Non-motoring > difference between idiots and an entire religion.. | Specialists |
Thread Author: No FM2R | Replies: 18 |
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - No FM2R |
1) Idiot interviewed on Sky; 2) Boris Johnson writes a comment; 3) Boris & idiot "meet" on LBC (you need to scroll down a bit). 1) www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMEb-xd4PiI 2) ... At first I couldn’t believe my ears. “Jihadi John†had finally been exposed as Mohammed Emwazi, and there on our screens was this knife-wielding assassin – a frame taken from one of those nauseating videos in which he swaggers and gloats and boasts about the ways in which he has subverted all decency and cut off the heads of a string of innocent aid workers and journalists. And there in the television studio was a man who seemed intent on exculpating the terrorist. He was called Asim Qureshi, the “research director†of a body called “Cageâ€, and he was determined to blame absolutely everyone except the killer himself. When Jon Snow gently asked him to condemn the murders, he started babbling indignantly about the deeds of Tony Blair and Dick Cheney. When pressed again, he accused the newsreader of Islamophobia. When Snow – who did an excellent job – asked him again to assign blame where it lay, fully and squarely with the ghoul in Syria, he started, incredibly, to blame the UK security services. Yes, the brutal security services had stopped Emwazi from going to Tanzania “to make a life for himself abroadâ€. Make a life for himself! He was going to join a terrorist group called Al-Shabaab, and at one stage tried to force himself on board a plane. This sick young terrorist – said Qureshi – was “a beautiful man, very caring, very compassionate towards othersâ€. Tell that to the relatives who have seen him publicly behead their loved ones. It was one of the most vomit-making TV interviews I have ever seen, and at first I simply dismissed it. Surely no one would believe such rubbish; and then I reflected – and of course I saw that Cage and other apologists are by no means idiotic. You and I can see through their lies, but there are thousands, if not millions, who are more suggestible and who are willing to see things that way. The Cage people are pandering to a section of the audience that is frighteningly large, and growing. We need collectively to demolish their myths; and to do it fast. We need a proper security response. We need to be able to monitor these vipers nursed at the breast of the British state: their movements, their communications, and sometimes we need to be able to separate them from others who could aid and abet their plans. In so far as the Lib Dems are still being obstructive, they must be overwhelmed. Then I am afraid that we must accept that Isil still has the charisma that goes with military victory. They have money, oil, huge tracts of land – flats and material comforts with which to bait the deluded girls from Bethnal Green, who think they are going out to meet a religious and gun-toting version of Brad Pitt. We need to come up with a way of beating them – and given the understandable public revulsion at the thought of British boots on the ground, we need to work harder at backing the Kurdish Peshmerga, and persuading the Sunni military that it is in their interests not to collaborate with the terrorists, but to drive them out. Yet none of these solutions will be any use unless we also change the way these people are sometimes viewed, and especially by young Muslims growing up in this country, whether in London schools or anywhere else. We need to debunk these jihadists and their phoney ideology. There is nothing pure or honourable in their barbaric subculture – of rape camps, throwing gays off cliffs and burning people alive in cages. They are not even religious: many are said to have a very sketchy knowledge of the Koran. They are hopeless hypocrites who claim to despise the West but who pathetically wear Nike trainers and daub their temples with expensive Chanel cologne (Egoiste, appropriately, the preferred aroma). Many of them are losers: twits, twerps and misfits who are hopelessly caught up in a mobile-assisted pornography of violence. Above all, we must stop this fateful elision – encouraged by the likes of Cage – between this jihadism and Islam. The other day I pointed out that many of these young men are – according to the security services – heavy users of porn. I was astounded to be denounced, on the front page of The Guardian, by the Muslim Council of Britain. A spokeswoman said that I was somehow attacking Muslims as a whole. Why on earth would she say that? Why is the MCB effectively claiming these porn freak jihadists for mainstream Islam? I believe – and I certainly want to believe – that this jihadi madness is rejected by the overwhelming majority of Muslims; and yes, I was dismayed by the recent BBC poll in which 27 per cent said they had “some sympathy with the motives behind†the Charlie Hebdo shootings. But, then, there was no control sample of the rest of the non-Muslim population, and I am afraid that there are plenty of non-Muslims who found the cartoons offensive, and plenty of readers of this paper who object (rather more than I would, perhaps) to needless insults to religion. I seem to remember that Pope Francis himself was asked what he thought of the motives behind the shootings, and said: “If you swear at my mother, expect a punch.†That would put him pretty firmly, I think, in the 27 per cent. The point is that neither he, nor Telegraph readers who disliked the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, nor the overwhelming majority of Muslims would want to see that emotion – taking offence – translated into violence of any kind. That is why it is vital to insist, time and again, on the difference between this sick jihadism and Islam; and that is why, conversely, we must do everything we can to stop the likes of Cage – and indeed the MCB – from eliding anti-jihadism with Islamophobia. You can loathe jihadists, in other words, and be perfectly sympathetic to Muslims. It is obscene, looking at their defence of Emwazi, to think that Cage have been taking money from charities such as the Anita Roddick Foundation and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. They should stop apologising for terror, and start apologising to the victims. 3) www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/mar/03/boris-johnson-hosts-his-lbc-phone-in-politics-live-blog |
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - smokie |
Without wishing to hijack this thread, the Sky clip had a link to a naked man climbing out of a Buckingham Palace Window. it has MUCH more entertainment value... tinyurl.com/q4ty3up. :-) The guy in the Sky interview sure is an idiot... I quite like BoJo, he says it straight doesn't he? |
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - Armel Coussine |
>> I quite like BoJo, he says it straight doesn't he? When he wants to, yeah. But he's got a cunning sidelong look sometimes, a professional ability to speak with forked tongue. What you'd expect really. I don't know Boris personally, although I've met or seen him at different ages, since he was a child. I have good personal reasons for favouring him over the general run of Tory party hopefuls. Seems to have talent. I hope he does well and goes far. But politics is a grim, risky business that hurts its practitioners. I wouldn't want to see him upside down in a ditch. He sure as Scheisse doesn't need my help or encouragement though. Indeed it would do more harm than good. |
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - No FM2R |
>>I don't know Boris personally Depending on what you mean by "personally", I do. He's not a friend, but he's someone I've dealt with. He would be a great PM were it not for one thing, everybody would quickly hate him. He has a nasty habit of telling the truth, saying bluntly what he thinks and being realistic. These are not traits that appeal to the media or the electorate. The electorate wants someone to blame and to shift entire responsibility upon. They don't want to have to consider anyone but themselves, be realistic about stuff or put the effort in to understand the truth. Now, popularity to one side, the guy would be great and I'd vote for him. Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 3 Mar 15 at 19:18
|
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - Zero |
>> thing, everybody would quickly hate him. He has a nasty habit of telling the truth, >> saying bluntly what he thinks and being realistic. Apart from the fact he is a lying git. Before election "we will not shut ticket offices" After Election "We need to shut ticket offices" "I dont intend to stand for parliament" Like the rest he will say what ever it takes to get elected. Even if his nasty truthful habit has to be subverted to not telling the truth. I disliked ken, i disliked his poilcies, but he wasn't prepared to spin a web of lies to get elected. Which of course is why he didn't Last edited by: Zero on Tue 3 Mar 15 at 20:02
|
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - Robin O'Reliant |
>> He has a nasty habit of telling the truth, >> saying bluntly what he thinks and being realistic. >> >> These are not traits that appeal to the media or the electorate. >> >> I wouldn't be too sure about the electorate. "Home truths" match what many of them are thinking anyway, be it on terrorism, welfare or many other issues. |
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - Bromptonaut |
And yet, and yet: If we don't understand how folks get from London suburb to Syria we're going to struggle to deal with results. I heard the same guy interviewed by Nicky Campbell on 5Live last week. He was courteous and I thought quite clear in his condemnation of what Emwazi actually did and of the wider acts carried out in name of Islam. He tried to explain how people get caught up in the extremist net. If we're going to understand what motivated Emwazi we perhaps need to be able to trace his path from average Quintin Kynaston school pupil to champion IT salesman and his subsequent radicalisation. Was the Bush/Blair agenda and action on Iraq was part of that? Plenty here take the Bliar = War Criminal narrative!! Can anybody deny that the current mess in Iraq is result of the Blair/Bush war? Was an approach by the Security Services that seemed all stick and no carrot part of the equation - the same allegation crops up re Lee Rigby's killers. They though seemed to be thugs from word go. But if that's the case we need to understand and maybe get the spooks to apply more finesse. My take on Cage is that it's a group of men who've been though or on fringes of the radicalisation stuff. They've seen it's similarity to other cults and way it plays on peoples vulnerability and appeals to their instinctive fervour. They maybe understand why Jilted John and others act as thy did. We need to listen to them. Of course politicians, whether Boris or anyone else prefer to portray these things in digital good v evil terms. It suits their agenda to portray anyone who says 'hang on a minute this is complicated' as an apologist and to try and mute them with shouts of 'what about the victims'. We saw exactly same thing in Northern Ireland every time anyone tried to rationalise the Nationalist view. Until we learn we go on repeating the same mistakes. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 3 Mar 15 at 18:52
|
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - No FM2R |
>>And yet, and yet: And yet nothing. If he doesn't start by condemning the act, then anything he has to say following that is devalued. An appropriate stance would be "I totally condemn this, now lets discuss the reasons it happens". He was trying to sit on the fence. And then he was trying to prevaricate about whether or not he was fence sitting. And then wanted to discuss whether or not he was prevaricating about whether or not he was fence sitting on whether or not he condemned the act. Of course we need to understand. But we're not, or at least me, Boris and the others aren't, talking about Emwazi's motivation, we're talking about the motivation and thinking of the bloke from CAGE. |
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - Bromptonaut |
>> An appropriate stance would be "I totally condemn this, now lets discuss the reasons it >> happens". Subject to what follows I heard pretty much that. >> He was trying to sit on the fence. He has too. This is an organisation that tries to help those who've been dragged into the radicalistaion Zeitgeist. Example: You're Abdul from Acton. You've bought the death. glory and 40,000 virgins thing. Only now you're in Damascus facing death bit not a sniff of glory never mind a virgin. Western intelligence is on your case and offering you bad stuff for your family unless you turn agent. You realise you've been suckered by a cult want out. Are you going to go for a Western patsy organisation or one that's 'sitting on the fence' and maybe, just maybe understands you. . >> >> Of course we need to understand. But we're not, or at least me, Boris and >> the others aren't, talking about Emwazi's motivation, we're talking about the motivation and thinking of >> the bloke from CAGE. Who's trying to get you to understand Emwazi but you're too busy getting outraged and in Boris's case playing the usual political cards. The ones that left Ulster and numerous other places with a well supported insurgency in stagnation. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 3 Mar 15 at 20:03
|
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - No FM2R |
>> I heard pretty much that. "pretty much" ? What does that mean? "Do you condemn .... ?" "Yes". Where does "pretty much" play a role? >>but you're too busy getting outraged No I am not. I just wanted him to answer an important question and not prevaricate. If he can't cope, he shouldn't have taken the role. |
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - Bromptonaut |
>> "pretty much" ? What does that mean? >> "Do you condemn .... ?" >> "Yes". >> >> Where does "pretty much" play a role? When it's yes but yes needs a context. >> >>but you're too busy getting outraged >> >> No I am not. I just wanted him to answer an important question and not >> prevaricate. >> >> If he can't cope, he shouldn't have taken the role. His role is not to be a patsy for the UK establishment. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 3 Mar 15 at 20:23
|
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - No FM2R |
>> "Do you condemn .... ?" >> "Yes". >> >> Where does "pretty much" play a role? > >When it's yes but yes needs a context. No, that's a different thing. Providing a context doesn't make the "yes" become "pretty much". How can "yes" possibly need a context? You condemn it or you don't. Whether or not you understand the causes is a different matter. Let me illustrate; Bromp, do you condemn these beheadings? Yes or no? Bromp, do you understand why these people do this or what we can/should do about it?" See? Two different questions. >> If he can't cope, he shouldn't have taken the role. >His role is not to be a patsy for the UK establishment. I never said what his role is. I simply think that if he finds too difficult and runs away from interviews he can't cope with, then he shouldn't have taken the role. And how does saying "Yes I condemn these crimes make him a patsy of the UK establishment". How does "pretty much condemning" stop him being a patsy? I'm beginning to suspect that the bloke is a cyclist. |
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - Bromptonaut |
Mark, you're an 'Interim Manager' who can command more in a month than I earned in my final year at top end of the junior Civil Service. You must understand that nobody in an interview answers a question in strict isolation and without a grasp of closed and open questions and what might follow. Do you condemn these beheadings Y/N is a closed question. It doesn't allow for yes I condemn BUT I understand how people can be inveigled into performing them. The media who ask these questions are not looking for truth, just getting the quotes that earn them money. Excepting Kay Burley who pushed the closed condemn Y/N thing to n'th degree I've not seen him 'run away'. |
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - No FM2R |
I'm not sure of the relevance of my occasional roles or my alleged compensation. So moving on.... One handles, or at least is supposed to handle, an interview appropriately. Which is a powerful word. In the Kay Burley case I would have said.... "Yes, I categorically condemn the beheadings. That said, I think we need to understand that the reasons are complex and obscure. If we wish to stop these crimes, then we need to understand them and address the causes". IF the message I wanted to give was one of condemn and fix. If that was not what I wanted, then I would prevaricate and avoid. Which is what he did. I have messed up from time to time, whether that being giving a message I didn't mean, or revealing a message I didn't intend to share. Which did this guy do? Either he is an incompetent giving the wrong message in which case he shouldn't have the role, or he gave the message the organisation wished him to. Did he fail to condemn because he is incompetent, or because he didn't want to condemn? |
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - Westpig |
This fellow has had an interesting time www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31700894 |
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - NortonES2 |
Leaving observers confused is perhaps not accidental. Keep the b****** guessing is probably his aim, because it matters not to his agenda whether he is believed. Meanwhile, he sorts out funding from elsewhere. Plenty of oil money about... |
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - Lygonos |
>>Did he fail to condemn because he is incompetent, or because he didn't want to condemn? Or the third possibility: He is an establishment stooge hoping to get contact with radicalising Muslims with an organisation that is a front for intelligence gathering. |
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - Westpig |
>> Or the third possibility: He is an establishment stooge hoping to get contact with radicalising >> Muslims with an organisation that is a front for intelligence gathering. >> ...and the CIA arranged 9/11? |
difference between idiots and an entire religion.. - Pezzer |
"I'm beginning to suspect that the bloke is a cyclist.".......... very good ! |