Discussion
Stickyfinger said:
Alpinestars said:
A) I'm not your mate, and
Ahh didums...Anyway, who do you think should be marching for the following? If this doesn't convince you that IS et al don't give a s
t what religion anyone is, nothing will. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4634480/Sa...
Gavia said:
Except for all of the below that's a great post 
1. Finsbury Park mosque has won awards for their community work recently
Does this make what has been said about it untrue? Genuine question as I don't know.1. Finsbury Park mosque has won awards for their community work recently
Gavia said:
2. Didsbury mosque has made some fairly bold statements denouncing the actions of the Manchester bomber, held a minutes silence for the victims and admitted they have a lot to learn, but are trying to do just that.
So were those leaflets not handed out at Didsbury mosque then?Gavia said:
3. Many suspects have been reported, but the security services haven't always followed up on this. Funding and manpower may well be an issue here.
Agreed. But I suspect many more suspects have not been reported. That Muslim attitudes survey Phillips commissioned from a while back would seem to support that theory.wiggy001 said:
Agreed. But I suspect many more suspects have not been reported. That Muslim attitudes survey Phillips commissioned from a while back would seem to support that theory.
The history of religious groups covering up difficult "subjects" is very long, I cannot think why Islam would be any different than any of the other groups of alien worshippers.wiggy001 said:
Gavia said:
Except for all of the below that's a great post
1. Finsbury Park mosque has won awards for their community work recently
Does this make what has been said about it untrue? Genuine question as I don't know.1. Finsbury Park mosque has won awards for their community work recently
Gavia said:
2. Didsbury mosque has made some fairly bold statements denouncing the actions of the Manchester bomber, held a minutes silence for the victims and admitted they have a lot to learn, but are trying to do just that.
So were those leaflets not handed out at Didsbury mosque then?Gavia said:
3. Many suspects have been reported, but the security services haven't always followed up on this. Funding and manpower may well be an issue here.
Agreed. But I suspect many more suspects have not been reported. That Muslim attitudes survey Phillips commissioned from a while back would seem to support that theory.2. It's reported that the leaflet was given out at the mosque but wasn't an official leaflet. Suggests that the mosque need to monitor what happens under their roof a little better.
3. The Philips survey can't be assumed to represent typical Muslims in the UK because of flaws in the methodology used. When selecting the respondents, they excluded Muslims in parts of the UK with relatively low Muslim populations (apparently because of the costs involved in surveying them). That eliminated half the UK Muslims at a stroke and so meant the sample cannot represent the entire population.
rscott said:
wiggy001 said:
Gavia said:
Except for all of the below that's a great post
1. Finsbury Park mosque has won awards for their community work recently
Does this make what has been said about it untrue? Genuine question as I don't know.1. Finsbury Park mosque has won awards for their community work recently
Gavia said:
2. Didsbury mosque has made some fairly bold statements denouncing the actions of the Manchester bomber, held a minutes silence for the victims and admitted they have a lot to learn, but are trying to do just that.
So were those leaflets not handed out at Didsbury mosque then?Gavia said:
3. Many suspects have been reported, but the security services haven't always followed up on this. Funding and manpower may well be an issue here.
Agreed. But I suspect many more suspects have not been reported. That Muslim attitudes survey Phillips commissioned from a while back would seem to support that theory.2. It's reported that the leaflet was given out at the mosque but wasn't an official leaflet. Suggests that the mosque need to monitor what happens under their roof a little better.
3. The Philips survey can't be assumed to represent typical Muslims in the UK because of flaws in the methodology used. When selecting the respondents, they excluded Muslims in parts of the UK with relatively low Muslim populations (apparently because of the costs involved in surveying them). That eliminated half the UK Muslims at a stroke and so meant the sample cannot represent the entire population.
2. Agreed. If a nightclub had a problem with drugs it would be shut down. Same should apply here.
3. No one is suggesting those were the views of Muslims living in leafy Surrey. It's those Islamic ghettos where people refuse to integrate where we have a problem.
wiggy001 said:
rscott said:
wiggy001 said:
Gavia said:
Except for all of the below that's a great post
1. Finsbury Park mosque has won awards for their community work recently
Does this make what has been said about it untrue? Genuine question as I don't know.1. Finsbury Park mosque has won awards for their community work recently
Gavia said:
2. Didsbury mosque has made some fairly bold statements denouncing the actions of the Manchester bomber, held a minutes silence for the victims and admitted they have a lot to learn, but are trying to do just that.
So were those leaflets not handed out at Didsbury mosque then?Gavia said:
3. Many suspects have been reported, but the security services haven't always followed up on this. Funding and manpower may well be an issue here.
Agreed. But I suspect many more suspects have not been reported. That Muslim attitudes survey Phillips commissioned from a while back would seem to support that theory.2. It's reported that the leaflet was given out at the mosque but wasn't an official leaflet. Suggests that the mosque need to monitor what happens under their roof a little better.
3. The Philips survey can't be assumed to represent typical Muslims in the UK because of flaws in the methodology used. When selecting the respondents, they excluded Muslims in parts of the UK with relatively low Muslim populations (apparently because of the costs involved in surveying them). That eliminated half the UK Muslims at a stroke and so meant the sample cannot represent the entire population.
2. Agreed. If a nightclub had a problem with drugs it would be shut down. Same should apply here.
3. No one is suggesting those were the views of Muslims living in leafy Surrey. It's those Islamic ghettos where people refuse to integrate where we have a problem.
2. Depends on how widespread the problem is - was it one or two leaflets or one or two hundred. If the mosque can show it's taking action to monitor and prevent any further leaflets like that, then it should be allowed to stay open. Police involvement to monitor this would be sensible too.
3. I don't see any reference to that in your posts. You seemed to be quoting the survey as the views of typical Muslims.
I've asked this repeatedly to civil servants of all levels. I know it's been asked of politicians, both local and national regarding the Didsbury Mosque.
1. The imam fought in Libya alongside Isis. Over the years he has also been photographed at events and with members of what we consider to be a terrorist organisation. What are you doing about this?
2. The UK Islamic Mission. Several years ago the UK government banned them from flying in a speaker that was a close associate of Bin Laden. How many Labour Party MPs and Councillors are members of the UK Islamic Mission?
The second question is linked to the literature that the gentleman referred to on Question Time. You need to understand that these high profile hate preachers don't just turn up, there needs to be preparation before hand. Their narrative needs to have had time to embed itself. Hence these leaflets, they help create the terrain where these preachers then flourish.
Also for people who may not be aware. The UK Islamic Mission is essentially a branch of Jammati Islam. They like the Muslim Brotherhood believe in re establishing the Caliphate. Their approach has focused in the UK in
- controlling the education. So it's their narrative that is taught.
- infiltrating the establishment. So that they have access to political power.
- controlling the narrative. Which is why, and I don't particularly like him but that's an irrelevance, Maajid Nawaz, is attacked the way he is. Essentially it's linked to something called takfiri. So people who speak out against them are accused of not being Muslims.
Read this article. The UK government has already produced a report on these people.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thenews.com.pk/...
It doesn't surprise me that it's business as usual at Didsbury Mosque. They are protected.
1. The imam fought in Libya alongside Isis. Over the years he has also been photographed at events and with members of what we consider to be a terrorist organisation. What are you doing about this?
2. The UK Islamic Mission. Several years ago the UK government banned them from flying in a speaker that was a close associate of Bin Laden. How many Labour Party MPs and Councillors are members of the UK Islamic Mission?
The second question is linked to the literature that the gentleman referred to on Question Time. You need to understand that these high profile hate preachers don't just turn up, there needs to be preparation before hand. Their narrative needs to have had time to embed itself. Hence these leaflets, they help create the terrain where these preachers then flourish.
Also for people who may not be aware. The UK Islamic Mission is essentially a branch of Jammati Islam. They like the Muslim Brotherhood believe in re establishing the Caliphate. Their approach has focused in the UK in
- controlling the education. So it's their narrative that is taught.
- infiltrating the establishment. So that they have access to political power.
- controlling the narrative. Which is why, and I don't particularly like him but that's an irrelevance, Maajid Nawaz, is attacked the way he is. Essentially it's linked to something called takfiri. So people who speak out against them are accused of not being Muslims.
Read this article. The UK government has already produced a report on these people.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thenews.com.pk/...
It doesn't surprise me that it's business as usual at Didsbury Mosque. They are protected.
rscott said:
1. Robinson alleges a trustee has links to a group which may have links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Perhaps they don't have the funds to sue TR (or don't want to give him the oxygen of publicity)..
Or perhaps the trustee is an Islamist and TR was correct? Should members of the military wing of Hamas really be running British mosques? Panorama even exposed this man's links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/523...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Sawalha
The Mad Monk said:
If anybody is at the scene, would you please ask the people videoing it on their phones to hold the phone in landscape mode - not portrait.
I am absolutely fed up with trying to watch an ongoing event in portrait when my telly is set to landscape.
Thank you.
Tracey Ullman, in the first of her new series of shows last night, used this very same gag !I am absolutely fed up with trying to watch an ongoing event in portrait when my telly is set to landscape.
Thank you.
BlackLabel said:
Or perhaps the trustee is an Islamist and TR was correct? Should members of the military wing of Hamas really be running British mosques? Panorama even exposed this man's links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/523...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Sawalha
The silence is deafening...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/523...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Sawalha
BlackLabel said:
rscott said:
1. Robinson alleges a trustee has links to a group which may have links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Perhaps they don't have the funds to sue TR (or don't want to give him the oxygen of publicity)..
Or perhaps the trustee is an Islamist and TR was correct? Should members of the military wing of Hamas really be running British mosques? Panorama even exposed this man's links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/523...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Sawalha
wiggy001 said:
Is there a reason why the apologists and excusers haven't responded to this post? Can those that told me to stop listening to Tommy Robinson explain what we have got wrong here because as far as I can tell we are possibly right on this one...
Any proof that the trustee still holds the same views? Is it possible they've changed over time, just as TR has changed from a thug to a professional journalist (at least that's what he claims).wiggy001 said:
Is there a reason why the apologists and excusers haven't responded to this post? Can those that told me to stop listening to Tommy Robinson explain what we have got wrong here because as far as I can tell we are possibly right on this one...
From my point of view it's one that should be reported to the Charities Commission. there are guidelines on the type of person who can be a Trustee and if he doesn't meet them then it's for the CC to take action. Outside of that if he does anything illegal then it's a matter for the Police. If, OTOH, he's not found to have done anything illegal then his views would probably fall under Freedom of Speech.By the way, I'd suggest giving it a rest with the "apologists and excusers" rubbish, it makes you come across as a bit of a nob. Not agreeing with somebody =/ "apologist and excuser"
wiggy001 said:
BlackLabel said:
rscott said:
1. Robinson alleges a trustee has links to a group which may have links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Perhaps they don't have the funds to sue TR (or don't want to give him the oxygen of publicity)..
Or perhaps the trustee is an Islamist and TR was correct? Should members of the military wing of Hamas really be running British mosques? Panorama even exposed this man's links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/523...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Sawalha
How the presence at Finsbury Park Mosque of this individual excuses the actions of Darren the Moron or makes them not terrorism is beyond me.
Countdown said:
By the way, I'd suggest giving it a rest with the "apologists and excusers" rubbish, it makes you come across as a bit of a nob. Not agreeing with somebody =/ "apologist and excuser"
Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them an apologist/excuser. Constantly making excuses for the issues within the Muslim community does. eg Saying that Finsbury Mosque is a a well integrated, award winning place so can't possibly still have extremist links, and refusing to acknowledge that this might not be the whole story, doesn't help the situation or add anything to the debate. The "whattaboutery" as a diversion tactic is also unhelpful.Zod said:
How the presence at Finsbury Park Mosque of this individual excuses the actions of Darren the Moron or makes them not terrorism is beyond me.
It doesn't, and I've never suggested it does.It might however explain why a slightly unhinged man of extreme-right views decides that extreme islam is being accepted in public view and no-one is doing a thing about it, so why not take direct action himself.
We can either investigate all mosques and shut down those with extremist links or we can tiptoe around the issue, praise the mosques for their good community work and what the country become more divided with more extreme views on both sides becoming prevalent.
wiggy001 said:
Countdown said:
By the way, I'd suggest giving it a rest with the "apologists and excusers" rubbish, it makes you come across as a bit of a nob. Not agreeing with somebody =/ "apologist and excuser"
Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them an apologist/excuser. Constantly making excuses for the issues within the Muslim community does. eg Saying that Finsbury Mosque is a a well integrated, award winning place so can't possibly still have extremist links, and refusing to acknowledge that this might not be the whole story, doesn't help the situation or add anything to the debate. The "whattaboutery" as a diversion tactic is also unhelpful.wiggy001 said:
Countdown said:
By the way, I'd suggest giving it a rest with the "apologists and excusers" rubbish, it makes you come across as a bit of a nob. Not agreeing with somebody =/ "apologist and excuser"
Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them an apologist/excuser. Constantly making excuses for the issues within the Muslim community does. eg Saying that Finsbury Mosque is a a well integrated, award winning place so can't possibly still have extremist links, and refusing to acknowledge that this might not be the whole story, doesn't help the situation or add anything to the debate. The "whattaboutery" as a diversion tactic is also unhelpful.Countdown said:
wiggy001 said:
Countdown said:
By the way, I'd suggest giving it a rest with the "apologists and excusers" rubbish, it makes you come across as a bit of a nob. Not agreeing with somebody =/ "apologist and excuser"
Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them an apologist/excuser. Constantly making excuses for the issues within the Muslim community does. eg Saying that Finsbury Mosque is a a well integrated, award winning place so can't possibly still have extremist links, and refusing to acknowledge that this might not be the whole story, doesn't help the situation or add anything to the debate. The "whattaboutery" as a diversion tactic is also unhelpful.Let me ask a broader question. Do you think the Muslim community (whatever that is) is doing enough to integrate with British society (whatever that is) and to weed out radicalisation?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff