acting as muslims, even if some muslims or even most muslims aren't behaving badly.

These re-tweets are to be condemned for the reasons given by our Prime Minister. Well done Mrs. M. As for the term “the Muslim threat”, in you first sentence Stuart just think about how acceptable that would be if applied to other religious groups e.g. “the Jewish threat”. I know it is most unlikely that you intended any sleight on all followers of Islam as the rest of your observations indicate you do not. Nevertheless, terminology matters a great deal when conveying who exactly is posing any threat when we are facing threats from Islamist fundamentalists not Muslims in general. I don’t see anything in the condemnation of these re-tweets from all quarters of the political spectrum in the UK or in the semantic argument put forward by the interviewer amounts to ignoring or not taking serious note of violence based on religious hatred. To the contrary the aim is to reduce any threat of violence based on religious hatred. Britain First, and Ms Fransen in particular, continue to stir up religious and racial hatred. She and her cohort are no better than the purveyors of Islamic fundamentalist garbage. Worst still Trump is so intellectually challenged that he does not understand even the basics of cause and effect. Veronica

I don't believe I am anti-Muslim or ant-migrant (in the global, hate-mongering sense, simply because I see an increasing threat from terrorist who are Muslims, acting (in their way of thinking) to serve Allah and Islam. Nor do I want to be told I must not express such concern lest someone else starts to feel hatred when I have encouraged no such thing. 

It seems silly to me for a BBC interview to resort to what seems to me to be a trivial side argument about migrant status in order to shout someone down on the issue of increasing terrorist threat from people who do it for religious reasons. It's their motivation which brings religion into it, not me wanting to have a go at muslims or Islam in general. 

I believe I acknowledged that you were not having a go at Muslims or Islam Stuart. I maintain the term "Muslim threat" is an abhorrent one although there was nothing abhorrent about your intention when you used it.

What does "having a go at Muslims or Islam" mean ??? ... Since when was questioning or criticizing anything or anyone not allowed ... The wets question and criticise POTUS Trump without any fear of comeback but questioning Muslims or Islam means your a racist/Islamaphobe/or any other name from Bullets collection

[John52]

John52 - 2017-11-30 12:37 PM

 

This 'Special Relationship' seems very one sided..

America's biggest celebration is the anniversary of day they kicked the British Government out.

America never supported Britain in either war until they were attacked themselves.

Trump constantly humiliates the British Government.

So why do they suck up to America and shun their European neighbours?

Is it just because America is more right wing?

As an afterthought is it because America speaks the same language and most of our royalty and politicians can only speak English?

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-11-30 1:24 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 12:28 PM

StuartO - 2017-11-30 11:59 AM

Violet1956 - 2017-12-01 2:32 AM

StuartO - 2017-11-30 9:06 AMOn Radio 4 this morning an American who thinks we should wake up to the need to deal with the muslim threat was being challenged about supporting the disemination of videos showing muslims doing threatening things and the interviewer kept on and on about the inaccuracy of a statement that one video about a Dutch muslim doing something horrid was hate-filled and inaccurate because the particular muslim was Dutch born and not a migrant.  There was no suggestion that the muslim's horrid actions were misrepresented yet the BBC Interviewer was trying to discredit the American and the act of diseminating the video purely because of the (somantic?) inaccuracy about his migrant status.  As the American said, does it matter whether he was a first, second or third generation immigrant, or is it his actions (and the fact that he is a muslin, as a factor in his motivation) we should be taking serious note of?

 

I don't understand why we are supposed to ignore threatenning behaviour by muslims, acting as muslims, even if some muslims or even most muslims aren't behaving badly.

These re-tweets are to be condemned for the reasons given by our Prime Minister. Well done Mrs. M. As for the term “the Muslim threat”, in you first sentence Stuart just think about how acceptable that would be if applied to other religious groups e.g. “the Jewish threat”. I know it is most unlikely that you intended any sleight on all followers of Islam as the rest of your observations indicate you do not. Nevertheless, terminology matters a great deal when conveying who exactly is posing any threat when we are facing threats from Islamist fundamentalists not Muslims in general. I don’t see anything in the condemnation of these re-tweets from all quarters of the political spectrum in the UK or in the semantic argument put forward by the interviewer amounts to ignoring or not taking serious note of violence based on religious hatred. To the contrary the aim is to reduce any threat of violence based on religious hatred. Britain First, and Ms Fransen in particular, continue to stir up religious and racial hatred. She and her cohort are no better than the purveyors of Islamic fundamentalist garbage. Worst still Trump is so intellectually challenged that he does not understand even the basics of cause and effect. Veronica

I don't believe I am anti-Muslim or ant-migrant (in the global, hate-mongering sense, simply because I see an increasing threat from terrorist who are Muslims, acting (in their way of thinking) to serve Allah and Islam. Nor do I want to be told I must not express such concern lest someone else starts to feel hatred when I have encouraged no such thing. 

It seems silly to me for a BBC interview to resort to what seems to me to be a trivial side argument about migrant status in order to shout someone down on the issue of increasing terrorist threat from people who do it for religious reasons. It's their motivation which brings religion into it, not me wanting to have a go at muslims or Islam in general. 

I believe I acknowledged that you were not having a go at Muslims or Islam Stuart. I maintain the term "Muslim threat" is an abhorrent one although there was nothing abhorrent about your intention when you used it.

What does "having a go at Muslims or Islam" mean ??? ... Since when was questioning or criticizing anything or anyone not allowed ... The wets question and criticise POTUS Trump without any fear of comeback but questioning Muslims or Islam means your a racist/Islamaphobe/or any other name from Bullets collection

If you look back Antony the term "having a go at Muslims or Islam" was a term Stuart used. He wasn't having a go at Muslims or Islam as far as I can see from the comments he made nor did I accuse him of that. There is a distinction to be drawn been criticising people for what they do and implying whether intentionally or not that such egregious behaviour is endemic within their religious group. It is essential that the President of the USA refrains from using the same kind of inflammatory tactics used by Islamic fundamentalists because such tactics have a tendency to foment religious hatred. We know to our cost from our home grown terrorists who watched ISIS videos that were drawn into believing that it was legitimate to attack innocent people for the acts of a few they believed were depicted in those videos. Trump is not beyond criticism just because he is the President or a Christian just as Islamic fundamentalists are not beyond criticism because they are Muslim. I am happy to be called a pedant because in this instance the devil really is in the detail. Veronica

[StuartO]

Trump is proving himself to be quite a loose cannon and his antics present all sorts of people (including the UK Government) with problems.

 

Whether this is a significant and continuing problem remains to be seen.  I suppose the Queen has had to put up with worse people to host for a State Visit and she would take it in her stride if necessary for a couple of days duration, but there presumably would be a point at which Trump's antics and the impact on us were beyond the pale and what would our Government do then but I doubt we have reached it yet.

 

In the meantime the USA is stuck with Trump for the foreseeable future and so are we.  A week is a long time in politics but a four year term on the other side of the Atlantic could be worse.

 

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 2:19 PM

antony1969 - 2017-11-30 1:24 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 12:28 PM

StuartO - 2017-11-30 11:59 AM

Violet1956 - 2017-12-01 2:32 AM

StuartO - 2017-11-30 9:06 AMOn Radio 4 this morning an American who thinks we should wake up to the need to deal with the muslim threat was being challenged about supporting the disemination of videos showing muslims doing threatening things and the interviewer kept on and on about the inaccuracy of a statement that one video about a Dutch muslim doing something horrid was hate-filled and inaccurate because the particular muslim was Dutch born and not a migrant.  There was no suggestion that the muslim's horrid actions were misrepresented yet the BBC Interviewer was trying to discredit the American and the act of diseminating the video purely because of the (somantic?) inaccuracy about his migrant status.  As the American said, does it matter whether he was a first, second or third generation immigrant, or is it his actions (and the fact that he is a muslin, as a factor in his motivation) we should be taking serious note of?

 

I don't understand why we are supposed to ignore threatenning behaviour by muslims, acting as muslims, even if some muslims or even most muslims aren't behaving badly.

These re-tweets are to be condemned for the reasons given by our Prime Minister. Well done Mrs. M. As for the term “the Muslim threat”, in you first sentence Stuart just think about how acceptable that would be if applied to other religious groups e.g. “the Jewish threat”. I know it is most unlikely that you intended any sleight on all followers of Islam as the rest of your observations indicate you do not. Nevertheless, terminology matters a great deal when conveying who exactly is posing any threat when we are facing threats from Islamist fundamentalists not Muslims in general. I don’t see anything in the condemnation of these re-tweets from all quarters of the political spectrum in the UK or in the semantic argument put forward by the interviewer amounts to ignoring or not taking serious note of violence based on religious hatred. To the contrary the aim is to reduce any threat of violence based on religious hatred. Britain First, and Ms Fransen in particular, continue to stir up religious and racial hatred. She and her cohort are no better than the purveyors of Islamic fundamentalist garbage. Worst still Trump is so intellectually challenged that he does not understand even the basics of cause and effect. Veronica

I don't believe I am anti-Muslim or ant-migrant (in the global, hate-mongering sense, simply because I see an increasing threat from terrorist who are Muslims, acting (in their way of thinking) to serve Allah and Islam. Nor do I want to be told I must not express such concern lest someone else starts to feel hatred when I have encouraged no such thing. 

It seems silly to me for a BBC interview to resort to what seems to me to be a trivial side argument about migrant status in order to shout someone down on the issue of increasing terrorist threat from people who do it for religious reasons. It's their motivation which brings religion into it, not me wanting to have a go at muslims or Islam in general. 

I believe I acknowledged that you were not having a go at Muslims or Islam Stuart. I maintain the term "Muslim threat" is an abhorrent one although there was nothing abhorrent about your intention when you used it.

What does "having a go at Muslims or Islam" mean ??? ... Since when was questioning or criticizing anything or anyone not allowed ... The wets question and criticise POTUS Trump without any fear of comeback but questioning Muslims or Islam means your a racist/Islamaphobe/or any other name from Bullets collection

If you look back Antony the term "having a go at Muslims or Islam" was a term Stuart used. He wasn't having a go at Muslims or Islam as far as I can see from the comments he made nor did I accuse him of that. There is a distinction to be drawn been criticising people for what they do and implying whether intentionally or not that such egregious behaviour is endemic within their religious group. It is essential that the President of the USA refrains from using the same kind of inflammatory tactics used by Islamic fundamentalists because such tactics have a tendency to foment religious hatred. We know to our cost from our home grown terrorists who watched ISIS videos that were drawn into believing that it was legitimate to attack innocent people for the acts of a few they believed were depicted in those videos. Trump is not beyond criticism just because he is the President or a Christian just as Islamic fundamentalists are not beyond criticism because they are Muslim. I am happy to be called a pedant because in this instance the devil really is in the detail. Veronica

So your suggesting his retweets of those videos makes him the same as Islamic Fundementalists ??? ... I support him , millions do and everyone I've talked to today believes he's bang on with it so because we support what he does and support his tweets I can only presume the rest of us are no better than Islamic Fundamentalists too ???

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-11-30 2:51 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 2:19 PM

antony1969 - 2017-11-30 1:24 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 12:28 PM

StuartO - 2017-11-30 11:59 AM

Violet1956 - 2017-12-01 2:32 AM

StuartO - 2017-11-30 9:06 AMOn Radio 4 this morning an American who thinks we should wake up to the need to deal with the muslim threat was being challenged about supporting the disemination of videos showing muslims doing threatening things and the interviewer kept on and on about the inaccuracy of a statement that one video about a Dutch muslim doing something horrid was hate-filled and inaccurate because the particular muslim was Dutch born and not a migrant.  There was no suggestion that the muslim's horrid actions were misrepresented yet the BBC Interviewer was trying to discredit the American and the act of diseminating the video purely because of the (somantic?) inaccuracy about his migrant status.  As the American said, does it matter whether he was a first, second or third generation immigrant, or is it his actions (and the fact that he is a muslin, as a factor in his motivation) we should be taking serious note of?

 

I don't understand why we are supposed to ignore threatenning behaviour by muslims, acting as muslims, even if some muslims or even most muslims aren't behaving badly.

These re-tweets are to be condemned for the reasons given by our Prime Minister. Well done Mrs. M. As for the term “the Muslim threat”, in you first sentence Stuart just think about how acceptable that would be if applied to other religious groups e.g. “the Jewish threat”. I know it is most unlikely that you intended any sleight on all followers of Islam as the rest of your observations indicate you do not. Nevertheless, terminology matters a great deal when conveying who exactly is posing any threat when we are facing threats from Islamist fundamentalists not Muslims in general. I don’t see anything in the condemnation of these re-tweets from all quarters of the political spectrum in the UK or in the semantic argument put forward by the interviewer amounts to ignoring or not taking serious note of violence based on religious hatred. To the contrary the aim is to reduce any threat of violence based on religious hatred. Britain First, and Ms Fransen in particular, continue to stir up religious and racial hatred. She and her cohort are no better than the purveyors of Islamic fundamentalist garbage. Worst still Trump is so intellectually challenged that he does not understand even the basics of cause and effect. Veronica

I don't believe I am anti-Muslim or ant-migrant (in the global, hate-mongering sense, simply because I see an increasing threat from terrorist who are Muslims, acting (in their way of thinking) to serve Allah and Islam. Nor do I want to be told I must not express such concern lest someone else starts to feel hatred when I have encouraged no such thing. 

It seems silly to me for a BBC interview to resort to what seems to me to be a trivial side argument about migrant status in order to shout someone down on the issue of increasing terrorist threat from people who do it for religious reasons. It's their motivation which brings religion into it, not me wanting to have a go at muslims or Islam in general. 

I believe I acknowledged that you were not having a go at Muslims or Islam Stuart. I maintain the term "Muslim threat" is an abhorrent one although there was nothing abhorrent about your intention when you used it.

What does "having a go at Muslims or Islam" mean ??? ... Since when was questioning or criticizing anything or anyone not allowed ... The wets question and criticise POTUS Trump without any fear of comeback but questioning Muslims or Islam means your a racist/Islamaphobe/or any other name from Bullets collection

If you look back Antony the term "having a go at Muslims or Islam" was a term Stuart used. He wasn't having a go at Muslims or Islam as far as I can see from the comments he made nor did I accuse him of that. There is a distinction to be drawn been criticising people for what they do and implying whether intentionally or not that such egregious behaviour is endemic within their religious group. It is essential that the President of the USA refrains from using the same kind of inflammatory tactics used by Islamic fundamentalists because such tactics have a tendency to foment religious hatred. We know to our cost from our home grown terrorists who watched ISIS videos that were drawn into believing that it was legitimate to attack innocent people for the acts of a few they believed were depicted in those videos. Trump is not beyond criticism just because he is the President or a Christian just as Islamic fundamentalists are not beyond criticism because they are Muslim. I am happy to be called a pedant because in this instance the devil really is in the detail. Veronica

So your suggesting his retweets of those videos makes him the same as Islamic Fundementalists ??? ... I support him , millions do and everyone I've talked to today believes he's bang on with it so because we support what he does and support his tweets I can only presume the rest of us are no better than Islamic Fundamentalists too ???

No Antony you misunderstand me. Trump is not the same as Islamic Fundamentalists. I don't believe that he realises the potential consequences of his actions or if he does he doesn't care so long as he remains popular with his supporters. Groups like ISIS and other fundamentalists certainly do understand the consequences of their propaganda and intend them. I doubt that you or anyone else you have spoken to today believes that it is a good thing to foment religious hatred intentionally so you are indeed most likely to be much better than Islamic Fundamentalists. Veronica

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 3:14 PM

so you are indeed most likely to be much better than Islamic Fundamentalists.

 

Veronica

 

I think that comes under the heading......"Dammed with faint praise" Antony (lol) .........

 

 

[Violet1956]

pelmetman - 2017-11-30 3:32 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 3:14 PM

so you are indeed most likely to be much better than Islamic Fundamentalists.

 

Veronica

 

I think that comes under the heading......"Dammed with faint praise" Antony (lol) .........

 

 

(lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

I did say "much better" Dave. Glad to see you are on form today. ;-)