Britain criticizes Trump retweeting anti-Muslim videos from far-right party

[stephen tracy]

12 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 

And LBC is a London based radio talk show. Most of its presenters are liberals. The only one who definitely was not was Katie Hopkins and she got sacked earlier this year after comments she made related to the Manchester Arena atrocity. Some might consider Nigel Farage a liberal and some might not.

 

London has a Muslim mayor and it's residents were mostly in favour of the UK remaining in the EU.

 

Yet in spite of these facts the vast majority of its listeners still want Trump to come to the UK.

 

Trump is very popular with working men in the UK as he was with their opposite numbers in the USA.

I actually don't mind if he visits or not. I still think he's a horse's ass but don't care if he visits the UK. The UK has hosted far worse than Trump over the years. We lay out the red carpet for the Saudis whenever their in town, and last year the UK hosted Avigdor Lieberman.  Such charming folk.

[yogi100]

7 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

I actually don't mind if he visits or not. I still think he's a horse's ass but don't care if he visits the UK. The UK has hosted far worse than Trump over the years. We lay out the red carpet for the Saudis whenever their in town, and last year the UK hosted Avigdor Lieberman.  Such charming folk.

 

Who's Avigdor Lieberman when he's at home and what's he done that should make him be kept out of the UK. I for one have never heard of him.

[stephen tracy]

21 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 

Who's Avigdor Lieberman when he's at home and what's he done that should make him be kept out of the UK. I for one have never heard of him.

Google him... not a nice guy.

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, katana said:

Looks like the British public don't agree with you.
LBC, a UK radio station, just closed a poll asking its listeners, 'Are you for or against a Trump state visit in 2018?'. Out of 28,227 voters, 74% were in favour of his visit.

http://tinyurl.com/yc64jt3u

Please read up on polling and validity before making these claims.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, stephen tracy said:

I actually don't mind if he visits or not. I still think he's a horse's ass but don't care if he visits the UK. The UK has hosted far worse than Trump over the years. We lay out the red carpet for the Saudis whenever their in town, and last year the UK hosted Avigdor Lieberman.  Such charming folk.

Agree to a certain extend, but it would give a very clear political signal. IMO a morally correct, but economically unwise signal, so seems unlikely it will be given.

 

 

[yogi100]

20 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Please read up on polling and validity before making these claims.

 

What will reading up on polling and validity tell us about making any such claims. Surely you don't expect readers to trawl the internet in search of some article that we know nothing about in order to make your point for you. Copy and paste it yourself if it exists.

 

However there is nothing on the internet under the heading 'polling and validity' that could give one reason to doubt the accuracy of this poll nor any others regardless of the issue they may be connected to.

[johna]

5 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

The folly of jumping to conclusions without being armed with all the facts: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42214932  

Given the number of bombings by muslims it was a natural reaction.

[johna]

6 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

I think you need to brush up a little on your crusades history, and the state Europe was in the crusades were launched compared with the state the "Near East", or the "Orient" as it was known then, was in.  Christians in the Levant were terrified of the crusaders due their brutal and barbaric conduct. One of the first things the crusaders did was slaughter a bunch of Christians because they all looked like the native population in the Levant and they were to stupid to realise that. There were cases where the Christian population of walled cities assisted their Muslim co-habitants in defending the cities against the crusaders because they didn't want their women folk gang-raped and their sons murdered. There were many who viewed the crusaders with disdain, including previous crusaders who had gone on to settle in the region due the crudeness of the newly-arrived occidentals in all things, hygiene, medicine, science, literature, music etc.  They were something of an embarrassment to their fellow Europeans in many respects.  

Spin it any way you want, but the Crusaders were fighting to regain the Holy Land from muslim invaders, and  free Europe from this evil religion of hate. 

[yogi100]

2 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

Google him... not a nice guy.

 

Just googled him as per your urging.

 

According to Wikipedia he's an Israeli politician who has served as Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Affairs Minister and Defence Minister.

 

How does that make him 'not a nice guy', why should he not be invited to visit Britain and how is he 'far worse' than trump.

[Srikcir]

51 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Please read up on polling and validity before making these claims.

There is also a validity to interpretation of responses.

"Yes" in response to the question is not necessarily support for Trump. It really has no political point.

 

If Brits want to express their dissatisfaction towards Trump, what better time than being physically "in his face" during a visit? That kind of public behavior is not welcomed by authoritarian leaders.

What may be a more interesting question is, "Should the Queen meet Trump in a visit?"

[stephen tracy]

7 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 

Just googled him as per your urging.

 

According to Wikipedia he's an Israeli politician who has served as Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Affairs Minister and Defence Minister.

 

How does that make him 'not a nice guy', why should he not be invited to visit Britain and how is he 'far worse' than trump.

He's called for beheading Israeli Arabs in the Knesset that don't agree with him. Even most Israelis think he's a freak. 

[johna]

14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

The Crusaders never owned the Holy Land before the First Crusade. It is difficult to recover something you have never owned. They didn't recover it, they, too, conquered it.

 

Interesting that you consider the thousands of Constantinople Christian citizens killed and raped by Christian crusaders in 1204 to be collateral damage.

 

Bring us up to date, you consider innocent Muslim civilians killed by Christian terrorists today to be collateral damage, but do not apply the same label to the innocent victims of Muslim terrorists.

 

Unlike you,  I consider all terrorists, whether they be motivated by Islam, Christianity, politics, whatever, to be evil murderers.

 

Unlike you, I do not consider the innocent victims of terrorists to be collateral damage and therefore somehow acceptable! 

Could you please name the Christian terrorist groups that are murdering muslims, any Christian versions of IS, Al Qaeda etc  Labelling the Crusaders as terrorists is absolutely ridiculous. 

[stephen tracy]

9 minutes ago, johna said:

Spin it any way you want, but the Crusaders were fighting to regain the Holy Land from muslim invaders, and  free Europe from this evil religion of hate. 

You ought to pick up a book now again. 

[stephen tracy]

6 minutes ago, johna said:

Could you please name the Christian terrorist groups that are murdering muslims, any Christian versions of IS, Al Qaeda etc  Labelling the Crusaders as terrorists is absolutely ridiculous. 

You don't need to be on the State Department's books as an official "terror" organization to employ what are widely deemed as terrorist actions. Is that a little too much to take in? Ignorance is bliss.

[yogi100]

1 minute ago, stephen tracy said:

You ought to pick up a book now again. 

What good will picking up books do. We've got Wikipedia on our computers right in front of us.

[stephen tracy]

1 minute ago, yogi100 said:

What good will picking up books do. We've got Wikipedia on our computers right in front of us.

I assume you're kidding... if so, that is quite funny.

[yogi100]

2 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

I assume you're kidding... if so, that is quite funny.

And I assume you're referring to a particular book rather than books in general. What book do you suggest we pick up and if we wanted to spend days reading it how would it relate to Britain criticising Trump for tweeting videos associated with Britain First.

[stephen tracy]

6 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

And I assume you're referring to a particular book rather than books in general. What book do you suggest we pick up and if we wanted to spend days reading it how would it relate to Britain criticising Trump for tweeting videos associated with Britain First.

So, now that you've run out of absurd arguments on the Islamic Conquests and the Crusades, you want to get back to Trump's visit? As I said previously, I don't care either way whether Trump visits the UK or not, but a head of state tweeting phony videos from a white supremacist group speaks volumes about the man's mind-set and the depth of his stupidity. 

[stephen tracy]

1 hour ago, yogi100 said:

 

What will reading up on polling and validity tell us about making any such claims. Surely you don't expect readers to trawl the internet in search of some article that we know nothing about in order to make your point for you. Copy and paste it yourself if it exists.

 

However there is nothing on the internet under the heading 'polling and validity' that could give one reason to doubt the accuracy of this poll nor any others regardless of the issue they may be connected to.

The Internet: the source of all accurate information. 

[yogi100]

5 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

So, now that you've run out of absurd arguments on the Islamic Conquests and the Crusades, you want to get back to Trump's visit? As I said previously, I don't care either way whether Trump visits the UK or not, but a head of state tweeting phony videos from a white supremacist group speaks volumes about the man's mind-set and the depth of his stupidity. 

 

Where did I introduce the subject of the Crusades into the topic and which absurd arguments on them did I run out of.

[Airbagwill]

I can't believe that people can be so dim as to not realise the purpose of these videos.

Trump has aligned himself with the suckers of the world.

The logic being a massive false syllogism: the perpetrators in the videos claim to be Muslims therefore all Muslims do this.

How stupid can you get

Edited December 4, 2017 by Airbagwill

[stephen tracy]

7 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 

Where did I introduce the subject of the Crusades into the topic and which absurd arguments on them did I run out of.

My apologies, you're right. I mistook member johna's comments with yours... they were so similar in sentiment you can hardly blame me. 

[Ron19]

An off topic troll post and a number of answers to it have been removed.

[yogi100]

5 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

I can't believe that people can be so dim as to not realise the purpose of these videos.

Trump has aligned himself with the suckers of the world.

The logic being a massive false syllogism: the perpetrators in the videos claim to be Muslims there all Muslims do this.

How stupid can you get

 

The part I've highlighted is rather incomprehensible, could you please clarify what you mean.

 

How does stupidity enter the equation when what you've written makes no sense.

[johna]

1 hour ago, stephen tracy said:

You don't need to be on the State Department's books as an official "terror" organization to employ what are widely deemed as terrorist actions. Is that a little too much to take in? Ignorance is bliss.

So you cant name any Christian terrorist groups murdering muslims???

[Airbagwill]

13 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

 

The part I've highlighted is rather incomprehensible, could you please clarify what you mean.

 

How does stupidity enter the equation when what you've written makes no sense.

Well I edited the typo....but I would have thought that with a little intelligence one could have worked it out? It's common to all syllogisms 

Edited December 4, 2017 by Airbagwill

[yogi100]

15 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

Well I edited the typo....but I would have thought that with a little intelligence one could have worked it out? It's common to all syllogisms 

 

It was not a simple typing error nor a spelling mistake you used wrong word, probably unintentionally but never the less still the wrong word and one which rendered your post unintelligible.

 

And you then asked how stupid can 'you' get. By 'you' I imagine you are referring to people who don't share your opinions on the subject under discussion and are therefore in your eyes your intellectual inferiors.

 

And instead of trying to impress folk by using words that give the impression that you've swallowed a dictionary and that no one has ever heard of like 'syllogisms' try posting in every day English. You must have realised by now that few people on forums such as this one share your level of 'intelligence'.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

You don't need to be on the State Department's books as an official "terror" organization to employ what are widely deemed as terrorist actions. Is that a little too much to take in? Ignorance is bliss.

 

That would move the "argument" into what constitutes "widely deemed". And considering the partisan views, I would guess that would go nowhere. I'm guessing that the above would be applied in some cases, whereas in others the official "certification" or lack of it would be touted, as needed.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, stephen tracy said:

The Internet: the source of all accurate information. 

 

Quite amusing considering some of your heated, if inaccurate posts.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.