Your argument's not consistent. First you say the Finsbury Park killing was tit for tat (with which I agree), then you blame Farage and the Daily Mail. The Islamic murders are the motivation for this headcase. That's what tit for tat is.
It's not hard to understand my point. I know they were tit-for-tat. I said so. I'm saying that makes things worse, not better, as it encourages further tit-for-tat. I'm also saying that people who stir up things and promote hate, mistrust and dehumanise other people have a share in the blame. In my opinion, that would include Farage, Hopkins and the Daily Mail. I think we can assume the nutter had a TV and an Internet connection and it helped him form his views. It would also include Waahabist Muslim clerics and hate preachers within British mosques. If we go far enough back we can find lots of reasons why people get to where they are. There are probably families in the Middle East with innocent dead children wiped out by accidental RAF drone strikes who probably hate us for that - and hate preachers who will use it to motivate young British Muslim men to do dreadful things. You say hate preachers can affect the views and radicalise some of the people they communicate with to act and do bad things. You've commented on it in the past. I agree and we need to find a more effective way of stopping it. You don't seem to accept or acknowledge that some white Brits can receive communication from certain people and news channels and also get radicalised and do bad things. Both "sides" have one thing in common, apart from doing bad things. They all think they're heroes and the bad thing is justified. It isn't. They're not.
Leftist hypocrisy: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsit...ng-of-the-terror-prejudice/19983#.WUqpCGjyvIU Spot on.
I wonder why it is that most of the world's great religions have started after some nobody had a visit from God or one of his angels whilst out on their own in the wilderness or sitting in a cave? If you were God and wanted to spread your Word, don't you think it would be more effective if you appeared before countless people instead? Ooh, might it all be a load of all cobblers?
Usually God managed to appear to an illiterate peasant in a particularly backward part of the world too, especially a desert, never to someone who could write the message down and share it with other people who could read. Obviously much better to do this kind of thing in a way which leaves everything open to question and interpretation, so we can have endless wars about it. Good points. Don't think an inept interview by Piers Morgan with an EDL bloke is representative of this non debate though. Shame we can't get over one side calling the other (inaccurately) racist in response to being called unpatriotic communists. It's going to get us nowhere. It's quite possible to be deeply pissed off with Islam and tired of all the crap surrounding it and have some left wing views. And there is nothing 'liberal' about the hard left. Loads of brainwashed idiots out there though, with knee jerk opinions and zero thought application.
Have any of you lot seen the painfully funny musical Book of Mormon. There is a fantastic song in there about how God gave the book to Joseph Smith ....Will try and find a link....it sort of "discusses" why God always "speaks" to Nobodies
Why does God always appear to nobodies in deserts ? Well, if he appeared to me on the 7.20 Watford Junction to Euston train nobody would believe it. Also deserts are very magical places where the mind is open to such things. Why 'nobodies' - because rich people don't walk alone in deserts or live in caves. But why always men ?
Beth, I saw this in April, absolute genius. The "presentation" to the church leaders at the end is brilliant. Great job by the "South Park" boys again, also found "Team America: World Police" very funny and very apt. As for Piers Morgan, he made himself look a complete fool (again) in this interview. Just shouting him down and not letting him speak. I'm not Tommy Robinson's biggest fan but all he really does is present facts, albeit sometimes in not the most productive way. However, to say he has no right to criticise someone's faith is crazy, if a belief is ridiculous it should be ridiculed. He recently did a column saying Tom Cruise should renounce Scientology before Hollywood turns its back on him, would he have said the same to Omar Sharif or any other Muslim actor about Islam??
I just watched the Tommy Robinson appearance on GMTV. I have more time for him than I do for Piers Morgan. Being anti-Islam is not the same as being anti-Muslim.
Complete waste of time and money - no ideas exchanging hands, nothing. Piers Morgan needs to get down off his self righteous cloud and understand what it feels like to become a foreigner in your home town. Robinson needs to realize that we are talking about a religion with 1.7 billion members (23% of the World's population) and that if they were the way he thinks they are then we would probably be dead by now. Fact is that the overwhelming majority of victims of terrorism are, themselves, Muslims. Banning them all because of the activities of about 0.02% of them would be like banning all football fans because of a few mindless thugs (starting at Luton please !!!). Or, more appropriately, banning all car drivers because there are 100 times more victims of reckless/drunken driving than there are of terrorism. However, I understand what it feels like to be born, and grow up, in a town which has completely changed its population in your lifetime. People do not like living in communities which are in constant flux.
I like Robinson. He has a dodgy history of course, but now speaks out against far-right extremism as well as his main bĂȘte noire, Islamism, having joined the anti-extremist group Quilliam a few years back. I've posted this before, but I think it's worth a watch.