Downing St condemns Trumps hateful Tweets

[Bulletguy]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 11:32 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.

Correct. As Colin put it he's 'playing to his fan base' and as usual the sycophants soak his inflammatory bile and drivel up like eager sponges.During the warring in Ireland i never saw that as "the Catholic threat" in fact i had a couple of RC friends at the time and i'm not RC. It's the same with the troubles in Palestine and Israel, not all should be tarred with the same brush. There is good and evil on both sides.Back further still i remember as a young lad asking my Mum about ww2 (my Dad would never talk war at all) and something she said to me which i never forgot, "just remember Paul, there were Germans and there were Nazis...", to which i replied, "but Mum what do you mean, all Germans are Nazi aren't they?" (my only war time 'reading' back then was comics...i hadn't got as far as factual history books of which just 12 years after the war, there wasn't exactly an abundance). She just repeated it again and told me i'd learn as i got older. She was right.

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

He's so intellectually challenged he can't even run his Twitter account without tweeting his garbage to the wrong Theresa May! *-) https://twitter.com/GeorgeL014/status/936037813203734528It's worth reading the comments back to that after he'd finally got TM's Twitter account correct! (lol)https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/936037588372283392TM is understandably not best pleased with Trump. Labour MP Stephen Doughty said: "This is the President of the United States, sharing with millions, inflammatory and divisive content" by someone "who represents a vile, fascist organization seeking the spread hatred and violence in person and online."Doughty added that, by sharing the tweets Trump was "either a racist, incompetent or unthinking. Or all three."Another Labour MP, Chris Byrant, said the US President should face arrest if he came to the UK. "The Prime Minister should make it absolutely clear that if Donald Trump comes to this country, he'll be arrested for inciting religious hatred and therefore he'd be better off not coming at all."Some MPs said Trump should quit social media. Conservative MP Peter Bone said: "Wouldn't the world be a better place if the Prime Minister could persuade the President of the United States to delete his Twitter account?"http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/30/europe/donald-trump-theresa-may-twitter-spat/index.html

[John52]

StuartO - 2017-11-30 2:22 PM

 

I suppose the Queen has had to put up with worse people to host for a State Visit >

 

Rolled out the Red Carpet for the Saudis - but they are Royalty, not commoners like Trump.

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 3:14 PM

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

You believe that POTUS Trump retweeting something it's going to have consequences with ISIS ??? ... How is what anybody does or says going to make things worse with those that want to wipe us non believers out ... If you ain't Muslim then your dead to them already a tweet isn't going to make a God damn bit of difference

[Violet1956]

Bulletguy - 2017-11-30 3:44 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 11:32 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.

Correct. As Colin put it he's 'playing to his fan base' and as usual the sycophants soak his inflammatory bile and drivel up like eager sponges.During the warring in Ireland i never saw that as "the Catholic threat" in fact i had a couple of RC friends at the time and i'm not RC. It's the same with the troubles in Palestine and Israel, not all should be tarred with the same brush. There is good and evil on both sides.Back further still i remember as a young lad asking my Mum about ww2 (my Dad would never talk war at all) and something she said to me which i never forgot, "just remember Paul, there were Germans and there were Nazis...", to which i replied, "but Mum what do you mean, all Germans are Nazi aren't they?" (my only war time 'reading' back then was comics...i hadn't got as far as factual history books of which just 12 years after the war, there wasn't exactly an abundance). She just repeated it again and told me i'd learn as i got older. She was right.

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

He's so intellectually challenged he can't even run his Twitter account without tweeting his garbage to the wrong Theresa May! *-) https://twitter.com/GeorgeL014/status/936037813203734528It's worth reading the comments back to that after he'd finally got TM's Twitter account correct! (lol)https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/936037588372283392TM is understandably not best pleased with Trump. Labour MP Stephen Doughty said: "This is the President of the United States, sharing with millions, inflammatory and divisive content" by someone "who represents a vile, fascist organization seeking the spread hatred and violence in person and online."Doughty added that, by sharing the tweets Trump was "either a racist, incompetent or unthinking. Or all three."Another Labour MP, Chris Byrant, said the US President should face arrest if he came to the UK. "The Prime Minister should make it absolutely clear that if Donald Trump comes to this country, he'll be arrested for inciting religious hatred and therefore he'd be better off not coming at all."Some MPs said Trump should quit social media. Conservative MP Peter Bone said: "Wouldn't the world be a better place if the Prime Minister could persuade the President of the United States to delete his Twitter account?"http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/30/europe/donald-trump-theresa-may-twitter-spat/index.html

A welcome intervention Bullet. I was beginning to feel a little worn down by the attempts to defend the indefensible. :-( Veronica

[RogerC]

colin - 2017-11-30 10:17 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.

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.

Quite correct Colin...not all muslims are adherents to the fanatical sects or beliefs that cause so many to carry out acts so vile and unfathomable in any society.  However you don't get to the situation we find ourselves in because of a 'few' nut jobs.  It is a sad fact that Islam has vastly more 'nut job' (as we see it) adherents that are prepared to perpetrate heinous acts, they have (in some instances) huge financial backing and possibly the one thing that sets them apart from any other group/following is the fact that their activists deliberately invoke the name of Allah in the act of committing their atrocities.  Therefore the major difference your comment helps demonstrate relates to the white thug or any adherent of Christian faiths.  Those adherents who carry out criminal/violent acts do not invoke the name of Jesus or any other religious figure whilst carrying out their act of violence.  Despite there being some 'questionable' groups who openly oppose Muslims, because of the acts committed in the name of Allah, I have yet to see anyone from that non Muslim part of society carry out a beheading, bombing a public place killing and maiming women and children, bombing mosques because it is of a different 'branch' of Islam, attacking a newspaper because of a cartoon it didn't like,  going to war in the determination of forming a 100% controlled Christian state as ISIS is attempting to do etc etc.......

Back to the OP.  Yes Trump is a bit strange but he does stumble around issues that other 'inclusive' liberal leaders avoid which in turn does bring things some consider unpalatable to the fore.  What the answer is I don't know but it is possible that there would be no need for a 'far right' had there been a more open and robust dealing with the Islamist terrorist situation a long time ago.

A religious group, any group irrespective of beliefs, which delivers atrocities on an otherwise innocent public surely deserves a robust response not one where liberal minded individuals bleat on about human rights etc etc.  Just because this one has a religious base should not make the strength of the response any less rigorous.

People happily quote that there are over 2 billion Muslims in the world and a small percentage are 'nut jobs'.  I agree but have to ask what are the majority  of Muslims doing to protect themselves and the good name of those who peacefully follow Allah?  In my opinion clearly not enough.

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-11-30 3:58 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 3:14 PM

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

You believe that POTUS Trump retweeting something it's going to have consequences with ISIS ??? ... How is what anybody does or says going to make things worse with those that want to wipe us non believers out ... If you ain't Muslim then your dead to them already a tweet isn't going to make a God damn bit of difference

The more Donald Trump and his ilk besmirch all Muslims as opposed to Islamic extremists the more likely some of them will become susceptible to extremist beliefs and to recruitment by groups like ISIS or even "lone wolf" type operations. Let's not forget there are nutjobs in the US who have unfettered access to lethal weapons enabling 100s to be killed in minutes. We don't want anymore innocent people to die at the hands of extremists whatever religion they claim to follow. Donald doesn't care because he goes around with a security detail and in a bullet proof limo. Ordinary Americans remain at risk from extremists from both sides of an ever increasing divide that he appears prepared to make even bigger. We Brits, as perceived allies of the US, are also likely to be adversely affected if we don't show how much we condemn his use of material emanating from extremists within the UK.

[Bulletguy]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 4:16 PM

Bulletguy - 2017-11-30 3:44 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 11:32 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.

Correct. As Colin put it he's 'playing to his fan base' and as usual the sycophants soak his inflammatory bile and drivel up like eager sponges.During the warring in Ireland i never saw that as "the Catholic threat" in fact i had a couple of RC friends at the time and i'm not RC. It's the same with the troubles in Palestine and Israel, not all should be tarred with the same brush. There is good and evil on both sides.Back further still i remember as a young lad asking my Mum about ww2 (my Dad would never talk war at all) and something she said to me which i never forgot, "just remember Paul, there were Germans and there were Nazis...", to which i replied, "but Mum what do you mean, all Germans are Nazi aren't they?" (my only war time 'reading' back then was comics...i hadn't got as far as factual history books of which just 12 years after the war, there wasn't exactly an abundance). She just repeated it again and told me i'd learn as i got older. She was right.

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

He's so intellectually challenged he can't even run his Twitter account without tweeting his garbage to the wrong Theresa May! *-) https://twitter.com/GeorgeL014/status/936037813203734528It's worth reading the comments back to that after he'd finally got TM's Twitter account correct! (lol)https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/936037588372283392TM is understandably not best pleased with Trump. Labour MP Stephen Doughty said: "This is the President of the United States, sharing with millions, inflammatory and divisive content" by someone "who represents a vile, fascist organization seeking the spread hatred and violence in person and online."Doughty added that, by sharing the tweets Trump was "either a racist, incompetent or unthinking. Or all three."Another Labour MP, Chris Byrant, said the US President should face arrest if he came to the UK. "The Prime Minister should make it absolutely clear that if Donald Trump comes to this country, he'll be arrested for inciting religious hatred and therefore he'd be better off not coming at all."Some MPs said Trump should quit social media. Conservative MP Peter Bone said: "Wouldn't the world be a better place if the Prime Minister could persuade the President of the United States to delete his Twitter account?"http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/30/europe/donald-trump-theresa-may-twitter-spat/index.html

A welcome intervention Bullet. I was beginning to feel a little worn down by the attempts to defend the indefensible. :-( Veronica

Talking of defence......imagine the consequences for North/South Korea or China/Japan where you have a "President" (so called) obsessed with Twitter who can't even send a damn stupid tweet to the correct Theresa May! They should ban him from Twitter before he starts ww3. 8-) *-) It seems from that silly Twittering last night he's upset and shamed a lot of Americans who've called into question his fitness for office. May has now openly condemned his silly re-tweeting but ducked from saying she will confront him about them. I certainly don't want him to come here so i hope he stays away as i'm sure there will be trouble if he sets foot on UK soil.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-donald-trump-britain-first-tweets-islamophobia-muslim-response-a8084696.html

[Violet1956]

RogerC - 2017-11-30 4:32 PM

colin - 2017-11-30 10:17 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.

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.

Quite correct Colin...not all muslims are adherents to the fanatical sects or beliefs that cause so many to carry out acts so vile and unfathomable in any society.  However you don't get to the situation we find ourselves in because of a 'few' nut jobs.  It is a sad fact that Islam has vastly more 'nut job' (as we see it) adherents that are prepared to perpetrate heinous acts, they have (in some instances) huge financial backing and possibly the one thing that sets them apart from any other group/following is the fact that their activists deliberately invoke the name of Allah in the act of committing their atrocities.  Therefore the major difference your comment helps demonstrate relates to the white thug or any adherent of Christian faiths.  Those adherents who carry out criminal/violent acts do not invoke the name of Jesus or any other religious figure whilst carrying out their act of violence.  Despite there being some 'questionable' groups who openly oppose Muslims, because of the acts committed in the name of Allah, I have yet to see anyone from that non Muslim part of society carry out a beheading, bombing a public place killing and maiming women and children, bombing mosques because it is of a different 'branch' of Islam, attacking a newspaper because of a cartoon it didn't like,  going to war in the determination of forming a 100% controlled Christian state as ISIS is attempting to do etc etc.......

Back to the OP.  Yes Trump is a bit strange but he does stumble around issues that other 'inclusive' liberal leaders avoid which in turn does bring things some consider unpalatable to the fore.  What the answer is I don't know but it is possible that there would be no need for a 'far right' had there been a more open and robust dealing with the Islamist terrorist situation a long time ago.

A religious group, any group irrespective of beliefs, which delivers atrocities on an otherwise innocent public surely deserves a robust response not one where liberal minded individuals bleat on about human rights etc etc.  Just because this one has a religious base should not make the strength of the response any less rigorous.

People happily quote that there are over 2 billion Muslims in the world and a small percentage are 'nut jobs'.  I agree but have to ask what are the majority  of Muslims doing to protect themselves and the good name of those who peacefully follow Allah?  In my opinion clearly not enough.

I'd say Roger that you have failed to support your observation that the majority of Muslims are not doing enough to protect themselves and the good name of those who peacefully follow Allah with any evidence. Reminds me of this great piece from the Daily Mash. An oldie but still a goodie. http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/muslim-man-in-northampton-asked-what-hes-doing-about-isis-20151117103929

[Violet1956]

John52 - 2017-11-30 3:58 PM

 

StuartO - 2017-11-30 2:22 PM

 

I suppose the Queen has had to put up with worse people to host for a State Visit >

 

Rolled out the Red Carpet for the Saudis - but they are Royalty, not commoners like Trump.

 

...and commoners like Putin John

[colin]

pelmetman - 2017-11-30 12:55 PM

 

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 .........

 

 

Where have I posted that? I'll answer for you, nowhere, it is something you have made up in your own mind.

I have no problem with anyone being prosecuted for crimes they have committed, I have no problems with the finger being pointed if there is shown to be a problem within a segment of society.

The Asian grooming gangs should not have been allowed to get away with what they did(and are still doing) just because it might upset a certain segment.

 

 

[Bulletguy]

RogerC - 2017-11-30 4:32 PM

 

People happily quote that there are over 2 billion Muslims in the world and a small percentage are 'nut jobs'. I agree but have to ask what are the majority of Muslims doing to protect themselves and the good name of those who peacefully follow Allah? In my opinion clearly not enough.

Depends how you define 'protecting'? There's only so much anyone can do to protect from terrorism and stopping the spread of hateful rhetoric and bile is just one but a very important part. Giving air time to the deluded clowns and lunatic fringe like Fransen et al is the unfortunate downside as her and BF basked in the glory of their five minutes of infamy. Looks like she's headed for a prison cell soon anyway.

 

Taking the fight to the frontline is quite another though and along with many international forces, Muslim forces have been fighting IS in Iraq and Syria, in fact Iraq has long had their own Special Forces who've successfully fought back against IS who have now lost much of their ground in Iraq. There are plenty of video clips on YT if you need convincing of their actions. IS is a dwindling bunch of nutjobs.

[Bulletguy]

colin - 2017-11-30 5:44 PM

 

pelmetman - 2017-11-30 12:55 PM

 

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 .........

 

 

Where have I posted that? I'll answer for you, nowhere, it is something you have made up in your own mind.

I have no problem with anyone being prosecuted for crimes they have committed, I have no problems with the finger being pointed if there is shown to be a problem within a segment of society.

The Asian grooming gangs should not have been allowed to get away with what they did(and are still doing) just because it might upset a certain segment.

Exactly.....and everyone else could see that. It's just more of the usual deflectionary nonsense the same culprits default to.

[Brian Kirby]

It's water under the bridge now but, FWIW, I think it would have been far better for our PM to have maintained silence in public, but to have responded through the British Ambassador directly to the White House. Diplomacy by Twitter is not going to work. Posts on Twitter are Tweets, and most Tweets are made by Twits! :-)

 

But, we have to remember that Trump is the President of the US, and that the post should be respected even if respect for the post-holder is difficult. We should also remember that he was elected by a majority of Americans, so publicly disrespecting the post-holder is liable to appear to his electorate as indirect disrespect of them. Not very clever!

 

Since we are intent on leaving the EC, it seems an undesirable gaff to open an avoidable rift with America - unless it is intended to so worry Brexiters that they begin to clamour for an exit from Brexit, in which case it is a brilliant move! :-D

[Bulletguy]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-30 6:14 PM

 

It's water under the bridge now but, FWIW, I think it would have been far better for our PM to have maintained silence in public, but to have responded through the British Ambassador directly to the White House. Diplomacy by Twitter is not going to work. Posts on Twitter are Tweets, and most Tweets are made by Twits! :-)

 

But, we have to remember that Trump is the President of the US, and that the post should be respected even if respect for the post-holder is difficult. We should also remember that he was elected by a majority of Americans, so publicly disrespecting the post-holder is liable to appear to his electorate as indirect disrespect of them. Not very clever!

 

Since we are intent on leaving the EC, it seems an undesirable gaff to open an avoidable rift with America - unless it is intended to so worry Brexiters that they begin to clamour for an exit from Brexit, in which case it is a brilliant move! :-D

That's true. Though TM has a Twitter account she obviously isn't a fanatical user like Trump who is constantly flirting off inane twitter rubbish so i suspect she probably found herself with her back to the wall when the idiot made that tweet to her. Journalists jumped on that one as fast as the re-tweets he'd made.

 

Last night reading through some of the responses, many were obviously Americans who were quite annoyed (putting it mildly) by his twit tweeting! Recording phone calls was the 'achilles heel' with Nixon and proved his eventual downfall.....Twitter could do the same for Trump! (lol)

[Barryd999]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-30 6:14 PM

 

It's water under the bridge now but, FWIW, I think it would have been far better for our PM to have maintained silence in public, but to have responded through the British Ambassador directly to the White House. Diplomacy by Twitter is not going to work. Posts on Twitter are Tweets, and most Tweets are made by Twits! :-)

 

But, we have to remember that Trump is the President of the US, and that the post should be respected even if respect for the post-holder is difficult. We should also remember that he was elected by a majority of Americans, so publicly disrespecting the post-holder is liable to appear to his electorate as indirect disrespect of them. Not very clever!

 

Since we are intent on leaving the EC, it seems an undesirable gaff to open an avoidable rift with America - unless it is intended to so worry Brexiters that they begin to clamour for an exit from Brexit, in which case it is a brilliant move! :-D

 

For once I am going to disagree Brian. Of course it should have been publicly condemned. Its not even accurate. Even the Fail has reported the so called Migrant beating up the guy on crutches was a Dutch national and the Police said he isnt even a Muslim. Of course like the other fake reports like the so called migrants kicking a woman down the stairs in Germany who also turned out not to be migrants the damage is done. Those that support this kind of racism will he whooping with joy and retweeting regardless of if any of it is true or not. We must be shown to condemn this kind of very un-presidential behaviour.

 

As for you last paragraph I Think its inevitable that the whole world will fall out with Trump so maybe it will turn out to be a good move. It seems like he has been in power for ever but he has at least three years to go unless they get shot of him early. Do we really want to be beholden to him? Good God I hope not.

 

Roger. I will be meeting my good life long friend Akram tomorrow. He is a Muslim, we will probably do some work then go for a few beers. Ill try and remember to ask him what he is going to to about ISIS shall I? (lol)

[Violet1956]

Barryd999 - 2017-11-30 6:43 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-30 6:14 PM

 

It's water under the bridge now but, FWIW, I think it would have been far better for our PM to have maintained silence in public, but to have responded through the British Ambassador directly to the White House. Diplomacy by Twitter is not going to work. Posts on Twitter are Tweets, and most Tweets are made by Twits! :-)

 

But, we have to remember that Trump is the President of the US, and that the post should be respected even if respect for the post-holder is difficult. We should also remember that he was elected by a majority of Americans, so publicly disrespecting the post-holder is liable to appear to his electorate as indirect disrespect of them. Not very clever!

 

Since we are intent on leaving the EC, it seems an undesirable gaff to open an avoidable rift with America - unless it is intended to so worry Brexiters that they begin to clamour for an exit from Brexit, in which case it is a brilliant move! :-D

 

For once I am going to disagree Brian. Of course it should have been publicly condemned. Its not even accurate. Even the Fail has reported the so called Migrant beating up the guy on crutches was a Dutch national and the Police said he isnt even a Muslim. Of course like the other fake reports like the so called migrants kicking a woman down the stairs in Germany who also turned out not to be migrants the damage is done. Those that support this kind of racism will he whooping with joy and retweeting regardless of if any of it is true or not. We must be shown to condemn this kind of very un-presidential behaviour.

 

As for you last paragraph I Think its inevitable that the whole world will fall out with Trump so maybe it will turn out to be a good move. It seems like he has been in power for ever but he has at least three years to go unless they get shot of him early. Do we really want to be beholden to him? Good God I hope not.

 

Roger. I will be meeting my good life long friend Akram tomorrow. He is a Muslim, we will probably do some work then go for a few beers. Ill try and remember to ask him what he is going to to about ISIS shall I? (lol)

 

I disagree too Brian. Whilst her method of responding may be questionable for the reasons you have given, public condemnation from our PM was most definitely demanded. Trump re-tweeted Britain First videos and to some idiots her silence would amount to a British endorsement of their twisted and Islamophobic agenda. Seems to me she well understands how "unspecial" our relationship is with the US as far as Trump is concerned so there was little to lose but much to gain by going public.

[Brian Kirby]

Well, as I said, it's water under the bridge, so too late now. Notwithstanding, I'd still have been happier if she'd used diplomatic channels to register her disapproval. Shen could then have made a suitable announcement in the Commons. I didn't mean that she should have kept totally silent, just that a proper, government to government, response with a suitable announcement in parliament might have had greater impact. Impact on Trump? Hmmmmmmmmmm! :-D

[Violet1956]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-30 7:12 PM

 

Well, as I said, it's water under the bridge, so too late now. Notwithstanding, I'd still have been happier if she'd used diplomatic channels to register her disapproval. Shen could then have made a suitable announcement in the Commons. I didn't mean that she should have kept totally silent, just that a proper, government to government, response with a suitable announcement in parliament might have had greater impact. Impact on Trump? Hmmmmmmmmmm! :-D

 

Except that I doubt that potential Islamic nut jobs listen to PM's announcements in the Commons Brian or media reports of them so on second thoughts I believe her twitter response was spot on. ;-)

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 4:56 PM

antony1969 - 2017-11-30 3:58 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 3:14 PM

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

You believe that POTUS Trump retweeting something it's going to have consequences with ISIS ??? ... How is what anybody does or says going to make things worse with those that want to wipe us non believers out ... If you ain't Muslim then your dead to them already a tweet isn't going to make a God damn bit of difference

The more Donald Trump and his ilk besmirch all Muslims as opposed to Islamic extremists the more likely some of them will become susceptible to extremist beliefs and to recruitment by groups like ISIS or even "lone wolf" type operations. Let's not forget there are nutjobs in the US who have unfettered access to lethal weapons enabling 100s to be killed in minutes. We don't want anymore innocent people to die at the hands of extremists whatever religion they claim to follow. Donald doesn't care because he goes around with a security detail and in a bullet proof limo. Ordinary Americans remain at risk from extremists from both sides of an ever increasing divide that he appears prepared to make even bigger. We Brits, as perceived allies of the US, are also likely to be adversely affected if we don't show how much we condemn his use of material emanating from extremists within the UK.

Thats right Veronica you finally got there ... "his ilk" ... You finally said what you truly think ... When did he besmirch all Muslims by the way ???

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-11-30 7:36 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 4:56 PM

antony1969 - 2017-11-30 3:58 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 3:14 PM

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

You believe that POTUS Trump retweeting something it's going to have consequences with ISIS ??? ... How is what anybody does or says going to make things worse with those that want to wipe us non believers out ... If you ain't Muslim then your dead to them already a tweet isn't going to make a God damn bit of difference

The more Donald Trump and his ilk besmirch all Muslims as opposed to Islamic extremists the more likely some of them will become susceptible to extremist beliefs and to recruitment by groups like ISIS or even "lone wolf" type operations. Let's not forget there are nutjobs in the US who have unfettered access to lethal weapons enabling 100s to be killed in minutes. We don't want anymore innocent people to die at the hands of extremists whatever religion they claim to follow. Donald doesn't care because he goes around with a security detail and in a bullet proof limo. Ordinary Americans remain at risk from extremists from both sides of an ever increasing divide that he appears prepared to make even bigger. We Brits, as perceived allies of the US, are also likely to be adversely affected if we don't show how much we condemn his use of material emanating from extremists within the UK.

Thats right Veronica you finally got there ... "his ilk" ... You finally said what you truly think ... When did he besmirch all Muslims by the way ???

I can't research all of his tweets as the dinner is on. But just one recent example - in one of his tweets he said that the United Kingdom is trying hard to disguise their "massive Muslim" problem.

[antony1969]

Barryd999 - 2017-11-30 6:43 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-30 6:14 PM

 

It's water under the bridge now but, FWIW, I think it would have been far better for our PM to have maintained silence in public, but to have responded through the British Ambassador directly to the White House. Diplomacy by Twitter is not going to work. Posts on Twitter are Tweets, and most Tweets are made by Twits! :-)

 

But, we have to remember that Trump is the President of the US, and that the post should be respected even if respect for the post-holder is difficult. We should also remember that he was elected by a majority of Americans, so publicly disrespecting the post-holder is liable to appear to his electorate as indirect disrespect of them. Not very clever!

 

Since we are intent on leaving the EC, it seems an undesirable gaff to open an avoidable rift with America - unless it is intended to so worry Brexiters that they begin to clamour for an exit from Brexit, in which case it is a brilliant move! :-D

 

For once I am going to disagree Brian. Of course it should have been publicly condemned. Its not even accurate. Even the Fail has reported the so called Migrant beating up the guy on crutches was a Dutch national and the Police said he isnt even a Muslim. Of course like the other fake reports like the so called migrants kicking a woman down the stairs in Germany who also turned out not to be migrants the damage is done. Those that support this kind of racism will he whooping with joy and retweeting regardless of if any of it is true or not. We must be shown to condemn this kind of very un-presidential behaviour.

 

As for you last paragraph I Think its inevitable that the whole world will fall out with Trump so maybe it will turn out to be a good move. It seems like he has been in power for ever but he has at least three years to go unless they get shot of him early. Do we really want to be beholden to him? Good God I hope not.

 

Roger. I will be meeting my good life long friend Akram tomorrow. He is a Muslim, we will probably do some work then go for a few beers. Ill try and remember to ask him what he is going to to about ISIS shall I? (lol)

 

Muslim - Beers - Contradiction somewhere

[Violet1956]

antony1969 - 2017-11-30 7:48 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2017-11-30 6:43 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-30 6:14 PM

 

It's water under the bridge now but, FWIW, I think it would have been far better for our PM to have maintained silence in public, but to have responded through the British Ambassador directly to the White House. Diplomacy by Twitter is not going to work. Posts on Twitter are Tweets, and most Tweets are made by Twits! :-)

 

But, we have to remember that Trump is the President of the US, and that the post should be respected even if respect for the post-holder is difficult. We should also remember that he was elected by a majority of Americans, so publicly disrespecting the post-holder is liable to appear to his electorate as indirect disrespect of them. Not very clever!

 

Since we are intent on leaving the EC, it seems an undesirable gaff to open an avoidable rift with America - unless it is intended to so worry Brexiters that they begin to clamour for an exit from Brexit, in which case it is a brilliant move! :-D

 

For once I am going to disagree Brian. Of course it should have been publicly condemned. Its not even accurate. Even the Fail has reported the so called Migrant beating up the guy on crutches was a Dutch national and the Police said he isnt even a Muslim. Of course like the other fake reports like the so called migrants kicking a woman down the stairs in Germany who also turned out not to be migrants the damage is done. Those that support this kind of racism will he whooping with joy and retweeting regardless of if any of it is true or not. We must be shown to condemn this kind of very un-presidential behaviour.

 

As for you last paragraph I Think its inevitable that the whole world will fall out with Trump so maybe it will turn out to be a good move. It seems like he has been in power for ever but he has at least three years to go unless they get shot of him early. Do we really want to be beholden to him? Good God I hope not.

 

Roger. I will be meeting my good life long friend Akram tomorrow. He is a Muslim, we will probably do some work then go for a few beers. Ill try and remember to ask him what he is going to to about ISIS shall I? (lol)

 

Muslim - Beers - Contradiction somewhere

That's where you are so wrong. Got to dash the timer's just gone off.

 

[antony1969]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 7:47 PM

antony1969 - 2017-11-30 7:36 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 4:56 PM

antony1969 - 2017-11-30 3:58 PM

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 3:14 PM

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

You believe that POTUS Trump retweeting something it's going to have consequences with ISIS ??? ... How is what anybody does or says going to make things worse with those that want to wipe us non believers out ... If you ain't Muslim then your dead to them already a tweet isn't going to make a God damn bit of difference

The more Donald Trump and his ilk besmirch all Muslims as opposed to Islamic extremists the more likely some of them will become susceptible to extremist beliefs and to recruitment by groups like ISIS or even "lone wolf" type operations. Let's not forget there are nutjobs in the US who have unfettered access to lethal weapons enabling 100s to be killed in minutes. We don't want anymore innocent people to die at the hands of extremists whatever religion they claim to follow. Donald doesn't care because he goes around with a security detail and in a bullet proof limo. Ordinary Americans remain at risk from extremists from both sides of an ever increasing divide that he appears prepared to make even bigger. We Brits, as perceived allies of the US, are also likely to be adversely affected if we don't show how much we condemn his use of material emanating from extremists within the UK.

Thats right Veronica you finally got there ... "his ilk" ... You finally said what you truly think ... When did he besmirch all Muslims by the way ???

I can't research all of his tweets as the dinner is on. But just one recent example - in one of his tweets he said that the United Kingdom is trying hard to disguise their "massive Muslim" problem.

So we dont have a massive Muslim problem ??? ... Because our prisons and rape gangs and Islamic terrorism would tell us otherwise ... But I suppose they are just side issues ... What is "his ilk" ???

[Bulletguy]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-30 7:12 PM

 

Well, as I said, it's water under the bridge, so too late now. Notwithstanding, I'd still have been happier if she'd used diplomatic channels to register her disapproval. Shen could then have made a suitable announcement in the Commons. I didn't mean that she should have kept totally silent, just that a proper, government to government, response with a suitable announcement in parliament might have had greater impact. Impact on Trump? Hmmmmmmmmmm! :-D

Looks like those diplomatic channels have already been put to use. It's just been reported on Channel 4 news earlier too.

 

Sir Kim Darroch, British ambassador to US, has raised the issue formally and conveyed to the White House the government’s concerns about Donald Trump’s promotion on Twitter of material created by the far-right group Britain First.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/30/rudd-donald-trump-bigger-picture-uk-us-britain-first

[RogerC]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-30 11:32 AM 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”.  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

Given the numbers involved and the fact that there likely hundreds of thousands of Muslims who believe the Koran tells them unbelievers must be converted or killed.  Most don't act on that calling but far too many do.  Therefore if the Jewish faith called for the annihilation of all followers of Islam, as certain elements of the Arab world do regarding Israel, then there would be a Jewish threat.  It is the context one sees these acts of evil in which helps determine the terminology one uses and in this instance I truly believe that 'the Muslim threat' is quite appropriate as is Islamist fanaticism and any other descriptive title one feels describes these animals. 

Extract from:

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx 

...there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to balance out those calling for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy, along with the remarkable emphasis on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

As for Britain First and Ms Fransen, I agree these groups are quite unpleasant but one needs to consider why they come into being. Surely had the Islamist issue been dealt with in it's infancy (in the West) there would be no fuel for the fire that gave rise to this and other groups.  For example they want the Hijab, burka and other face covering methods of dressing banned.  I believe given the security situation most countries in the West face it is a reasonable demand. If France is able to enact and police a law which makes all face covering in public places illegal (there are exceptions)why not here? 

If it was to be enacted it would add to the general feeling of security and I consider equally as important it would remove away an element of anger that stokes the fires of these groups.  A win/win situation surely?