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

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

What, exactly, has this got to do with the points raised by Grouse and addressed by me in the post you quoted?

 

Nothing.

 

Some advice for you, which you wont take: when you've got nothing to say, say nothing.

 

I thought it was an obvious, and economic, commentary on your usual talking points and deflections. All aimed at one things only - as the image suggests.

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

If you had any knowledge at all of history you would know that 'finally' is utter rubbish. Forgotten the Crusades? Although they were more to do with conquest and enrichment than religion.

 

You also seem to be saying that murdering innocent civilians is 'fighting back' and therefore justified.

 

A line used by terrorists all over the world, whatever their supposed cause. Some governments, too; witness the events in  Myanmar.

 

I have been accused in the past by certain members of being an apologist for terrorists; but I have never come anywhere close to making a remark such as yours!

 

This topic is not about the crusades. And you don't seem all that bothered about posts pushing a point of view which suggests (and even justifies) Islamic terrorism is merely a result of Western "sins".  

[7by7]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I thought it was an obvious, and economic, commentary on your usual talking points and deflections. All aimed at one things only - as the image suggests.

Kindly explain how directly addressing points raised by another member is a deflection.

[7by7]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

This topic is not about the crusades. And you don't seem all that bothered about posts pushing a point of view which suggests (and even justifies) Islamic terrorism is merely a result of Western "sins".  

You really hate answers to points raised by other members when you have no come back!

 

A reminder; when you have nothing to say, say nothing.

 

The causes of Islamic terrorism are many and complex. Unlike you, I do not pretend to expertise I lack.

Edited December 3, 2017 by 7by7

[Morch]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

Kindly explain how directly addressing points raised by another member is a deflection.

 

You mean that any deflection offered in response to points raised is legit? Good to know. You post the same things over and over again, whenever any of these issues come up. Been there done that numerous times. Why feign ignorance?

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

You really hate answers to points raised by other members when you have no come back!

 

A reminder; when you have nothing to say, say nothing.

 

A reminder, this topic is still not about the crusades. Another reminder, Islamic terrorism is exported globally, whereas manifestations of other religiously associated terrorism are by and large localized. Another reminder, nobody asked for your advice.

[7by7]

Just now, Morch said:

 

You mean that any deflection offered in response to points raised is legit? Good to know. You post the same things over and over again, whenever any of these issues come up. Been there done that numerous times. Why feign ignorance?

 

I posted direct answers to direct points raised by another member; that you consider such to be deflections says volumes about you.

 

You have attempted before to pull me off topic with your childish games; didn't work then, wont work now.

[Morch]

Just now, 7by7 said:

I posted direct answers to direct points raised by another member; that you consider such to be deflections says volumes about you.

 

You have attempted before to pull me off topic with your childish games; didn't work then, wont work now.

 

No, it may say volumes on how I consider your posts, and their standard issued content. Childish games, said the poster well known for throwing his toys out of the pram and stomping off discussions.

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

A reminder, this topic is still not about the crusades. Another reminder, Islamic terrorism is exported globally, whereas manifestations of other religiously associated terrorism are by and large localized. Another reminder, nobody asked for your advice.

Pathetic. 

 

I am tired of repeating myself for your benefit; read my previous responses to you again.

 

If you still don't understand them, see if you can find someone to explain them to you in terms even more simple than those used by me.

[7by7]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

Childish games, said the poster well known for throwing his toys out of the pram and stomping off discussions.

Only when you and others refuse to engage in adult debate and resort, as you have done here yet again, to childish insults.

 

I posted legitimate responses to points raised by other members; if you have a legitimate argument against any of those responses, post it and we can discuss.

 

But I am not going to respond further to your pathetic insults.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Pathetic. 

 

I am tired of repeating myself for your benefit; read my previous responses to you again.

 

If you still don't understand them, see if you can find someone to explain them to you in terms even more simple than those used by me.

 

I've no need to read your posts "again". It's the same posts you've always made and, apparently, will always make. And I understand them perfectly - they are of an "ideological" point of view, which allows for a whole lot of creativity when it comes to addressing uncomfortable realities.

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Only when you and others refuse to engage in adult debate and resort, as you have done here yet again, to childish insults.

 

I posted legitimate responses to points raised by other members; if you have a legitimate argument against any of those responses, post it and we can discuss.

 

But I am not going to respond further to your pathetic insults.

The only insults are coming from you, hope this helps.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

Only when you and others refuse to engage in adult debate and resort, as you have done here yet again, to childish insults.

 

I posted legitimate responses to points raised by other members; if you have a legitimate argument against any of those responses, post it and we can discuss.

 

But I am not going to respond further to your pathetic insults.

 

Seeing as you usually insist on defining what constitutes "adult" debate, and that excludes any uncomfortable issues, don't think you've got a whole lot of an argument going there. And guess supposed insults are "childish" when directed your way, but those you shoot back are quality "adult" ones. Good luck with that.

 

You post the same things over and over again, I've responded to pretty much all of your talking points arsenal at one point of another, over many a topics and posts. Why feign ignorance? Why insist on doing this song and dance like it's the first time? And each time, at that.

 

As for "not going to respond", allow me to disagree and bet that you will.

 

 

 

[johna]

6 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

And MSM. You said this one wasn't. Guess what? You've been proven wrong.

 

 

So German police report one bomb, that hardly proves your point. I'm sure you can remember all the attacks against German women by Merkel's migrants and how the German police downplayed it.

[johna]

49 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

If you had any knowledge at all of history you would know that 'finally' is utter rubbish. Forgotten the Crusades? Although they were more to do with conquest and enrichment than religion.

 

You also seem to be saying that murdering innocent civilians is 'fighting back' and therefore justified.

 

A line used by terrorists all over the world, whatever their supposed cause. Some governments, too; witness the events in  Myanmar.

 

I have been accused in the past by certain members of being an apologist for terrorists; but I have never come anywhere close to making a remark such as yours!

the Crusaders were fighting to recover the Holy Land from muslim invaders, your so called innocent civilians at best were collateral damage. Yes you are a islamic apologist

[7by7]

23 minutes ago, johna said:

the Crusaders were fighting to recover the Holy Land from muslim invaders, your so called innocent civilians at best were collateral damage. Yes you are a islamic apologist

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! 

[janclaes47]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Bring us up to date, you consider innocent Muslim civilians killed by Christian terrorists today to be collateral damage,

 

 

Would be interesting if you could post a few examples of such events that happened in recent history.

[7by7]

11 minutes ago, janclaes47 said:

 

 

19 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Bring us up to date, you consider innocent Muslim civilians killed by Christian terrorists today to be collateral damage,

Would be interesting if you could post a few examples of such events that happened in recent history.

I, and others, have previously done so in this topic; which is what prompted johna's appalling 'collateral damage' comment.

 

Events from the Bosnian genocide in the 1990s to the murder and rape of Muslim civilians in the Central African Republic in 2010s.

 

As those paying attention will already know, Muslim militias in the CAR are equally guilty. 

 

Then, not carried out by Christians, there is the treatment of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar; and that's a government carrying out outrageous acts of terror!

 

Trump has trumpeted about this; but done nothing: Trump administration is all talk, no action on Rohingya crisis. Too busy retweeting the lies of Britain First, I guess.

[Grouse]

Massively off topic

[stephen tracy]

13 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

He is speaking for me also.

 

 You might be interested to know he is speaking for a huge amount of people, can I prove it with credible links? Well how would you feel knowing that Theresa May has less than 500,000 likers on facebook, while Britain First has 2 million. Britain First might be 4 times more popular than the PM !! Think about that for a minute. And the appalling Hope not Hate extreme left group much heralded by the likes of the BBC and headed by Jo Cox's widow has a mere 250,000.

Not all the likers on Britain First are from the UK. There's plenty of racist, bigoted, ignorant freaks all over the world that are capable of pressing like. I assume you've also heard of organized 'liking; campaigns? They're usually conducted by small, sociopathic fringe groups that are trying desperately to show they actually have a substantial fan-base.  These people are losers. They just get in the way when they try and get serious. Waste of time.

[stephen tracy]

13 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

I think as a point of order you will find that Islamic Terrorism was also local, but due to the actions of US and UK Governments we encouraged/invited it to be imported,  as have other Governments around the world.

It was indeed originally local, as was its predecessor, which was more nationalistic in nature. It began as resistance to colonialism such as they case with Algeria, for example, where the French dubbed it terrorism. Both the Palestinians and Israelis employed terrorist tactics for nationalistic purposes, and the former - aided an abetted by the Israelis in the form of Hamas - eventually evolved into nationalistic and religious terrorism. Of course, we also have Afghanistan and the repercussions of arming local warlords and the Arab "mujahidin", the former who wanted to keep things local, and the latter who were thinking beyond the borders Afghanistan and MENA. 

[stephen tracy]

8 hours ago, johna said:

the Crusaders were fighting to recover the Holy Land from muslim invaders, your so called innocent civilians at best were collateral damage. Yes you are a islamic apologist

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.  

[stephen tracy]

7 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

 

 

Would be interesting if you could post a few examples of such events that happened in recent history.

Yugoslavia 

[stephen tracy]

7 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

 

 

Would be interesting if you could post a few examples of such events that happened in recent history.

Lebanon

[stephen tracy]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 2:15 PM, johna said:

Absolute Rubbish, we have not seen any organized attacks by Christian groups against muslims, nor is there a shred of evidence that Christian fundamentalist are trying to get their hands on WMD, as for your advice to forget the "brainwashed drone workers at the bottom of the heap" the advice of security services is this will not be a merry Christmas for a lot of people in Europe. As of today I know of two terrorist incidents in Europe, a car parked suspiciously at a Christmas market in the UK burst into flames our gallant police without any investigation dismissed this as an accident, a nail bomb was defused outside a pharmacists in Germany, its hard to keep up with the shootings and bombings in Sweden, mostly because MSM won't report these incidents. What we should be afraid of is the muslim apologist such as yourself 

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

[katana]

9 hours ago, 7by7 said:

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

This topic is not about the crusades. And you don't seem all that bothered about posts pushing a point of view which suggests (and even justifies) Islamic terrorism is merely a result of Western "sins".  

You really hate answers to points raised by other members when you have no come back!

 

A reminder; when you have nothing to say, say nothing.

 

The causes of Islamic terrorism are many and complex. Unlike you, I do not pretend to expertise I lack.

Er...did you ever try looking in the Koran?

Edited December 3, 2017 by katana

[stephen tracy]

4 minutes ago, katana said:

Er...did you ever try looking in the Koran?

Yep, and I've read large parts of it in Arabic. And just like the Bible, it contains violent passages. This is no surprise though as Islamic religious texts/beliefs evolved from the Judeo-Christian tradition.  There would be no Islamic faith without Judaism and Christianity. Have you read any of the Quran? 

[Scott]

The nonsensical discussion of religion will stop or suspensions will be given.   This is about a political tiff and that's what comments should be about.  

 

 

[katana]

18 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Here's an easy way out, for Britain's top bananas to cancel their invitation for Trump to visit.

 

They can say, "due to growing resentment by Brits against the US president, we cannot guarantee his safety if he were to visit."

 

 

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

Edited December 3, 2017 by katana

[yogi100]

52 minutes 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

 

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.