Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Sir Shep

Persecuted for following your faith.

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Thank you to all who picked up on my post. Without expanding upon it too much, I note that the bloodshed in Sri Lanka isn't mentioned at all in the 'Also in the News' thread, and has only been referred to here in a small way. Compare that with the long thread emanating from the NZ bloodshed, and my point does seem to be borne out.  

I always think it’s unfair when people’s reactions to atrocities are judged in comparison to others. There can be many reasons for differing reactions and it’s rarely the reason you’re pointing too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Thank you to all who picked up on my post. Without expanding upon it too much, I note that the bloodshed in Sri Lanka isn't mentioned at all in the 'Also in the News' thread, and has only been referred to here in a small way. Compare that with the long thread emanating from the NZ bloodshed, and my point does seem to be borne out.  

 

Your 'point' hasn't been borne out at all, largely because you haven't had the courage to make it.

 

Let me make it for you, and if I'm wrong, you can say so: you are trying to imply that the difference that you perceive between the reaction to the two atrocities, is the religion of the victims. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Thank you to all who picked up on my post. Without expanding upon it too much, I note that the bloodshed in Sri Lanka isn't mentioned at all in the 'Also in the News' thread, and has only been referred to here in a small way. Compare that with the long thread emanating from the NZ bloodshed, and my point does seem to be borne out.  

 

I genuinely do not know what point you are making, as you've chosen to hint at it rather than come out and say it and I'm not familiar with your usual posts.

 

Are you saying that people/media care more about Muslims than non-Muslims/Christians?

If so, presumably you believe there is mass concern every time there's a suicide bombing in Iraq and would have been little concern if the NZ attack had been perpetrated against Christians by an Islamist extremist? I'd dispute the former and doubt the latter.

 

Are you saying that people/media care more about victims in developed/English-speaking countries than about victims in culturally distant, non-English-speaking countries - like Sri Lanka and Iraq?

If so, I agree with you. There's a hierarchy of importance related to the connection felt: UK > neighbouring countries/English-speaking countries with close historical connection > Other European/nearby countries > Former colonies > Remote

Thus: UK > France/Ireland/USA/NZ > Russia/Turkey > India/Sri Lanka/Nigeria > Mali/Colombia/Afghanistan/Iraq

 

There are doubtless other factors in comparative interest levels: e.g.

- The forum is quiet at the moment because it's Easter holiday so a lot of people are away on holiday, doing stuff with families etc.

- There's a "terrorism fatigue" about suicide bombings and mass shootings. They seem to happen somewhere in the world so regularly, whether committed by Islamists, Far Right, Buddhists (Myanmar) or whoever's done this atrocity in Sri Lanka.

- As someone has already said, the NZ atrocity had a new and different aspect in the live-streaming of mass murder.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I genuinely do not know what point you are making, as you've chosen to hint at it rather than come out and say it and I'm not familiar with your usual posts.

 

Are you saying that people/media care more about Muslims than non-Muslims/Christians?

If so, presumably you believe there is mass concern every time there's a suicide bombing in Iraq and would have been little concern if the NZ attack had been perpetrated against Christians by an Islamist extremist? I'd dispute the former and doubt the latter.

 

Are you saying that people/media care more about victims in developed/English-speaking countries than about victims in culturally distant, non-English-speaking countries - like Sri Lanka and Iraq?

If so, I agree with you. There's a hierarchy of importance related to the connection felt: UK > neighbouring countries/English-speaking countries with close historical connection > Other European/nearby countries > Former colonies > Remote

Thus: UK > France/Ireland/USA/NZ > Russia/Turkey > India/Sri Lanka/Nigeria > Mali/Colombia/Afghanistan/Iraq

 

There are doubtless other factors in comparative interest levels: e.g.

- The forum is quiet at the moment because it's Easter holiday so a lot of people are away on holiday, doing stuff with families etc.

- There's a "terrorism fatigue" about suicide bombings and mass shootings. They seem to happen somewhere in the world so regularly, whether committed by Islamists, Far Right, Buddhists (Myanmar) or whoever's done this atrocity in Sri Lanka.

- As someone has already said, the NZ atrocity had a new and different aspect in the live-streaming of mass murder.

 

2

 

I am, and his agenda is clear, even if he prefers to make snide hints rather than saying what's on his mind.

 

On 16/04/2019 at 11:26, String fellow said:

It's depressing that it seems socially acceptable to say negative things about stuff related to Christianity, but not to other religions.

 

On 19/03/2019 at 12:50, String fellow said:

There were lots of messages of sympathy for the victims of the attack on Friday, which is fair enough. But why none for yesterday's attack, just 200 miles away? Let me be the first to express my sympathies to those victims. 

 

On 05/03/2019 at 15:47, String fellow said:

It makes you wonder which set of laws really has the most clout in this country.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Without expanding upon it too much, I note that the bloodshed in Sri Lanka isn't mentioned at all in the 'Also in the News' thread, and has only been referred to here in a small way.

You are quite right, its also not found on Xvideos, New Railway Modellers, Canadian Moose Lovers and a whole host of other web sites. Perhaps this is because this website is for people to get together and discuss whatever they please and is not a dedicated news service like Sky News, The BBC, RT (yes I know) and even Al Jazeera, where it has been extensively covered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sishades said:

You are quite right, its also not found on Xvideos, New Railway Modellers, Canadian Moose Lovers and a whole host of other web sites. Perhaps this is because this website is for people to get together and discuss whatever they please and is not a dedicated news service like Sky News, The BBC, RT (yes I know) and even Al Jazeera, where it has been extensively covered. 

 

:huh:  Strokes didn't say that.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

Maajid Nawaz also seems to agree there is a difference the way we compare these things...

 

 

 

Firstly, this was an attack partly on Christians, but partly on others - hotels as well as churches - presumably aimed at targeting Westerners generally as well as Christians.

 

Secondly, it seems to me that you and the subtly hatred-promoting scumbag you quote (but he's a Muslim scumbag, so that's alright, eh? :rolleyes:) are looking for something that you want to find.

 

My first Google News search reveals Corbyn, Trump, the UN Sec-General & Merkel all referring to "Christians" and/or "terrorism"...May, too, if you associate churches with Christianity, which most people do....

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/home-affairs/terrorism/news/103362/theresa-may-and-jeremy-corbyn-condemn-appalling-sri-lanka

 

"British politicians lined up to condemn the killings, with the Prime Minister saying: "The acts of violence against churches and hotels in Sri Lanka are truly appalling, and my deepest sympathies go out to all of those affected at this tragic time." Mrs May added: "We must stand together to make sure that no one should ever have to practise their faith in fear." Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: "I'm appalled by the horrific attacks in Sri Lanka, on Easter Sunday, the most important day in the Christian calendar. "I stand with the victims, their families, the people of Sri Lanka and Christians around the world. We must defeat this hatred with unity, love and respect."

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/world-leaders-condemn-easter-sunday-blasts-sri-lanka-190421074138039.html

 

"The United Nations secretary-general said he is "outraged by the terrorist attacks" in Sri Lanka. [...] President Donald Trump condemned the "horrible terrorist attacksGerman Chancellor Angel Merkel said: "Terrorism, religious hatred and intolerance cannot be allowed to win." "We're horrified by the news that Christians in Sri Lanka were attacked and killed during Easter services," wrote Merkel's spokesperson on Twitter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Firstly, this was an attack partly on Christians, but partly on others - hotels as well as churches - presumably aimed at targeting Westerners generally as well as Christians.

 

Secondly, it seems to me that you and the subtly hatred-promoting scumbag you quote (but he's a Muslim scumbag, so that's alright, eh? :rolleyes:) are looking for something that you want to find.

 

My first Google News search reveals Corbyn, Trump, the UN Sec-General & Merkel all referring to "Christians" and/or "terrorism"...May, too, if you associate churches with Christianity, which most people do....

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/home-affairs/terrorism/news/103362/theresa-may-and-jeremy-corbyn-condemn-appalling-sri-lanka

 

"British politicians lined up to condemn the killings, with the Prime Minister saying: "The acts of violence against churches and hotels in Sri Lanka are truly appalling, and my deepest sympathies go out to all of those affected at this tragic time." Mrs May added: "We must stand together to make sure that no one should ever have to practise their faith in fear." Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: "I'm appalled by the horrific attacks in Sri Lanka, on Easter Sunday, the most important day in the Christian calendar. "I stand with the victims, their families, the people of Sri Lanka and Christians around the world. We must defeat this hatred with unity, love and respect."

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/world-leaders-condemn-easter-sunday-blasts-sri-lanka-190421074138039.html

 

"The United Nations secretary-general said he is "outraged by the terrorist attacks" in Sri Lanka. [...] President Donald Trump condemned the "horrible terrorist attacksGerman Chancellor Angel Merkel said: "Terrorism, religious hatred and intolerance cannot be allowed to win." "We're horrified by the news that Christians in Sri Lanka were attacked and killed during Easter services," wrote Merkel's spokesperson on Twitter.

You think Maajid Nawaz is a hatred promoting scumbag? Wow.

 

I honestly don't know what to say to that, he's probably the most respected liberal Muslim commentator out there at this point in time and I'd even be tempted vote Lib Dem if he was my local candidate - outrageous slander to call someone as brave as him with what he has been through this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

You think Maajid Nawaz is a hatred promoting scumbag? Wow.

 

I honestly don't know what to say to that, he's probably the most respected liberal Muslim commentator out there at this point in time and I'd even be tempted vote Lib Dem if he was my local candidate - outrageous slander to call someone as brave as him with what he has been through this.

 

If he's using vile murderous terrorist attacks to sow division and hatred - by spreading misinformation - then he's a hatred promoting scumbag.

 

I don't give a shit whether he's a Muslim, a liberal, a former Islamist extremist who has repented....whatever. His actions condemn him - as do yours in quoting him (and please don't pretend you did so as a neutral bystander).

Whatever else I am, I'm not naive.

 

Anyway, how about the rest of my post......that his information is factually inaccurate? That multiple world leaders HAVE mentioned Christianity and terrorism? That this wasn't ONLY an attack on Christianity?

 

Just ignoring that, are you? You're a disgrace! 

 

Edited by Alf Bentley
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

If he's using vile murderous terrorist attacks to sow division and hatred - by spreading misinformation - then he's a hatred promoting scumbag.

 

I don't give a shit whether he's a Muslim, a liberal, a former Islamist extremist who has repented....whatever. His actions condemn him - as do yours in quoting him (and please don't pretend you did so as a neutral bystander).

Whatever else I am, I'm not naive.

 

Anyway, how about the rest of my post......that his information is factually inaccurate? That multiple world leaders HAVE mentioned Christianity and terrorism? That this wasn't ONLY an attack on Christianity?

 

Just ignoring that, are you? You're a disgrace! 

Wrong side of bed again this morning Alf?

 

I don't see a single problem with what he has done there - he's picked three high profile politicians and compared and contrasted the reactions from both attacks. He hasn't saught out individual ones, he's comparing, which is completely fair when making this judgement. 

 

As for it being "misinformation" - he's actually posted the tweets from them lol its there in black and white. That doesn't change just because you can find quotes from different leaders who have connected it Christianity, maybe those leaders are being consistent whereas Obama, Clinton and May aren't?

 

When the liberal moderate Muslims like Nawaz are being described as hate spreaders by white westerners for an opinion we really do have no hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, MattP said:

Wrong side of bed again this morning Alf?

 

I don't see a single problem with what he has done there - he's picked three high profile politicians and compared and contrasted the reactions from both attacks. He hasn't saught out individual ones, he's comparing, which is completely fair when making this judgement. 

 

As for it being "misinformation" - he's actually posted the tweets from them lol its there in black and white. That doesn't change just because you can find quotes from different leaders who have connected it Christianity, maybe those leaders are being consistent whereas Obama, Clinton and May aren't?

 

When the liberal moderate Muslims like Nawaz are being described as hate spreaders by white westerners for an opinion we really do have no hope.

 

No, I was in a perfectly good mood until I saw your repulsive, shit-stirring post. Such attempts to use vile terrorism and partial information (therefore misinformation) to sow hatred and division should always be opposed.

It's particularly disappointing when they are promoted by an intelligent, personally likeable individual like yourself. But don't worry about my mood. I was angry at what I read. I've expressed that anger, now time to get on with real life - we are just a few idiots on a football forum, after all (a lesson learnt from Uncle Webbo, as well as personal experience).

 

Unless you are much less intelligent than I believe, I presume you're lying about seeing nothing wrong with what he's done?

He's taken selected quotes to make a point that he wanted to make (and a pretty weak point). In doing so, he's either ignored quotes that directly conflict with his claims or has not properly researched the comments made....much less likely.

He's done that at a time of great division in society, between races, religions, cultures, the rest.....and has done so in the knowledge that it it likely to inflame hatred and division. I repeat: what an absolute scumbag!

 

Oh, and if he wanted to single out May, Obama and Clinton, he could have quoted the people that I've mentioned (Corbyn, Trump, UN Sec-Gen & Merkel) as good examples of what they should have done.

It would have been a cheap, cheese-paring point as May, Obama and Clinton all made indirect references to Christianity (in an attack that wasn't 100% directed against Christianity), but it would have made clear that he was condemning them individually. As it stands, his post promotes the idea that Western leaders generally or the "liberal elite" are more sympathetic to Muslim victims and softer in their condemnation of Muslim terrorists.....one might even think he wanted to spread such a populist message? Or maybe he just feels guilty about his own days as an Islamist extremist and feels the need to over-compensate? A generous interpretation....

 

Disgusting attack, anyway, whoever did it. It's starting to sound as if it was Islamist extremists - a vile crew with a known track record, so would be no surprise. We should exercise caution, though, until proper evidence is produced. Last I heard, nobody had claimed responsibility - and initial thoughts had turned to extremists among the local Buddhist majority (as per Myanmar). I just remember the Madrid attacks a few years back when, seeking political advantage, the Spanish Govt sought to blame ETA, only for it to become evident that it was an Islamist terrorist attack.

 

Right, work to do & lunch to eat...

 

Edited by Alf Bentley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
24 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

No, I was in a perfectly good mood until I saw your repulsive, shit-stirring post. Such attempts to use vile terrorism and partial information (therefore misinformation) to sow hatred and division should always be opposed.

It's particularly disappointing when they are promoted by an intelligent, personally likeable individual like yourself. But don't worry about my mood. I was angry at what I read. I've expressed that anger, now time to get on with real life - we are just a few idiots on a football forum, after all (a lesson learnt from Uncle Webbo, as well as personal experience).

 

Unless you are much less intelligent than I believe, I presume you're lying about seeing nothing wrong with what he's done?

He's taken selected quotes to make a point that he wanted to make (and a pretty weak point). In doing so, he's either ignored quotes that directly conflict with his claims or has not properly researched the comments made....much less likely.

He's done that at a time of great division in society, between races, religions, cultures, the rest.....and has done so in the knowledge that it it likely to inflame hatred and division. I repeat: what an absolute scumbag!

 

Oh, and if he wanted to single out May, Obama and Clinton, he could have quoted the people that I've mentioned (Corbyn, Trump, UN Sec-Gen & Merkel) as good examples of what they should have done.

It would have been a cheap, cheese-paring point as May, Obama and Clinton all made indirect references to Christianity (in an attack that wasn't 100% directed against Christianity), but it would have made clear that he was condemning them individually.

As it stands, his post promotes the idea that Western leaders generally or the "liberal elite" are more sympathetic to Muslim victims and softer in their condemnation of Muslim terrorists.....one might even think he wanted to spread such a populist message?

Or maybe he just feels guilty about his own days as an Islamist extremist and feels the need to over-compensate? A generous interpretation....

 

Disgusting attack, anyway, whoever did it. It's starting to sound as if it was Islamist extremists - a vile crew with a known track record, so would be no surprise. We should exercise caution, though, until proper evidence is produced. Last I heard, nobody had claimed responsibility - and initial thoughts had turned to extremists among the local Buddhist majority (as per Myanmar). I just remember the Madrid attacks a few years back when, seeking political advantage, the Spanish Govt sought to blame ETA, only for it to become evident that it was an Islamist terrorist attack.

 

Right, work to do & lunch to eat...

Repulsive, shit stirring post? lol Get a grip of yourself and stop the hyperbole - it was relevant to the discussion you were having and Nawaz whether you like it or not is a pretty influenctial commentator and his opinion on it is worth reading. 

 

I don't see anything wrong with what he has done at all, it's totally fair to contrast and compare quotes from the same people on similar events - he's pointing out the inconsistency of them and he's right to do so. I don't understand what comments from Corbyn etc has to do with those people whose hypocrisy he is exposing on this particular issue.

 

(Clinton and Obama both using "Easter Worshippers" is quite strange tbh, why not just say Christians?)

 

He goes into it in a bit more detail on his radio show - feel free to ring him up and take him to task if you genuinely think he's a hate spreading scumbag.

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/world-leaders-sri-lanka-christchurch-attack/

Edited by MattP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Repulsive, shit stirring post? lol Get a grip of yourself and stop the hyperbole - it was relevant to the discussion you were having and Nawaz whether you like it or not is a pretty influenctial commentator and his opinion on it is worth reading. 

 

I don't see anything wrong with what he has done at all, it's totally fair to contrast and compare quotes from the same people on similar events - he's pointing out the inconsistency of them and he's right to do so. I don't understand what comments from Corbyn etc has to do with those people whose hypocrisy he is exposing on this particular issue.

 

He goes into it in a bit more detail on his radio show - feel free to ring him up and take him to task if you genuinely think he's a hate spreading scumbag.

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/world-leaders-sri-lanka-christchurch-attack/

 

Tommy Robinson is an influential commentator, Cyril Smith was a Lib Dem and Osama Bin Laden was a Muslim. I'll judge people on their actions, not their status, thanks.

 

I'm sure you'll be posting Nawaz's views again in future, so I'll judge those with an open mind when I see them - as I've judged his post here. I've no interest in talking to him, thanks, any more than I'd want to talk to Robinson.

 

Anyway, points made and conversation over as far as I'm concerned. This thread was not supposed to be about cheap political/populist point-scoring, as I understand it. It was surely supposed to be about understanding and sympathy for those - specifically Christians, but others too - who have suffered through this appalling atrocity. Some of the stories are really upsetting. I read one earlier about a father who knew his wife and daughter had been killed and then found his son's dead body in the mortuary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, the fox said:

Think the thought of a single man who can buy 5 weapons legally (2 of them are semiautomatic), stream it on a massive platform like Facebook like it's a video game and just kill 50 and injury another 50 is far more terrifying for everyone IMO.

 

A man can pretty much obtain a soldier's set legally and just open fire on anyone.

 

 

Anyways, I feel for the families of the victims and the victims themselves. People go to their place of worship to get some peace of mind and instead they get killed like that.

 

 

Don't like how the thread turned to religion vs atheism instead of acknowledging such a sad event.

 

It’s mental isn’t it? Though it does show the sort of society New Zealand is that they have had these laws and yet Christchurch was the first time in decades anyone had actually used their stockpiled weapons to murder innocent people in their dozens. Though it speaks volumes to the character of NZ that within a few weeks of such an appalling terrorist attack they’ve fast tracked a change in the law to prevent it from happening again, much like us after Dunblaine and Australia after Port Arthur. 

 

Compare that to America’s worst shooting - the Las Vegas one. That evil bastard did absolutely nothing illegal until he actually pulled the trigger. He broke no laws in stockpiling dozens of those guns, openly carrying them through a ****ing casino and setting them up against his hotel window, or purchasing a “bump stock” to basically make it an automatic. And their laws still permit someone to do that again tomorrow. ****ed up or what. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Repulsive, shit stirring post? lol Get a grip of yourself and stop the hyperbole - it was relevant to the discussion you were having and Nawaz whether you like it or not is a pretty influenctial commentator and his opinion on it is worth reading. 

 

I don't see anything wrong with what he has done at all, it's totally fair to contrast and compare quotes from the same people on similar events - he's pointing out the inconsistency of them and he's right to do so. I don't understand what comments from Corbyn etc has to do with those people whose hypocrisy he is exposing on this particular issue.

 

(Clinton and Obama both using "Easter Worshippers" is quite strange tbh, why not just say Christians?)

 

He goes into it in a bit more detail on his radio show - feel free to ring him up and take him to task if you genuinely think he's a hate spreading scumbag.

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/world-leaders-sri-lanka-christchurch-attack/

Pardon me for butting in here...but why highlight the "hypocrisy" (such as it is, don't remember the lone wolf/terrorist inconsistency wrt white supremacists being called out by right wing commentators in an act of similar "hypocrisy") in the first place? Does it actually serve any useful purpose beyond point-scoring (though that is what politics mostly is right now, to be fair)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Tommy Robinson is an influential commentator, Cyril Smith was a Lib Dem and Osama Bin Laden was a Muslim. I'll judge people on their actions, not their status, thanks.

 

I'm sure you'll be posting Nawaz's views again in future, so I'll judge those with an open mind when I see them - as I've judged his post here. I've no interest in talking to him, thanks, any more than I'd want to talk to Robinson.

 

Anyway, points made and conversation over as far as I'm concerned. This thread was not supposed to be about cheap political/populist point-scoring, as I understand it. It was surely supposed to be about understanding and sympathy for those - specifically Christians, but others too - who have suffered through this appalling atrocity. Some of the stories are really upsetting. I read one earlier about a father who knew his wife and daughter had been killed and then found his son's dead body in the mortuary.

I’m sorry Alf but I don’t think you’ve given enough time to the guy if you think Nawaz is a hate speaker, I’ve been listening to him for years and his outlook has softened my opinion and enlightened me on more than one occasion. I agree that his point and look approach here is unnecessary and a wee bit divisive but he really is normally on point for me.

I don’t like it when anybody points this out, as I said earlier before this spat. If I comment on a particular event, I surely don’t have to make sure I comment on every event of similar nature forever more in a completely consistent manner for the rest of my life? It’s ludicrous to think that. And I genuinely don’t see why it should be any different for anyone else.

 

My opinion (and most people’s I assume) is that any extremists that plan to wreak havoc or actually commit murderous atrocities under any guises or under any belief, are absolute scumbags of the highest order and whether or not I might share a modicum of sympathy for their cause, it’s never something that I would accept or deem acceptable. Whether I choose to comment or not has no bearing or relevance and I just assume it’s the same for everyone. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m sorry Alf but I don’t think you’ve given enough time to the guy if you think Nawaz is a hate speaker, I’ve been listening to him for years and his outlook has softened my opinion and enlightened me on more than one occasion. I agree that his point and look approach here is unnecessary and a wee bit divisive but he really is normally on point for me.

I don’t like it when anybody points this out, as I said earlier before this spat. If I comment on a particular event, I surely don’t have to make sure I comment on every event of similar nature forever more in a completely consistent manner for the rest of my life? It’s ludicrous to think that. And I genuinely don’t see why it should be any different for anyone else.

 

My opinion (and most people’s I assume) is that any extremists that plan to wreak havoc or actually commit murderous atrocities under any guises or under any belief, are absolute scumbags of the highest order and whether or not I might share a modicum of sympathy for their cause, it’s never something that I would accept or deem acceptable. Whether I choose to comment or not has no bearing or relevance and I just assume it’s the same for everyone. 

 

I completely agree with your 2nd and 3rd points - very much how I view things, too.

 

To clarify about Nawaz: I wasn't making a general judgment about the bloke. I was making a judgment purely about his Tweet. Unlike you or Matt, I have little knowledge about him and haven't heard much of his other views. Matt has posted his comments before, I think, but they didn't particularly register with me in a good or bad way. As I said earlier, if his views on other issues are posted, I'll judge them with an open mind.

 

I do still think his Tweet went beyond cheap finger-pointing to gross irresponsibility. If he had called out May, Obama or Clinton individually, that would just have been tasteless finger-pointing. But he chose to group them together to make a general point about Western leaders. Namely that Western leaders express less explicit concern about Christian victims - and less overt condemnation of Islamist terrorism than of Far Right terrorism. Quite apart from facts that make comparison difficult (Sri Lanka attack not solely anti-Christian, terrorists not yet officially identified), he made his insinuation in a context. That context is of heightened division and tension in society, increased anti-democratic contempt for elected politicians and growth of the Far Right, who often claim that our "liberal elite" rulers are soft on foreigners - and Muslims in particular. In such a context, to use a horrific terrorist outrage to make unjustified and divisive claims about leaders being softer on Islamist terrorism is unbelievably irresponsible. I don't know why he did it - I'd be speculating. Maybe he's a great commentator and nice guy the rest of the time, I don't know, but it was his Tweet I was commenting on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been further explosions following and during raids done across Sri Lanka.

 

Apparently some suspects blew themselves up when they were involved in a shootout with police.

 

Another raid found lots of bomb-making material and evidence of ISIS involvement and further people have been arrested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

There have been further explosions following and during raids done across Sri Lanka.

 

Apparently some suspects blew themselves up when they were involved in a shootout with police.

 

Another raid found lots of bomb-making material and evidence of ISIS involvement and further people have been arrested.

Richie Wellens has alot to answer for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...