Suella Braverman: ‘Islamists are in charge’
Discussion
The irony is, he could and I think certainly would gain more popularity if he called these people out publicly and ruthlessly and took a once great party back from its lunatics. I'm sure those criticising Stsrmer for his slow actions will, similarly, criticise Sunak for his lack of action against SooLUh. Won't they?
I suppose thats down to what what most people consider to be a threat i.e. to most people they don't consider Jewish people to be a threat to them (no violence, no terror attacks etc), so they'll generally stand up when other folks attack Jewish people, whilst due to the continual terror attacks carried out by a subset of extremist Muslims over the past 50 years on people like themselves, they feel less inclined to stand up for people from a community which they feel threatened by.
I mean in the end, is it "wrong" to fear a group of people who have a subset of extremists with a proven track record around the world for terror attacks targetting civilians vs another group who don't have that subset?
I mean in the end, is it "wrong" to fear a group of people who have a subset of extremists with a proven track record around the world for terror attacks targetting civilians vs another group who don't have that subset?
IanH755 said:
I suppose thats down to what what most people consider to be a threat i.e. to most people they don't consider Jewish people to be a threat to them (no violence, no terror attacks etc), so they'll generally stand up when other folks attack Jewish people, whilst due to the continual terror attacks carried out by a subset of extremist Muslims over the past 50 years on people like themselves, they feel less inclined to stand up for people from a community which they feel threatened by.
I mean in the end, is it "wrong" to fear a group of people who have a subset of extremists with a proven track record around the world for terror attacks targetting civilians vs another group who don't have that subset?
Yeah, we’ve got to watch those Irish. They’ve been quiet for far too long…I mean in the end, is it "wrong" to fear a group of people who have a subset of extremists with a proven track record around the world for terror attacks targetting civilians vs another group who don't have that subset?
For the avoidance of doubt, the Muslim community is not a threat. 99.9% want the same as you - a peaceful life. Just because an incredibly small number commit atrocities is no reason to tar an entire race.
And if you look back at history, terrorists acts were carried out by elements of the jewish population in what is now Israel against British troops in order to achieve independence from the U.K.
There are nutters on all sides.
Edited by valiant on Sunday 25th February 12:47
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: No they won't.
You can see it from the complete and utter tumbleweed on this thread and the others.
Antisemitism is a cancer but not a sausage about Islamophobia.
Some people have been pushing an equivalence with Islamophobia as hard as they possibly can since October 7th and are very upset it's not getting wider support.You can see it from the complete and utter tumbleweed on this thread and the others.
Antisemitism is a cancer but not a sausage about Islamophobia.
Super Sonic said:
Why has Lee Anderson been suspended, but not Suella Braverman? Isn't what they said very similar?
I would go further & suggest her st stirring is even worse.What I find odd is that descendants of immigrants, including Priti Patel, are seemingly some of the biggest s
t stirrers when it comes down to race/religion. Do they think they will be more widely accepted by the white majority?Biker 1 said:
Super Sonic said:
Why has Lee Anderson been suspended, but not Suella Braverman? Isn't what they said very similar?
I would go further & suggest her st stirring is even worse.What I find odd is that descendants of immigrants, including Priti Patel, are seemingly some of the biggest s
t stirrers when it comes down to race/religion. Do they think they will be more widely accepted by the white majority?IanH755 said:
I suppose thats down to what what most people consider to be a threat i.e. to most people they don't consider Jewish people to be a threat to them (no violence, no terror attacks etc), so they'll generally stand up when other folks attack Jewish people, whilst due to the continual terror attacks carried out by a subset of extremist Muslims over the past 50 years on people like themselves, they feel less inclined to stand up for people from a community which they feel threatened by.
I mean in the end, is it "wrong" to fear a group of people who have a subset of extremists with a proven track record around the world for terror attacks targetting civilians vs another group who don't have that subset?
When you put it like that, you have a point. I mean in the end, is it "wrong" to fear a group of people who have a subset of extremists with a proven track record around the world for terror attacks targetting civilians vs another group who don't have that subset?
Presumably you are completely discounting the massively higher number of innocent Muslim civilians who've been killed by the West dicking around in the Middle East?
valiant said:
IanH755 said:
I suppose thats down to what what most people consider to be a threat i.e. to most people they don't consider Jewish people to be a threat to them (no violence, no terror attacks etc), so they'll generally stand up when other folks attack Jewish people, whilst due to the continual terror attacks carried out by a subset of extremist Muslims over the past 50 years on people like themselves, they feel less inclined to stand up for people from a community which they feel threatened by.
I mean in the end, is it "wrong" to fear a group of people who have a subset of extremists with a proven track record around the world for terror attacks targetting civilians vs another group who don't have that subset?
Yeah, we’ve got to watch those Irish. They’ve been quiet for far too long…I mean in the end, is it "wrong" to fear a group of people who have a subset of extremists with a proven track record around the world for terror attacks targetting civilians vs another group who don't have that subset?
For the avoidance of doubt, the Muslim community is not a threat. 99.9% want the same as you - a peaceful life. Just because an incredibly small number commit atrocities is no reason to tar an entire race.
And if you look back at history, terrorists acts were carried out by elements of the jewish population in what is now Israel against British troops in order to achieve independence from the U.K.
There are nutters on all sides.
Also, as someone who has lived in a Muslim country for years as a "non-believer" working alongside hundreds of Sunni and a dozen or so Shia, and spent decades in the Middle East, your "the Muslim community is not a threat" is unbelievably naive, as proven by the thousands of deaths from Sunni/Shia Muslim extremism around the world every year. That they are, sadly, a looming threat is fact, its only the scale which should be discussed, which is where your "99.9% want a peaceful life" is, again, woefully naive.
In all my time living in Muslim countries there was never a doubt that, should one day something awful happen and the Grand Imam of Sunni Islam suddenly declares "death to non-believers" that the oh so peaceful "99.9%" you so desperately want to believe are peaceful would, in huge numbers, suddenly not be so peaceful any more.
Now thats not to say that right now if you have Muslim friends & colleagues that they are an immediate threat to anyone and that you should be terrified of them all, its just keeping in mind that knowledge that, when push comes to shove, it would be extremely naive to think that they'd be on "your" side and go against their religion, and if you think they will be, again you're hopelessly naive.
So whilst that whole post may reek of "Islamophobia" to some - and thats understandable TBH as its not "nice" to say things people don't ever want to think about, therefore making it easier to ignore and forcing them to argue with those who do think it should be discussed - to the rest of the people its just common sense borne from actual experience. Personally I hope that I never have to see anything like this happen in my lifetime.
IanH755 said:
Also, as someone who has lived in a Muslim country for years as a "non-believer" working alongside hundreds of Sunni and a dozen or so Shia, and spent decades in the Middle East, your "the Muslim community is not a threat" is unbelievably naive, as proven by the thousands of deaths from Sunni/Shia Muslim extremism around the world every year. That they are, sadly, a looming threat is fact, its only the scale which should be discussed, which is where your "99.9% want a peaceful life" is, again, woefully naive.
In all my time living in Muslim countries there was never a doubt that, should one day something awful happen and the Grand Imam of Sunni Islam suddenly declares "death to non-believers" that the oh so peaceful "99.9%" you so desperately want to believe are peaceful would, in huge numbers, suddenly not be so peaceful any more.
.
The "thousands of deaths from Shia/Sunni muslim extremism" are more political than religious. It's a bit like arguing that the Russia/Ukraine conflict is a conflict between two sects of Christianity. or that WW2, or Vietnam, or Northern Ireland (or any of the multiple conflicts NOT involving muslims) were somehow based on "Religion" rather than "Politics". For example Celtic fans and Rangers fans beating 7 bells out of each other isn't based on fundamental differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, it's just two groups of twunts using religion as a badge to fight under.In all my time living in Muslim countries there was never a doubt that, should one day something awful happen and the Grand Imam of Sunni Islam suddenly declares "death to non-believers" that the oh so peaceful "99.9%" you so desperately want to believe are peaceful would, in huge numbers, suddenly not be so peaceful any more.
.
Out of interest who is the "Grand Imam of Sunni islam"? I've only been a Sunni muslim for 50+ years and I'd not heard about him before your post. I'm guessing if he's going to send out a message then I need to sign up to his WhatsApp group.....
Countdown said:
Out of interest who is the "Grand Imam of Sunni islam"?
It's a nice trap you've laid out for me there 
After being a Sunni Muslim for 50+ years you should already know that there isn't a single religious "leader" in Sunni Islam (no Caliph), but the two most revered and could be considered for the role are Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Abdullah Al Al-Sheikh, the current Grand Mufti of Mecca or Ahmed Mohamed Ahmed El-Tayeb the current Grand Imam of al-Azhar - either of which could fill the role quite happily.
I'd also add that, as a practising Muslim, I'm surprised that you don't capitalise the i in Islam to give it the respect the religion is due, but you do you I suppose, there's nothing that specifically states you must, just a personal thing for me being respectful I guess
I'd hate to live in the world many of you imagine you do. People are people and some are aholes. That is the only fact in all of this conjecture. Everybody has the potential to be better than the worst thing they have ever done. Some choose to take that option, some don't...some even want to but can't.
holes. That is the only fact in all of this conjecture. Everybody has the potential to be better than the worst thing they have ever done. Some choose to take that option, some don't...some even want to but can't. biggbn said:
NomduJour said:
Killboy said:
Grrrrr Khan 
Khan is absolutely complicit in this with his tacit support of the weekly hate marches. Imagine being Jewish in today’s London and watching that performance every weekend.
I suppose we should be happy with total state control, because that's how its done in North Korea?
Trax said:
biggbn said:
NomduJour said:
Killboy said:
Grrrrr Khan
Khan is absolutely complicit in this with his tacit support of the weekly hate marches. Imagine being Jewish in today’s London and watching that performance every weekend.
I suppose we should be happy with total state control, because that's how its done in North Korea?
IanH755 said:
valiant said:
IanH755 said:
I suppose thats down to what what most people consider to be a threat i.e. to most people they don't consider Jewish people to be a threat to them (no violence, no terror attacks etc), so they'll generally stand up when other folks attack Jewish people, whilst due to the continual terror attacks carried out by a subset of extremist Muslims over the past 50 years on people like themselves, they feel less inclined to stand up for people from a community which they feel threatened by.
I mean in the end, is it "wrong" to fear a group of people who have a subset of extremists with a proven track record around the world for terror attacks targetting civilians vs another group who don't have that subset?
Yeah, we’ve got to watch those Irish. They’ve been quiet for far too long…I mean in the end, is it "wrong" to fear a group of people who have a subset of extremists with a proven track record around the world for terror attacks targetting civilians vs another group who don't have that subset?
For the avoidance of doubt, the Muslim community is not a threat. 99.9% want the same as you - a peaceful life. Just because an incredibly small number commit atrocities is no reason to tar an entire race.
And if you look back at history, terrorists acts were carried out by elements of the jewish population in what is now Israel against British troops in order to achieve independence from the U.K.
There are nutters on all sides.
Also, as someone who has lived in a Muslim country for years as a "non-believer" working alongside hundreds of Sunni and a dozen or so Shia, and spent decades in the Middle East, your "the Muslim community is not a threat" is unbelievably naive, as proven by the thousands of deaths from Sunni/Shia Muslim extremism around the world every year. That they are, sadly, a looming threat is fact, its only the scale which should be discussed, which is where your "99.9% want a peaceful life" is, again, woefully naive.
In all my time living in Muslim countries there was never a doubt that, should one day something awful happen and the Grand Imam of Sunni Islam suddenly declares "death to non-believers" that the oh so peaceful "99.9%" you so desperately want to believe are peaceful would, in huge numbers, suddenly not be so peaceful any more.
Now thats not to say that right now if you have Muslim friends & colleagues that they are an immediate threat to anyone and that you should be terrified of them all, its just keeping in mind that knowledge that, when push comes to shove, it would be extremely naive to think that they'd be on "your" side and go against their religion, and if you think they will be, again you're hopelessly naive.
So whilst that whole post may reek of "Islamophobia" to some - and thats understandable TBH as its not "nice" to say things people don't ever want to think about, therefore making it easier to ignore and forcing them to argue with those who do think it should be discussed - to the rest of the people its just common sense borne from actual experience. Personally I hope that I never have to see anything like this happen in my lifetime.
The Blair government took us into a war in Iraq which is estimated to have killed anything from 150,000 to 1,000,000 Muslim civilians on a sexed up complete and utter lie!
Remind me again how the Islamophobia is justified?
Kermit power said:
The Blair government took us into a war in Iraq which is estimated to have killed anything from 150,000 to 1,000,000 Muslim civilians on a sexed up complete and utter lie!
The Iraq war was a horrible folly, but it's well known that most casualties were a result of what effectively was a sectarian civil war.From the IBC project, percentage of casualties by perpetrator:
IBC said:
74% unidentified perpetrator: defined as "those who target civilians (i.e., no identifiable military target is present), while appearing indistinguishable from civilians: for example, a suicide bomber disguised as a civilian in a market. Unknown (i.e., unidentified) perpetrators in Iraq include sectarian combatants and Anti-Coalition combatants who maintain a civilian appearance while targeting civilians."
11% anti-coalition forces: defined as "un-uniformed combatants identified by attacks on coalition targets" during the event. Anti-Coalition combatants in the event of targeting purely civilians would instead be classed under the "unidentified perpetrator" category.
12% coalition forces: identified by uniforms or use of air attacks.
11% anti-coalition forces: defined as "un-uniformed combatants identified by attacks on coalition targets" during the event. Anti-Coalition combatants in the event of targeting purely civilians would instead be classed under the "unidentified perpetrator" category.
12% coalition forces: identified by uniforms or use of air attacks.
Olivera said:
Kermit power said:
The Blair government took us into a war in Iraq which is estimated to have killed anything from 150,000 to 1,000,000 Muslim civilians on a sexed up complete and utter lie!
The Iraq war was a horrible folly, but it's well known that most casualties were a result of what effectively was a sectarian civil war.From the IBC project, percentage of casualties by perpetrator:
IBC said:
74% unidentified perpetrator: defined as "those who target civilians (i.e., no identifiable military target is present), while appearing indistinguishable from civilians: for example, a suicide bomber disguised as a civilian in a market. Unknown (i.e., unidentified) perpetrators in Iraq include sectarian combatants and Anti-Coalition combatants who maintain a civilian appearance while targeting civilians."
11% anti-coalition forces: defined as "un-uniformed combatants identified by attacks on coalition targets" during the event. Anti-Coalition combatants in the event of targeting purely civilians would instead be classed under the "unidentified perpetrator" category.
12% coalition forces: identified by uniforms or use of air attacks.
11% anti-coalition forces: defined as "un-uniformed combatants identified by attacks on coalition targets" during the event. Anti-Coalition combatants in the event of targeting purely civilians would instead be classed under the "unidentified perpetrator" category.
12% coalition forces: identified by uniforms or use of air attacks.
'Nah, wasn't me, guv,' is a pretty old trope.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff