O/T Tommy Robinson Speaks About Manchester Terror Attack

[sota]

Me too mate.

[monty_rhodes]

Me too mate.

We'll both be for it when the looney left get out of their pits in a few hours time. Might even get John2, Kerr and Walter10 on the job! Forget the apology bit - I was a bit bleary having just got up after a birthday bash!

[monty_rhodes]

We'll both be for it when the looney left get out of their pits in a few hours time. Might even get John2, Kerr and Walter10 on the job! Forget the apology bit - I was a bit bleary having just got up after a birthday bash!

Interesting reports today on Radio 4 and Times newspaper suggesting the security services have identified 23000 (23000!!) jihadists living in the UK. And we still get muppets like Kempo spouting crap about his doctor and dentist being Muslims and really great blokes.

[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

[KerrAvon]

Go away multi troll sh2t stirrer. This is not the thread to spew your bile.

That's reserved to you and your chum Monty is it?

[monty_rhodes]

That's reserved to you and your chum Monty is it?

Thanks for the link to the Radio 4 piece. I think most people will agree that my resume was a reasonably accurate one. Laughable that you make a big thing of him not mentioning "Muslim". Dear me, you are a saddo.

[celticmiller]

And they continue pushing their racist bile. And still, they pat each other on the back. And still, the only people agreeing with them are the ones who already agreed with them.

[KerrAvon]

This scumbag was known as a potential terrorist. EVERY single person on this list should be rounded up, and either jailed indefinitely or deported, simple. B0llocks to their human rights. What about the human rights of all the people who died? What about the human rights of every innocent, decent man, woman and child in this country who deserves to live a free, safe life. I would actually string them up, never mind lock them up, but locking them up or deporting them will be a start.

And yes, 66% of Muslims said they would not grass up a fellow Muslim who supports ISIS. Because it's there in their facking book of evil. I don't want to hear people on here LYING anymore saying it's a minority - it's NOT a minority. If there was a civil war or a world war, almost EVERY Muslim would fight on their side, as it would be a holy jihad. It would be their religious responsibility.

It's like the liberals are so naive they think that if the day comes when Muslims take over, they will let them live and be free because they supported them. NO, they will still MAKE you convert to Islam, or die like the rest of us.

I strongly disagree with you on the internment point, Eliis. It doesn't work. It merely adds to or creates a sense of injustice within the targeted community such as to create even more extremists. Furthermore, it causes the flow of intelligence from within those communities to dry up as those involved become more circumspect in what they say and informants to stop providing information.

There is a historical precedent to my opinion. Internment in Ireland turned pIRA from a bunch of hot heads with antique weapons into a well-armed, well-funded and well-trained organisation that was able to mount operations that narrowly missed out on killing two Prime Ministers.

As for disregarding human rights, you should be careful of what you wish for. If we allow people to be locked up at the whim of a civil servant and without due process, I doubt whether that would end with just people on Muslim watch lists.

[KerrAvon]

Thanks for the link to the Radio 4 piece. I think most people will agree that my resume was a reasonably accurate one. Laughable that you make a big thing of him not mentioning "Muslim". Dear me, you are a saddo.

I'm sure that some people will agree with your resume of the radio 4 piece. Just not the ones who listen to it with an open mind.

Out of interest, you finished you first Radio 4 post with 'QED'. What did you think the piece proved?

[monty_rhodes]

I'm sure that some people will agree with your resume of the radio 4 piece. Just not the ones who listen to it with an open mind.

Out of interest, you finished you first Radio 4 post with 'QED'. What did you think the piece proved?

What I thought it proved was that if the foreign policy of a democratically elected government was considered not to be "moral" then violent acts of extremism were a natural and inevitable consequence. This certainly was the impression of a number of contributors to the later debate over Corbyn's views on foreign policy. What do you think of the 23000 figure? Probably made up as you claimed originally that the Rotherham child abuse scandal was?