O/T Tommy Robinson Speaks About Manchester Terror Attack

[great_fire]

Millers own Barry Chuckle was absolutely right when he shared "If someone leaves Britain to join a terrorist group then they should never be allowed back into the United Kingdom. Strip them of their citizenship and keep them out!" on his Facebook but got called a fascist by the usual leftie idiots. How can anyone disagree with that?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...haring-7604585

[Ellis_D]

Millers own Barry Chuckle was absolutely right when he shared "If someone leaves Britain to join a terrorist group then they should never be allowed back into the United Kingdom. Strip them of their citizenship and keep them out!" on his Facebook but got called a fascist by the usual leftie idiots. How can anyone disagree with that?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...haring-7604585

Only absolute morons who don't live in the real world could possibly disagree with that post. Absolute idiocy, and the second most dangerous people in the country, after the terrorists, are the people who make excuses for them, lie that they aren't real Muslims or call anyone racist who dares to make sensible comments like that.

I'd challenge anyone and everyone to give me a legitimate reason why we should let someone back into the country who has gone abroad to fight for a terrorist group.

[monty_rhodes]

Just listened to a Muslim spokesman on PM Radio 4 - no doubt anyone who didn't hear can get a transcript or whatever. He didn't support the bomber's action but suggested it was likely a response to UK foreign policy. He further stated the event might "make the British people adopt a more moral policy overseas and question our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya." He blamed the UK government for the situation in Libya where a Muslim friend of his was visiting his family there and they were suffering from poverty and inflation. He concluded by stating that in his opinion the Number 1 concern for British Muslims which was regularly discussed in Muslim households was the unfairness of UK foreign policy. QED.

[Ellis_D]

Just listened to a Muslim spokesman on PM Radio 4 - no doubt anyone who didn't hear can get a transcript or whatever. He didn't support the bomber's action but suggested it was likely a response to UK foreign policy. He further stated the event might "make the British people adopt a more moral policy overseas and question our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya." He blamed the UK government for the situation in Libya where a Muslim friend of his was visiting his family there and they were suffering from poverty and inflation. He concluded by stating that in his opinion the Number 1 concern for British Muslims which was regularly discussed in Muslim households was the unfairness of UK foreign policy. QED.

This old lie. If all western troops pulled out of Muslim lands, that would NOT suddenly stop the terrorism. There is Islamic extremism and terrorism in numerous countries across the globe who don't have troops stationed in Muslim lands. It's all a lie, and yet another excuse that the apologists LOVE to trot out in defence of them. ISIS don't just want British troops out of the Middle East, they want world domination.

[monty_rhodes]

This old lie. If all western troops pulled out of Muslim lands, that would NOT suddenly stop the terrorism. There is Islamic extremism and terrorism in numerous countries across the globe who don't have troops stationed in Muslim lands. It's all a lie, and yet another excuse that the apologists LOVE to trot out in defence of them. ISIS don't just want British troops out of the Middle East, they want world domination.

Ellis, you misunderstand my point. The point of the spokesman's intervention was that Muslim condemnation of the Manchester atrocity is CONDITIONAL. He admits that disapproval of UK foreign policy is widely held by Muslims and that he and other Muslims in the UK see the attack as an INEVITABLE response to those policies. He made the quite appalling suggestion that such attacks might have the benefit of forcing the British people (interestingly he sees these as separate from British Muslims) to demand a more "moral" (ie pro-Muslim) foreign policy.
As for Kempo, strange how to every argument he has personal experience: how convenient he's just been treated by a Muslim doctor and dentist who were both great blokes. I have a doctor and a dentist and have no idea of their religious affiliations. If I did I would no idea of their views on UK foreign policy, homo***uality and a host of other issues. Kempo is simply a fabricator and you should trust nothing he says. Nothing.

[Ellis_D]

Ellis, you misunderstand my point. The point of the spokesman's intervention was that Muslim condemnation of the Manchester atrocity is CONDITIONAL. He admits that disapproval of UK foreign policy is widely held by Muslims and that he and other Muslims in the UK see the attack as an INEVITABLE response to those policies. He made the quite appalling suggestion that such attacks might have the benefit of forcing the British people (interestingly he sees these as separate from British Muslims) to demand a more "moral" (ie pro-Muslim) foreign policy.
As for Kempo, strange how to every argument he has personal experience: how convenient he's just been treated by a Muslim doctor and dentist who were both great blokes. I have a doctor and a dentist and have no idea of their religious affiliations. If I did I would no idea of their views on UK foreign policy, homo***uality and a host of other issues. Kempo is simply a fabricator and you should trust nothing he says. Nothing.

No, I didn't misunderstand it mate. I was just making a separate point about it. I knew that was what the spokesman was saying, as you just explained, but just that it's a lie. Even IF we did bring it all upon ourselves, changing our foreign policy to a more pro-Muslim one would do nothing; ISIS wouldn't suddenly stop what they are doing, and we would still be at danger of terror attacks.

[KerrAvon]

Just listened to a Muslim spokesman on PM Radio 4 - no doubt anyone who didn't hear can get a transcript or whatever. He didn't support the bomber's action but suggested it was likely a response to UK foreign policy. He further stated the event might "make the British people adopt a more moral policy overseas and question our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya." He blamed the UK government for the situation in Libya where a Muslim friend of his was visiting his family there and they were suffering from poverty and inflation. He concluded by stating that in his opinion the Number 1 concern for British Muslims which was regularly discussed in Muslim households was the unfairness of UK foreign policy. QED.

I feel that you may be inadvertently misrepresenting the piece that was on Radio 4.

1. He wasn’t a Muslim Spokesperson.

The passage to which you refer was part of a ‘vox-pop’ with members of the Libyan community in Manchester (although the person to whom you refer speaks without very much of an accent – a slight West Midlands in places - which makes me wonder if he was raised in England). He wasn’t a spokesperson (indeed, he asks to remain anonymous). He is certainly highly likely to be a Muslim, but the word Muslim appears only once in the piece and he was speaking as a member of the Manchester Libyan community.

2. He didn’t say that the attack was likely to be a response to UK foreign policy.

He stated that his personal view was that the radicalisation of young people almost always begins with a grievance towards foreign policy ‘even if it takes a religious stance towards the end’.

3. He didn’t state that the event might "make the British people adopt a more moral policy overseas and question our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya."

He stated that the reason why people do not wish to address the grievances that people held towards UK foreign policy was that it would force the British establishment as a whole and maybe the British people to take a more moral stance on foreign policy.

4. He blamed the UK government for the situation in Libya where a Muslim friend of his was visiting his family there and they were suffering from poverty and inflation.

Again, he didn’t use the word Muslim, he referred to a Libyan friend and the reference to poverty and inflation was secondary to people being killed and constantly hearing gunfire. He then makes the point that anyone seeing what Libya has been reduced to is going to ask who brought that situation about. He then expresses the opinion that foreign policy is the number 1 conversation in most Libyan and most Muslim homes. He then goes on to point out that questioning foreign policy does not make someone an extremist.

5. He didn’t conclude by saying foreign police being the number 1 topic of conversation.

The interview runs on for 1 minute and twenty seconds after the no 1 topic point. Within that time, he makes the point that constantly treating people who question foreign policy as suspects and being attacked by people like Katie Hopkins is likely to drive people into extremism.

He concludes by saying that Libya will turn into the new Afghanistan if it continues to be neglected.

I found the interview to be compelling stuff and have to say that I agree with just about every word that the bloke said. The piece can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08qxfnn You can get to the vox pop by going to 46:26 on the time line, with the interview that Monty refers to starting at 47:32