Quote Originally Posted by swaledale View Post
Fair enough, IMO its a right of centre view, rather than balanced, but I guess that depends upon your perspective. My view is that saying both sides are equally culpulable is demonstrably false, the Palestinians haven't invaded anybody's homeland and slaughtered civilians, they aren't taking over by violence and intimidation land thats been occupied by other people for centuries.

White Christians have and indeed in parts of the world still are, comitting atrocities, nobody is labelling them as representative of all white people of the Christian faith!

Do I take it that if, for arguments sake, a foreign power, had invaded and attacked part of the UK, that you'd view any form of resistance by UK citizens, that involved violence as unacceptable?

I've always found it ironic, that a nation founded by people who suffered unimaginable persecution and genocide, is currently governed by a government that apprently think doing the same to another ethnic group is acceptable.

Mm so calling somebody by their given name is "childish"? I did miss the memo, but I'm slightly curous as to your apparent concern over someone, who on all the evidence is a nasty little grifting rabble rouser, funded by equally disreputable people whose views certainly aren't small c conservative?

The guy's adoptive name, is both an attempt to hide his background and portray himself somehow as being "in touch" with the average person. Both false, if somebody is spreading falsehoods, hatred and hiding behind a fake name, then I'm really not sure why calling them by thier original name is an issue?

I refuse to give the guy any credence and that involves calling him Yaxley-Lennon.
Again para by para

Maybe I didn’t explain well, by both sides I meant Palestine flag wavers on one side and Cross of St George on the other. Both are a mix of the devout, the misled and the agitators. Note that Palestinians have invaded a homeland and slaughtered civilians, just on a smaller scale

Whataboutery

The ‘unite the kingdom’ is partly about being invaded, albeit not by a state, I’m sure you’re aware there’s a widespread sentiment on those lines? I wouldn’t advocate violence in that case, so no you’re wrong on that one

Yes ironic and beyond ‘disappointing’

(Last three paras) I accept your rationale, but I still think it’s childish (in anyone). I think Zak Polanski is as big a menace as Robinson in a more subtle and insidious manner but I’ll respect his right to change his name. Just different standards I guess