Tommy Robinson attacked at McDonald’s
Discussion
The Dangerous Elk said:
Countdown said:
When you have people such as EDL/DFLA marching through predominantly muslim areas chanting obscenities about Islam, what do you consider that to be? Friendly banter?
Every action has a reaction.Zod said:
del mar said:
768 said:
IforB said:
If Yaxley-Lennon found himself drowned in a vat of rancid horse pee, then the only reaction I’d have would be a nod of acceptance and a mild smirk.
I'm still slightly bemused, what's he actually done that's so evil it warrants this?It is almost as if pointing out failings / issues with our Muslim population is a far far worse crime than the rape and murder that they committed.
Male privilege trumps the law, and it’s usually the woman’s fault for allowing the situation to develop.
e30m3Mark said:
Can I just ask your views on why so many victims (of the many atrocities carried out by Muslim extremists) are Muslim? Also, why would Muslims (like those on the beach in Tunisia) form a human shield to protect non Muslims despite their religious text? Do you think they did this whilst secretly willing the terrorists on because really this is what all Muslims want?
Muslims pick and choose the parts of the book that work for them, that is perfectly ok.Some following those parts, some don’t.
Alpinestars said:
Read some of his other posts on rape.
Male privilege trumps the law, and it’s usually the woman’s fault for allowing the situation to develop.
Rape is rape a specific offence Male privilege trumps the law, and it’s usually the woman’s fault for allowing the situation to develop.
Grooming of young girls is another specific offence
Consent withdrawal (the del mar law) recognises the grey area when people are drunk.
The woman last week jailed for a false rape claim. The judge said she was the instigator of sex, but he wouldn’t know whether she changed her mind, yet everybody was saying she should go to jail. She could have changed her mind.
Alpinestars said:
The Dangerous Elk said:
Countdown said:
When you have people such as EDL/DFLA marching through predominantly muslim areas chanting obscenities about Islam, what do you consider that to be? Friendly banter?
Every action has a reaction.Murdered by which side/sect ?
The Dangerous Elk said:
Alpinestars said:
The Dangerous Elk said:
Countdown said:
When you have people such as EDL/DFLA marching through predominantly muslim areas chanting obscenities about Islam, what do you consider that to be? Friendly banter?
Every action has a reaction.Murdered by which side/sect ?
del mar said:
Alpinestars said:
Read some of his other posts on rape.
Male privilege trumps the law, and it’s usually the woman’s fault for allowing the situation to develop.
Rape is rape a specific offence Male privilege trumps the law, and it’s usually the woman’s fault for allowing the situation to develop.
Grooming of young girls is another specific offence
Consent withdrawal (the del mar law) recognises the grey area when people are drunk.
The woman last week jailed for a false rape claim. The judge said she was the instigator of sex, but he wouldn’t know whether she changed her mind, yet everybody was saying she should go to jail. She could have changed her mind.
Well having followed this thread for a few days I'm none the wiser. He certainly has his enemies but beyond a general perception he doesn't like brown people, which is a perfectly good reason not to like him, I don't really understand the vitriol of wishing him dead by sadistic methods or comparing him to Hitler. Hitler did a lot more than not liking brown people, you know.
Conversely having watched a few of his videos I don't really see the appeal of the man either. He seems to be a bit confused between Muslims, Islam then radical Islam but so far beyond some general (legitimate) concerns about grooming gangs and terrorism I haven't seen him actually articulate why.
Most of what he seems to talk about is more to do with the reaction of his opponents. Something he does have a point about, but clearly something he deliberately provokes and quite enjoys too. And no wonder, it's making him famous.
So going back to the question I asked the other day, if it would be possible to have a calm and measured discussion about it, it seems that the answer is an emphatic No, and the only two possible positions are to drown him in a vat of rancid horse piss or take it as given that Islam is evil.
Doesn't bode well.
It seems the whole thing has just polarised to an absurd level which makes any civilised discussion utterly impossible, and means Tommy Robinson has the floor for one half of the population and Anjem Choudary has it for the other.
It is an absolutely ridiculous situation. All those who stand somewhere between these two poles of banality are making themselves pawns of their chosen side in an utterly futile dispute between two people who don't really have anything to say.
Conversely having watched a few of his videos I don't really see the appeal of the man either. He seems to be a bit confused between Muslims, Islam then radical Islam but so far beyond some general (legitimate) concerns about grooming gangs and terrorism I haven't seen him actually articulate why.
Most of what he seems to talk about is more to do with the reaction of his opponents. Something he does have a point about, but clearly something he deliberately provokes and quite enjoys too. And no wonder, it's making him famous.
So going back to the question I asked the other day, if it would be possible to have a calm and measured discussion about it, it seems that the answer is an emphatic No, and the only two possible positions are to drown him in a vat of rancid horse piss or take it as given that Islam is evil.
Doesn't bode well.
It seems the whole thing has just polarised to an absurd level which makes any civilised discussion utterly impossible, and means Tommy Robinson has the floor for one half of the population and Anjem Choudary has it for the other.
It is an absolutely ridiculous situation. All those who stand somewhere between these two poles of banality are making themselves pawns of their chosen side in an utterly futile dispute between two people who don't really have anything to say.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Doesn't bode well.
It seems the whole thing has just polarised to an absurd level which makes any civilised discussion utterly impossible, and means Tommy Robinson has the floor for one half of the population and Anjem Choudary has it for the other.
.
It seems the whole thing has just polarised to an absurd level which makes any civilised discussion utterly impossible, and means Tommy Robinson has the floor for one half of the population and Anjem Choudary has it for the other.
.
I agree with much of what you wrote, but that bit I am afraid I can’t reconcile.
I would suggest that many people find both positions deeply unpleasant.
Brooking10 said:
del mar said:
The Del Mar Law
It’s almost as if you want to impose an ideology which diminishes a woman’s rightsThe irony!
You are indeed the gift that keeps on giving Del.
It seems a common theme all the 'pro Tommy' people ignore difficult questions e.g. Noodle, Boydie etc.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
It seems the whole thing has just polarised to an absurd level which makes any civilised discussion utterly impossible, and means Tommy Robinson has the floor for one half of the population and Anjem Choudary has it for the other.
It is an absolutely ridiculous situation. All those who stand somewhere between these two poles of banality are making themselves pawns of their chosen side in an utterly futile dispute between two people who don't really have anything to say.
To isolate and address this point: the split isn't half and half. TR has his supporters and AC has his. it's not a 50/50 split. It is an absolutely ridiculous situation. All those who stand somewhere between these two poles of banality are making themselves pawns of their chosen side in an utterly futile dispute between two people who don't really have anything to say.
That vast majority of people think both are
s. From what I can tell TR is a pound shop compared to AC's M&S, but I haven't studied the minutae of either of their philosophies so I can't really comment - they both just seem like shouty pricks to me.The thing that amazes me about support for TR is that nearly all the stuff I have seen from him has large elements of self pity - painting himself as a victim. He also seems easily angered.
Brooking10 said:
I agree with much of what you wrote, but that bit I am afraid I can’t reconcile.
I would suggest that many people find both positions deeply unpleasant.
Alpinestars said:
Zod said:
del mar said:
768 said:
IforB said:
If Yaxley-Lennon found himself drowned in a vat of rancid horse pee, then the only reaction I’d have would be a nod of acceptance and a mild smirk.
I'm still slightly bemused, what's he actually done that's so evil it warrants this?It is almost as if pointing out failings / issues with our Muslim population is a far far worse crime than the rape and murder that they committed.
Male privilege trumps the law, and it’s usually the woman’s fault for allowing the situation to develop.
IforB said:
No. I believe that all horrible people should be dealt with, that includes Yaxley-Lennon or anyone else.
If Yaxley-Lennon found himself drowned in a vat of rancid horse pee, then the only reaction I’d have would be a nod of acceptance and a mild smirk.
The same would be true for anyone who defended him.
Does "all horrible people" mean those you don't agree with because they don't join in and do happy-clapping?If Yaxley-Lennon found himself drowned in a vat of rancid horse pee, then the only reaction I’d have would be a nod of acceptance and a mild smirk.
The same would be true for anyone who defended him.
You are going to need many gallons of water and a lot of horses.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff