ChatterBank1 min ago
Oh Dear, It Seems The Anti Semitism Is Spreading.....
16 Answers
http://
Looks like the Limp dums are following Labour!
Looks like the Limp dums are following Labour!
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
" Israel is not perfect, and should be criticised, just as we can criticise another other country." Although the default setting for the Left (the easily brainwashed) seems to focus 'only' on Israel as a whole, when there are so many other countries to focus on, but don't.
17:33 Thu 27th Oct 2016
Except she was sitting as an Independent in the Lords, not a LibDem.
And her crime was to chair a meeting, at which she didn't speak.
As per usual, any criticism of Israel the State is labelled anti semitic and anti Jewish. Israel is not perfect, and should be criticised, just as we can criticise another other country.
And her crime was to chair a meeting, at which she didn't speak.
As per usual, any criticism of Israel the State is labelled anti semitic and anti Jewish. Israel is not perfect, and should be criticised, just as we can criticise another other country.
Tora,
// So you can chair a meeting on any subject and be untainted by that subject can you gromit? //
Yes you can. The meeting was not even about Israel, it was about Britain. As it was a campaign that she must have signed up to, I see no reason not to chair it.
// The event was organised by the Palestinian Return Centre as part of its campaign calling for the UK Government to "officially apologise for its past colonial crimes in Palestine. //
// One can criticize Gromit but it's unusual to set up a one sided meeting to do so. //
It is not at all unusual, especially if it is part of a campaign. Most campaign meetings are biased on the side of the campaign. Did the campaign to leave the EU have people chairing them who were not pro brexit? Of course they were. This was not a discussion with a neutral independent chairperson, it was a campaign to get a particular outcome.
// So you can chair a meeting on any subject and be untainted by that subject can you gromit? //
Yes you can. The meeting was not even about Israel, it was about Britain. As it was a campaign that she must have signed up to, I see no reason not to chair it.
// The event was organised by the Palestinian Return Centre as part of its campaign calling for the UK Government to "officially apologise for its past colonial crimes in Palestine. //
// One can criticize Gromit but it's unusual to set up a one sided meeting to do so. //
It is not at all unusual, especially if it is part of a campaign. Most campaign meetings are biased on the side of the campaign. Did the campaign to leave the EU have people chairing them who were not pro brexit? Of course they were. This was not a discussion with a neutral independent chairperson, it was a campaign to get a particular outcome.
Were they talking about these Palestinians ?
Palestinians: Jihadi-Style Child Abuse
by Khaled Abu Toameh • October 27, 2016 at 5:00 am
Children in this world do not dream about becoming doctors, pilots or engineers; an entire generation of Palestinians, particularly those in the Gaza Strip, has been raised on the glorification of suicide bombers and anyone who kills a Jew.
Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other radical groups see children as future "soldiers" in the war to eliminate Israel. They raise children to regard to suicide bombers and jihadis as role models.
This form of child abuse does not seem to bother human rights organizations or UNICEF, whose declared goal is to "work for a world in which every child has a fair chance in life and a right to survive, thrive and fulfill their potential..." UNICEF apparently does not believe its mandate extends to Palestinian children, who are exploited to serve the interests of Islamist groups.
In the view of human rights organizations, recruiting Palestinian children to the ranks of Islamist terror groups does not constitute child abuse.
What is the world prepared to do in order to combat this child abuse? UNICEF and other international bodies may not have time to deal with such issues at present, because they are too busy thinking about the next resolution to condemn Israel.
Palestinians: Jihadi-Style Child Abuse
by Khaled Abu Toameh • October 27, 2016 at 5:00 am
Children in this world do not dream about becoming doctors, pilots or engineers; an entire generation of Palestinians, particularly those in the Gaza Strip, has been raised on the glorification of suicide bombers and anyone who kills a Jew.
Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other radical groups see children as future "soldiers" in the war to eliminate Israel. They raise children to regard to suicide bombers and jihadis as role models.
This form of child abuse does not seem to bother human rights organizations or UNICEF, whose declared goal is to "work for a world in which every child has a fair chance in life and a right to survive, thrive and fulfill their potential..." UNICEF apparently does not believe its mandate extends to Palestinian children, who are exploited to serve the interests of Islamist groups.
In the view of human rights organizations, recruiting Palestinian children to the ranks of Islamist terror groups does not constitute child abuse.
What is the world prepared to do in order to combat this child abuse? UNICEF and other international bodies may not have time to deal with such issues at present, because they are too busy thinking about the next resolution to condemn Israel.
Khaled Abu Toameh
Another Gatestone Institute crackpot. A list of his articles can be found here. A paricular favourite, 'Palestinians: The Mafia of Destruction'.
http://
Another Gatestone Institute crackpot. A list of his articles can be found here. A paricular favourite, 'Palestinians: The Mafia of Destruction'.
http://
Gromit, //Another Gatestone Institute crackpot.//
He's rather more than that.
https:/
He's rather more than that.
https:/
by Giulio Meotti
October 23, 2016 at 6:00 am
https:/
If an imam violently protests something, the liberal elite always supports the false charge of "Islamophobia." If a peaceful protest is led by a Catholic bishop, the same elite always rejects it under the name of "freedom of expression."
The "Caliph" of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ridiculed by Charlie Hebdo, triggered self-censorship because of "hate speech," while the work of Chris Ofili "The Holy Virgin Mary," in which the mother of Jesus is covered with feces and images of genitalia, was defended by the New York Times as "free speech." Does this now mean that some religions are more equal than others?
On Halloween night, only the "Sexy Nun" is available, while "Caliph" Baghdadi can rape his Yazidi and Christian sex slaves with impunity.
The world's biggest shopping portal, Amazon, sells many Halloween costumes. One of the novelties in 2016 has been the "Sexy Burka", the typical obscurantist cloak that the Taliban and the Islamic State impose on women. But the sexy burqa, which on Amazon UK was priced at £18.99, did not last long.
The commercial colossus of Jeff Bezos removed the item from the website, after Amazon had been swamped with accusations of "racism", "Islamophobia," of marketing an Islamic garment with the white face of a model and using "a religious garment for commercial purposes". "You are disgusting, my culture is not your costume", wrote many users of the Islamic faith. Others used a less adorable tone: "Whoever you are, you should fear Allah. This is not a joke."
A spokesman for Amazon promptly responded: "All Marketplace sellers must follow our selling guidelines and those who don't will be subject to action including potential removal of their account. The product in question is no longer available".
So that Halloween parody of the global symbol of female oppression has been censored. It is because Islamic veils contradict Western values of freedom, equality and human dignity so totally that this relativistic progressive mentality defends these Islamic veils, as it does the burkini, with loyalty.
But here also lies a double standard. What about the "Sexy Nun" Halloween costume that mocks the Catholic Church? Despite the protests of many Catholics customers, the "Sexy Nun" is still on sale at Amazon. Is it not a form of "Christianophobia"? Also, a nun is a religious figure, while a burqa is mere cloth.
Spot the offensive costume -- or the hypocrisy. Online retailer Amazon removed the "Sexy Burka" costume (left) after accusations of "Islamophobia." But despite the protests of many Catholics customers, the "Sexy Nun" (right) is still on sale at Amazon.
http://
Take The Guardian, the most famous British liberal-left newspaper. When the Pussy Riot performers put on their supposedly offensive 3-minute show in Moscow's Christ the Saviour Cathedral, for which two of the three performers served jail time rather than repudiate the text (the third apologized to avoid jail), the paper defended them as "pure protest poetry." When the political group PEGIDA called to protest against Islamization in Germany, the same media blasted it as "a vampire we must slay." The same double standard also emerged during the battle to build a mosque near Ground Zero, when the liberal media sided with the Muslim community.
In January 2006, Norway's most famous cartoonist, Finn Graff, announced that he was censoring himself over Mohammed. Graff never had a problem in making fun of Christians, whom he depicted as wearing brown shirts and swastikas. Graff had also penned a number of controversial drawings against Israel, one of which showed the Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin as the commander of a Nazi concentration camp.
October 23, 2016 at 6:00 am
https:/
If an imam violently protests something, the liberal elite always supports the false charge of "Islamophobia." If a peaceful protest is led by a Catholic bishop, the same elite always rejects it under the name of "freedom of expression."
The "Caliph" of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ridiculed by Charlie Hebdo, triggered self-censorship because of "hate speech," while the work of Chris Ofili "The Holy Virgin Mary," in which the mother of Jesus is covered with feces and images of genitalia, was defended by the New York Times as "free speech." Does this now mean that some religions are more equal than others?
On Halloween night, only the "Sexy Nun" is available, while "Caliph" Baghdadi can rape his Yazidi and Christian sex slaves with impunity.
The world's biggest shopping portal, Amazon, sells many Halloween costumes. One of the novelties in 2016 has been the "Sexy Burka", the typical obscurantist cloak that the Taliban and the Islamic State impose on women. But the sexy burqa, which on Amazon UK was priced at £18.99, did not last long.
The commercial colossus of Jeff Bezos removed the item from the website, after Amazon had been swamped with accusations of "racism", "Islamophobia," of marketing an Islamic garment with the white face of a model and using "a religious garment for commercial purposes". "You are disgusting, my culture is not your costume", wrote many users of the Islamic faith. Others used a less adorable tone: "Whoever you are, you should fear Allah. This is not a joke."
A spokesman for Amazon promptly responded: "All Marketplace sellers must follow our selling guidelines and those who don't will be subject to action including potential removal of their account. The product in question is no longer available".
So that Halloween parody of the global symbol of female oppression has been censored. It is because Islamic veils contradict Western values of freedom, equality and human dignity so totally that this relativistic progressive mentality defends these Islamic veils, as it does the burkini, with loyalty.
But here also lies a double standard. What about the "Sexy Nun" Halloween costume that mocks the Catholic Church? Despite the protests of many Catholics customers, the "Sexy Nun" is still on sale at Amazon. Is it not a form of "Christianophobia"? Also, a nun is a religious figure, while a burqa is mere cloth.
Spot the offensive costume -- or the hypocrisy. Online retailer Amazon removed the "Sexy Burka" costume (left) after accusations of "Islamophobia." But despite the protests of many Catholics customers, the "Sexy Nun" (right) is still on sale at Amazon.
http://
Take The Guardian, the most famous British liberal-left newspaper. When the Pussy Riot performers put on their supposedly offensive 3-minute show in Moscow's Christ the Saviour Cathedral, for which two of the three performers served jail time rather than repudiate the text (the third apologized to avoid jail), the paper defended them as "pure protest poetry." When the political group PEGIDA called to protest against Islamization in Germany, the same media blasted it as "a vampire we must slay." The same double standard also emerged during the battle to build a mosque near Ground Zero, when the liberal media sided with the Muslim community.
In January 2006, Norway's most famous cartoonist, Finn Graff, announced that he was censoring himself over Mohammed. Graff never had a problem in making fun of Christians, whom he depicted as wearing brown shirts and swastikas. Graff had also penned a number of controversial drawings against Israel, one of which showed the Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin as the commander of a Nazi concentration camp.
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Asma Al-Assad Cannot Return To The Uk
News10 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.