Incident outside UK Parliament

[T.A]

I know it's hard for some of you but can you post things that are actually constructive rather than offensive memes and other images. 4chan is the place to go for that crap.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I'll be honest, on the face of it, Mr Kundnani's argument doesn't sound especially compelling to me. I mean, I think there's probably some merit in the idea of Islamic terrorism as a manifestation of secular political grievances but think it's potentially dangerous to minimise the theological basis for this kind of violence. Is there an example of how Prevent/Channel meaningfully suppress free speech?

It's a well argued case - Kundnani uses actual testimony from people who've perpetrated attacks. Where Islam comes into it is much more in terms of identity - identifying and showing solidarity with Muslims around the world - than in terms of what people would call "violent interpretations of Islam".

Fundamentalist and reactionary interpretations of Islam exist and they're not good things at all but the thing that motivates people to wage war against the country they live in is not the sort of mosque they go to or how they interpret a specific passage of the Qu'ran but what they perceive to be the actions of the state, domestically and abroad.

Prevent and Channel suppress free speech by making teachers grass their kids to the state (and doctors grass their patients and university staff grass their students) for having political opinions.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fe...om-expression-uk-schools-150721080612049.html

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Sorry, you're trying to equate Sam Harris and Hizb ut Tahrir? Are you stupid? Lets compare and contrast the two.

Sam Harris:

• Criticises Islam verbally in an often aggressive and offensive manner.
• Believes in a secular America
• Believes in gender equality

Hizb ut Tahrir

• Supports the Islamic idea of a Caliphate with Sharia law, the removal of democracy as man-made and therefore denying the sovereignty of God .
• Women will have to swear obedience to their husbands, and the primary role of women is in the home.
• All men will join mandatory military training at age 15.
• Death penalty for apostates.

In my world and in the world of anyone who isn't a fucking moron, the two are not the same. You can dislike Sam Harris (he is a bellend) whilst at the same time not being as moronic as you are.


I think the idea that many Muslims turn to radicalism as a result of political grievances is true but you can't deny the fact that Islamic radicals like Sayyid Qutb and others like him have built up a narrative for addressing that grievance which is wholeheartedly Islamic at its very core, and that is where a problem with Islam lies.

Sam Harris believes (or has expressed support for):

• The creation and maintenance by force of the US imperial project.
• Closing US borders to muslims
• domestic fascist groups and extreme-right-wing Christians (such as Ben Carson) have "the right idea" about Islam
• The idea that murdering or mass incarceration of muslims on the basis of their religion may be justified.
• That women should be forced to dress a certain way
• That feminist movements in the US should stop focusing on abortion rights

Him and Hizb Ut Tahrir really aren't so different. Harris often hides the worst of his bile behind "thought experiments" but he's relentlessly demanding, and justifying, the murder of muslims.

Sayyid Qutb developed his theories while being incarcerated and tortured in Egypt under Nasser. His works is Islamic in nature, but they are a direct response to secular political conditions in Egypt at the time. You can argue that the Qutbist political project was bad (and I'd largely agree) but what turned it towards being a violent, insurrectionist movement was it (and Qutb's) reppression by the Egyptian state.

 

[Martino Quackavelli]

I know it's hard for some of you but can you post things that are actually constructive rather than offensive memes and other images. 4chan is the place to go for that crap.

You're doing good work, Tommy. If only the Politics forum had a dedicated mod.

 

[markwwfc1992]

We're did you read he was tracked by mi5? He had previous for GBH, Carrying a weapon and public order offences so wasn't a particularly nice guy or a good Muslim for that matter. However the report I'm reading says he was not suspected to be linked to any terror organisations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39363297

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-investigate-extremism-islamist-a7645331.html

Couple of sources here, basically of Theresa May confirming he was previously investigated by the MI5.

 

[Techno Natch]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39363297

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-investigate-extremism-islamist-a7645331.html

Couple of sources here, basically of Theresa May confirming he was previously investigated by the MI5.

Ah sorry the report on my app said he wasn't suspected of being a current risk I read it wrong. I expect there are 1,000's of people that get checked but they can't follow them all.

I noticed that he'd changed his name and I was wondering if he'd converted at some point. I guess we'll know more in the near future. It's unfortunately going to be impossible to keep track on everyone that wants to replicate similar attacks. The buying of certain materials, the complexity of making bombs, buying weapons etc means there are more chances for tip offs and detection.

Someone renting a car and driving it into someone though.....

 

[markwwfc1992]

Ah sorry the report on my app said he wasn't suspected of being a current risk I read it wrong. I expect there are 1,000's of people that get checked but they can't follow them all.

I noticed that he'd changed his name and I was wondering if he'd converted at some point. I guess we'll know more in the near future. It's unfortunately going to be impossible to keep track on everyone that wants to replicate similar attacks. The buying of certain materials, the complexity of making bombs, buying weapons etc means there are more chances for tip offs and detection.

Someone renting a car and driving it into someone though.....

I do sympathise with the security forces to an extent. You can do all the research in the world on someone, you can investigate a person for years. All it takes (in this case) is a guy to get in his car, and have the (sick) thought process to go and do what he did. Anybody could do something like this with or without any links to terrorism, and the MI5 and such would struggle to prevent it as it is a heat in the moment sort of incident.

Obviously it's a very sad case and my thoughts go out to the victims. Also I apologise for the refugee post I made earlier. I'll refrain from posting here from this post onwards.

 

[Renegade]

I know he isn't very popular in these circles and I am not sure how his name gets dragged up in every single of these threads but...

Sam Harris believes (or has expressed support for):

• The creation and maintenance by force of the US imperial project.
• Closing US borders to muslims.
• Domestic fascist groups and extreme-right-wing Christians (such as Ben Carson) have "the right idea" about Islam.
• The idea that murdering or mass incarceration of muslims on the basis of their religion may be justified.
• That women should be forced to dress a certain way
• That feminist movements in the US should stop focusing on abortion rights

(1) He does support interventionist policy, I'll give you that. No worse than vast swathes of the population and our elected officials. He was against the Iraq War I think, but has viewed some of the conflicts as more 'just' than the others.

(2) He was against the Muslim ban - he believes in vetting. He has defended racial profiling in some instances, I think this is where you wanted to go with that point. The entire basis of all his recent work is empowering secular Muslims and a Muslim ban would prevent these people from escaping the refugee crisis and helping the cause of reforming Islam.

(3) Taken out of context it maybe. He doesn't agree with politicians who don't recognise an issue with Islamism or don't call it by its name, this does not equate to him agreeing with fascists about Islam. His books, his podcasts, they will state that he believes that these groups have a better grasp of Islam than what he views as the radical left. As much as you disagree with him, this does not equate to him believing that fascists have the right idea about Islam.

(4) What? Where? I have never seen him write or say anything of the like. Maybe he said it about convicted terrorists (that's just a guess) because I would put a lot of money on him not saying that Muslims in general should be murdered or jailed because of their religion...

(5) Again where? He has spoken out against the hijab as a garment of oppression in countries where the women do not have a choice whether or not to wear one. He has on multiple occasions criticised the garment but recognised that women should have the right to wear if they so choose. His point, defending it as a women's right issue is a bit whacky when it's a symbol of oppression on the other side of the world.

(6) Again, not the best view but no worse than your average conservative. When he states the focus of feminists should be on the troubles on the other side of the world, it's not really an outlandishly abhorrent statement.

I am not defending these points - but how this equates with an Islamist, I do not know. Harris has a lot of bad views, he is constrained by the idea that religion is at the heart of political strife, but to equate him to a guy whose major views and goals are completely illiberal and then completely misrepresent his views is a bit messed up. You clearly detest the guy, but how much of his material have you read vs how much have you heard from third party sources?

 

[Techno Natch]

I do sympathise with the security forces to an extent. You can do all the research in the world on someone, you can investigate a person for years. All it takes (in this case) is a guy to get in his car, and have the (sick) thought process to go and do what he did. Anybody could do something like this with or without any links to terrorism, and the MI5 and such would struggle to prevent it as it is a heat in the moment sort of incident.

Obviously it's a very sad case and my thoughts go out to the victims. Also I apologise for the refugee post I made earlier. I'll refrain from posting here from this post onwards.

Yeah fair enough it takes a fair bit to apologise. I'm interested in hearing other opinions but I'd prefer them to be a bit more thought out and not so reactionary. The fact is we probably will have an attack that comes from a refugee at some point in the future but point scoring and I told you so's aren't really helpful or productive.* It would still be one twat in amongst 1000's of innocents.

Talking of badly thought out and reactionary I notice Tommy Robinson was quick to the scene yesterday to spout his usual bile. He organised a March the other week in Bristol which was poorly attended but looks like he's desperate to be relevant again. I wish they'd all fuck off and fight their war away from the rest of us.

*Though most of us have all been guilty of this at some point.

 

[PaulHaddock]

I'm still waiting on the 'Muslim isn't a race' argument

 

[Techno Natch]

Simon Jenkins spot on during news night tonight attacking the way that incidents like this are covered and the extent of the reaction from the press.

 

[NorfolkWomble]

Sam Harris believes (or has expressed support for):

• The creation and maintenance by force of the US imperial project.
• Closing US borders to muslims
• domestic fascist groups and extreme-right-wing Christians (such as Ben Carson) have "the right idea" about Islam
• The idea that murdering or mass incarceration of muslims on the basis of their religion may be justified.
• That women should be forced to dress a certain way
• That feminist movements in the US should stop focusing on abortion rights

Him and Hizb Ut Tahrir really aren't so different. Harris often hides the worst of his bile behind "thought experiments" but he's relentlessly demanding, and justifying, the murder of muslims.

Sayyid Qutb developed his theories while being incarcerated and tortured in Egypt under Nasser. His works is Islamic in nature, but they are a direct response to secular political conditions in Egypt at the time. You can argue that the Qutbist political project was bad (and I'd largely agree) but what turned it towards being a violent, insurrectionist movement was it (and Qutb's) reppression by the Egyptian state.

Him and Hizb ut Tahrir really are different. His women should be forced to dress a certain way is probably the idea that women shouldn't wear the hijab, I'm just guessing here cos its 2am and I cba to look it up. That is very different to forcing women into second class status which Hizb ut Tahrir believes in.

Where does he justify murdering Muslims on the basis of their religion?


I don't get how someone clearly intelligent like you are who knows a lot about many different issues can sit here and claim that the two are the same. It strikes me as the classic left ignorance and blind acceptance of Islamism whilst criticising white atheists for much worse crimes, which up until now I thought was largley overstated.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I am not defending these points - but how this equates with an Islamist, I do not know. Harris has a lot of bad views, he is constrained by the idea that religion is at the heart of political strife, but to equate him to a guy whose major views and goals are completely illiberal and then completely misrepresent his views is a bit messed up. You clearly detest the guy, but how much of his material have you read vs how much have you heard from third party sources?

He hasn't supported the Muslim ban as introduced by Trump, but he did support the "Christian refugees only" policy of Ted Cruz, and supports racial profiling on borders, and dangerously wrong ideas such as the demographic time bomb. I think it's fair to say he did a lot of the intellectual groundwork that Trump's Muslim ban is based on.

Throughout Western Europe, Muslim immigrants show little inclination to acquire the secular and civil values of their host countries, and yet exploit these values to the utmost — demanding tolerance for their backwardness, their misogyny, their anti-Semitism, and the genocidal hatred that is regularly preached in their mosques

The thing about Harris is he rarely owns what he says. He frequently uses rhetorical tricks, like vile "thought experiments" that relentlessly hammer the idea that Muslims must be killed - including hypothesisng scenarios where tens of millions of people in the Muslim world should be wiped out by nuclear weapons.

Here he is, supporting a French ban on burqas, yet despite speaking in favour of a policy that bans the burqa, he claims to only oppose people being directly or tacitly forced to wear face-coverings - and that this is entirely consistent with liberal secularlism.

His stock-in-trade is racist provocation - he writes appalling, racist stuff and then publishes a comparatively banal "clarification". It's not so much a dog-whistle for fascists, more openly calling the dog over and then publishing a clarification to suggest that when you said your pockets were full of delicious dog-biscuits that was a thought-experiment and of course the thought of dog-biscuit-filled-pockets appals you. But if you're constantly finding "thought experiments" that justify mass murder, it seems pretty reasonable to suggest you're not actually that against mass murder.

This is a common tactic and it's what Sam Harris' Islamist enemies do. Fellow new Atheist PZ Myers says Sam Harris and his defenders demand that his work is read Talmudically: "you must parse his words very carefully, one by one, and yet also his words must be understood in their greater context".

There was something going round a few months ago about a preacher called Shaykh Hamza Sodagar who'd called for gays to be killed being banned from the country. Of course, he hadn't actually said "gays should be killed" - just, quoted, in great detail about the punishments for sodomy that Sharia codes enforce. Hamas claim their antisemitic founding charter is "historical record, not a current document" when challenged on it. Iqbal Sacranie former head of the MCB now says, of his notorious "death is too easy for [Salman Rushdie]" comment, that it was merely an attempt to avert violence - rather than the opposite. Hizb-ut-Tahrir, too, alternate between several possible caliphates depending on who they're talking to and how they want to be seen.

I mean, even Enoch Powell's odious Rivers of Blood speech has it's most racist sentiments in quotation - supposedly recollections of a conversations with constituents.

 

[Red]

I find those type of comments (eg how you be racist in this day and age?) very annoying. Everyone is allowed to vote. Why should JT not be allowed near a ballot? Because he disagrees with you?

I find those type of comments (eg how you be racist in this day and age?) very annoying. Everyone is allowed to vote. Why should JT not be allowed near a ballot? Because he disagrees with you?

No, not because he disagrees with me, but because he hasn't got a fucking clue about how things work politically. Look at what he says "Hopefully once Bexit kicks in we can ban these c*** for good and deport in bulk.". Tell me, how is Brexit going to have any bearing whatsoever on the topic we are discussing here? His post isn't even relevant to the incident we're discussing, yet he's afforded the opportunity to influence things. I know democracy is the lesser of all evils in terms of political structures, but this highlights the massive flaw in democracy when ignorant people are allowed to participate in it..

 

[Red]

Whats wrong with wanting to deport all terrorists ?

Nothing, I'm just baffled how you think that cannot happen before Brexit, like Brexit has any relevance in the matter.

 

[Renegade]

He hasn't supported the Muslim ban as introduced by Trump, but he did support the "Christian refugees only" policy of Ted Cruz, and supports racial profiling on borders, and dangerously wrong ideas such as the demographic time bomb. I think it's fair to say he did a lot of the intellectual groundwork that Trump's Muslim ban is based on.

Again, you're attaching support to things he didn't outright support. Of course, you'd label this as a malicious means of getting a message out whilst also covering his ass, but he stated that Ted Cruz's claim that taking in Christians from countries in which they are marginalised makes more sense than taking in Muslims isn't crazy, because there is a higher chance of the latter including Islamist extremists.

The thing about Harris is he rarely owns what he says. He frequently uses rhetorical tricks, like vile "thought experiments" that relentlessly hammer the idea that Muslims must be killed - including hypothesisng scenarios where tens of millions of people in the Muslim world should be wiped out by nuclear weapons.

This material has been done to death, you really have to do some mental gymnastics to attribute a "thought experiment" detailing nuclear Armageddon to him believing that Muslims could justly be killed based on their religion. The thought experiment details what choices the world might have if an Islamist regime got their hands on nuclear weapons. It's only then that if the hypothetical regime looks like they might push the button, in the last throes of humanity, that the Islamist country should be bombed. It's a last gasp scenario. A crude method of stating that Islamist regimes may not be deterred by International law if they get their hands on nuclear weapons (something I do not agree with at all, I think if they had a seat at the table, they would acquiesce), yes.

Watch Cenk's talk with Harris for a balanced perspective on that debate, suffice to say Cenk did not cover himself in glory in the debate or in the aftermath. TYT are blinded by their own bias - raise a lot of good points, but undermine themselves by manipulation of the facts to shoot down their critics.

Here he is, supporting a French ban on burqas, yet despite speaking in favour of a policy that bans the burqa, he claims to only oppose people being directly or tacitly forced to wear face-coverings - and that this is entirely consistent with liberal secularlism.

Ok, fair enough I hadn't seen this interview. I am pro people wearing whatever the fuck they want, but I honestly don't think what he is saying is that unreasonable - his larger point is that people should recognise that although people should have the right to wear one, we should recognise that a large number of women that are treated as second class citizens in Islamist societies do not.

His stock-in-trade is racist provocation - he writes appalling, racist stuff and then publishes a comparatively banal "clarification". It's not so much a dog-whistle for fascists, more openly calling the dog over and then publishing a clarification to suggest that when you said your pockets were full of delicious dog-biscuits that was a thought-experiment and of course the thought of dog-biscuit-filled-pockets appals you. But if you're constantly finding "thought experiments" that justify mass murder, it seems pretty reasonable to suggest you're not actually that against mass murder.

You have a right to these opinions, but they do not match at all what I have read. I was sent down the Sam Harris rabbit hole a few years ago, read all his material, listened to all of his podcasts (mostly for the psychology, philosophy, neurology, artificial intelligence and philanthropy based material) and to me these are just baseless assertions. He likes to think of himself as a philosopher, what philosopher doesn't use endless thought experiments to theorise? There is the one instance above where there is a last gasp justification for mass murder in defence of society, but apart from that I haven't seen or heard these constant thought experiments in which Muslims alone are being killed.

Even at that point, it is insane to me that you can derive that he supports the mass murder of Muslims from hypotheticals used to illustrate the different values of Islam vs other religions. It doesn't align with anything else you have written on this forum. You seem so definite about a man's personal views even though you've used third party sources to judge him.

He has a tonne of flaws, some genuinely abhorrent views, but you have attributed this malevolence to him that doesn't really match reality. Equating him to people who have far worse views (all of their important views are at odds with a fair world, not just a select few) that are completely at odds with your far-left outlook.

To some of his critics it's as though his life and the things he actually does are all just a cover up for despising Muslims and inflicting damage to their religion. Neuroscientist turned philosopher turned politico. Wrote a book dismantling Christianity, a book on morality, a book on meditation having spent a large part of his life exploring spirituality through unconventional means (Buddhism), a book on free will, a book on Islam in which he collaborates with a Muslim on reforming Islam to align with his secular ideals. Hosts podcasts with scientists, philosophers, philanthropists, journalists, politicians, advocates of religion and critics of religion. Believes in animal rights, has many philanthropic endeavours (yes, including but not limited to the one with Nawaz, in helping secular Muslims and trying to reform Islam). It's all just a cover up, he's actually just a snake that uses the vast majority of his life as a cover up to let the public know what they should really believe about Islam. I obviously just don't get it, how do I and many others see someone so vastly different to those on the fringes of politics?

After hearing all of the criticism of him over the years (and believe me I have changed my mind regarding a number of his views due to the criticism), I just don't and will never get the (false) equivalences people make with him and Islamists. I don't see how their views are equally harmful. I don't see the malevolence.

Anyway, don't want to derail another terrorist attack thread with Sam Harris. Feel free to respond, you have bitch slapped me into changing my mind on a number of topics over the years, on this one though I think you are blinded by your biases - you are inferring very definitive statements about the guy from snippets of material and opinions rather than having the entire context and facts, which is at odds with most of the posts I've read from you. And I can't be arsed having this argument for the umpteenth time, nor can the forum be arsed reading it in a thread that is about so much more than this pretty irrelevant man.

EDIT: apparently I've been using the word pernicious wrong for years.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

What are his "genuinely abhorant" views, in your opinion? Not looking to pick a fight. I've not read any of his work (though I'll probably check out the book on free will you mentioned), so I'm not equipped to counter. Just curious.

 

[Red]

Hardly. You'll find a handful of racists making disgraceful comments. The rest of us try to get our heads around actions of a murderous madman representing the fringe element of a religion, while admiring the bravery and decency of everyone trying to stop the perpetrator and help the victims.

Strikes me as quite amazing that the day after a man launches an attack designed to kill our elected representatives, security personnel and ordinary civilians, we'd start shitting on our own society and beat ourselves up about how racist we are.

It might be a handful making such comments, but they're just articulating what a growing number of people are thinking. I agree we shouldn't be beating ourselves up though. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can make the distinction between the massive majority of sensible Muslims and the lunatic fringe, however, I think it's always imperative to challenge people when they seem unable or unwilling to make that distinction though.

 

[Renegade]

What are his "genuinely abhorant" views, in your opinion? Not looking to pick a fight. I've not read any of his work (though I'll probably check out the book on free will you mentioned), so I'm not equipped to counter. Just curious.

Well, maybe I was throwing Ian a bone when I pluralised and italicised that comment. I do think Harris's defence of racial profiling at airports is not only abhorrent, but incredibly stupid. I strongly disagree with his interventionist leanings and I don't believe in the absolute moral truths he puts forward in The Moral Landscape. It's probably a bit of stretch to call these views abhorrent just because I disagree with them.

Harris has a blind spot when it comes to acknowledging the role of geopolitics in the rise of Islamic extremism, attributing the problems to the doctrine far more than the role of imperialism. He acknowledges that the latter had a role, but he more or less thinks that the sectarian nature of the religion would have led to similar barbarism with or without the influence of the West. A pernicious (I used it correctly, yay!) view, but I fail to see the malevolence in it that is consistently attributed to him. I do think he has some valid points about the how the doctrine in its unreformed literal form contributes to the problem, but people like Ian (and Robert Fisk) have convinced me that Harris's explanation for the problems in the Middle East is ass-backwards.

On free will, he was on one of my favourite podcasts (Very Bad Wizards) a while back discussing the topic. Basically, as you probably guessed given his ultra-logical nature, he doesn't believe in it. The book is short, though not sure if it's worth the time or price, there's nothing ground-breaking in his conclusions. This podcast (and the follow up one a few months later) is probably longer than the book, but it's free, and I'll take any chance to plug VBW:

https://verybadwizards.fireside.fm/59

 

[Etty Abrics]

It might be a handful making such comments, but they're just articulating what a growing number of people are thinking. I agree we shouldn't be beating ourselves up though. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can make the distinction between the massive majority of sensible Muslims and the lunatic fringe, however, I think it's always imperative to challenge people when they seem unable or unwilling to make that distinction though.

I think you should beat yourself up

 

[NorfolkWomble]

He hasn't supported the Muslim ban as introduced by Trump, but he did support the "Christian refugees only" policy of Ted Cruz, and supports racial profiling on borders, and dangerously wrong ideas such as the demographic time bomb. I think it's fair to say he did a lot of the intellectual groundwork that Trump's Muslim ban is based on.



The thing about Harris is he rarely owns what he says. He frequently uses rhetorical tricks, like vile "thought experiments" that relentlessly hammer the idea that Muslims must be killed - including hypothesisng scenarios where tens of millions of people in the Muslim world should be wiped out by nuclear weapons.

Here he is, supporting a French ban on burqas, yet despite speaking in favour of a policy that bans the burqa, he claims to only oppose people being directly or tacitly forced to wear face-coverings - and that this is entirely consistent with liberal secularlism.

His stock-in-trade is racist provocation - he writes appalling, racist stuff and then publishes a comparatively banal "clarification". It's not so much a dog-whistle for fascists, more openly calling the dog over and then publishing a clarification to suggest that when you said your pockets were full of delicious dog-biscuits that was a thought-experiment and of course the thought of dog-biscuit-filled-pockets appals you. But if you're constantly finding "thought experiments" that justify mass murder, it seems pretty reasonable to suggest you're not actually that against mass murder.

This is a common tactic and it's what Sam Harris' Islamist enemies do. Fellow new Atheist PZ Myers says Sam Harris and his defenders demand that his work is read Talmudically: "you must parse his words very carefully, one by one, and yet also his words must be understood in their greater context".

There was something going round a few months ago about a preacher called Shaykh Hamza Sodagar who'd called for gays to be killed being banned from the country. Of course, he hadn't actually said "gays should be killed" - just, quoted, in great detail about the punishments for sodomy that Sharia codes enforce. Hamas claim their antisemitic founding charter is "historical record, not a current document" when challenged on it. Iqbal Sacranie former head of the MCB now says, of his notorious "death is too easy for [Salman Rushdie]" comment, that it was merely an attempt to avert violence - rather than the opposite. Hizb-ut-Tahrir, too, alternate between several possible caliphates depending on who they're talking to and how they want to be seen.

I mean, even Enoch Powell's odious Rivers of Blood speech has it's most racist sentiments in quotation - supposedly recollections of a conversations with constituents.

Hizb ut Tahrir have the basic goal of setting up a Caliphate under Shariah. The possibility of true religious freedom, gender and minority protection etc is impossible under such a setting.

 

[johnnytodd]

Nothing, I'm just baffled how you think that cannot happen before Brexit, like Brexit has any relevance in the matter.

Because you wont be able to thumb a lift from Syria to UK. Spread the radical bollocks through families and friends in the mosques of Britainstan you and your kind so vocally support.

 

[spireite]

'Britainstan'

 

[Red]

Because you wont be able to thumb a lift from Syria to UK. Spread the radical bollocks through families and friends in the mosques of Britainstan you are your kind so vocally support.

Yes, because Syria is in Europe right?

 

[Red]

I think you should beat yourself up

I always envisage you as being like a little embittered goblin when you show up here Etty.

 

[johnnytodd]

Yes, because Syria is in Europe right?

Are you as thick as you sound?

 

[johnnytodd]

Red must be at Friday prayers?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The thing about Harris is he rarely owns what he says. He frequently uses rhetorical tricks, like vile "thought experiments" that relentlessly hammer the idea that Muslims must be killed - including hypothesisng scenarios where tens of millions of people in the Muslim world should be wiped out by nuclear weapons.

It's not rhetorical though. He's not a politician or an activist. You leap on this sort of thing because it gives you a convenient excuse to dismiss this liberal internationalist secular Jew as a "fascist" because he has ideas you don't like. The nuke scenario you reference is - if anything - a commentary on the fact not that it's a moral choice that we could make, but that it's one that we've already made by allowing drones strikes against people based on what they have in their heads rather than what they're doing or even what they've done.

 

[johnnytodd]

Dozens with direct links to this terrorist and how many with links to them.....the country is full of potential muslim terrorists, something has to happen or it will be your town next.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

Dozens with direct links to this terrorist and how many with links to them.....the country is full of potential muslim terrorists, something has to happen or it will be your town next.

Meh. You wouldn't notice the difference in Walsall.