Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
How Was This Ever Going To Be A 'silent Rally'?
125 Answers
How damaging does this reflect on Tommy Robinson?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by agchristie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Naomi - //The bile that's spewed at Tommy Robinson would be better directed at those who are clearly our enemies…. but it isn’t. Strange world. //
Speaking personally - unlike some on here I never do anything else - I am not 'spitting bile' at 'Mr Robinson' - merely pointing him out as the attention-seeking self-important self-righteous fool that he is.
As for 'spitting bile' at those who are our enemies - I like think that such an approach towards Islamist murderers can be taken as read - rather like not bothering to post that the sun rose this morning.
If, in the interests of balance, you wish me to direct similar contempt on the enemies of us all, please consider it done.
The problem is, it's the same fundamental attitude of self-righteousness and unshakeable belief that your view entitles you to direct action that motivates both sets of people.
‘Mr Robinson’'s only saving grace is that his action is confined to organising and encouraging drunken violent posturing, not bombing and murdering innocent people.
Speaking personally - unlike some on here I never do anything else - I am not 'spitting bile' at 'Mr Robinson' - merely pointing him out as the attention-seeking self-important self-righteous fool that he is.
As for 'spitting bile' at those who are our enemies - I like think that such an approach towards Islamist murderers can be taken as read - rather like not bothering to post that the sun rose this morning.
If, in the interests of balance, you wish me to direct similar contempt on the enemies of us all, please consider it done.
The problem is, it's the same fundamental attitude of self-righteousness and unshakeable belief that your view entitles you to direct action that motivates both sets of people.
‘Mr Robinson’'s only saving grace is that his action is confined to organising and encouraging drunken violent posturing, not bombing and murdering innocent people.
Naomi - I don’t wish to appear argumentative, or pedantic, but I don’t ‘usually' say that – I say it when it is appropriate – and in this case, I don’t believe it is.
But if you wish to raise the concept of perception, I know you far too well to believe that you perceive that an absence of condemnation equates to tacit approval or agreement.
In terms of terrorist activity, to imply that anyone on this site embraces or condones such actions is obviously something with which you would never wish to be associated.
If I have misunderstood your introduction – wrongly in my view – of the concept of perception, then of course I am open to correction.
But if you wish to raise the concept of perception, I know you far too well to believe that you perceive that an absence of condemnation equates to tacit approval or agreement.
In terms of terrorist activity, to imply that anyone on this site embraces or condones such actions is obviously something with which you would never wish to be associated.
If I have misunderstood your introduction – wrongly in my view – of the concept of perception, then of course I am open to correction.
It is an interesting piece and adds an extra layer of information, watched as much as I dare with the shouty bits turned low for upstairs neighbours sake.
Perhaps it serves to tell us that any protest arranged , word will spread and those unwelcome will appear - one could say well intentioned but ill judged if being kind.
I'm sure others will have other ideas.
Perhaps it serves to tell us that any protest arranged , word will spread and those unwelcome will appear - one could say well intentioned but ill judged if being kind.
I'm sure others will have other ideas.
This from Tommy Robinson's new organ about the sponsors:
https:/
Defer normal prejudices for a moment and consider some of the co-organizers of the "Tommy Robinson" demo and their stated aims. (Each would speak at the rally.)
Who Shazia Hobbs? (Ex Muslim woman who understands arranged marriages - not an eighteen year old attention seeker).
Who Mohan Singh? (Hint: founded "Sikh Awareness Society", a movement created because some Sikhs thought twenty (yes, twenty) years ago - rightly or wrongly - that specifically Muslim gangs were grooming their daughters, shared concepts of "honour" making it less likely that a Sikh girl would spill the beans on the rapists than an English girl, and this long before the aspiring rapists had worked out that social services, local councillors and MPs, police chiefs and (wait for it) "community leaders" would collude (given a bit of a nudge - didn't have to be very hard) in order to ensure that "social cohesion" was more important than the prosecution of rape.
One intention of the demo was to point out that Andy Burnham
had resisted all anti-terrorist measures, that at least twelve known jihadi sympathisers were (correction are) living within ten minutes of Didsbury mosque, and that the Burnhams, Mays, Camerons etc are, by sins of commission or omission, partly complicit in this slaughter, its predecessors and, of course, those to come.
The pig-head chewing geezers of the EDL (if they actually existed at that demo) did nothing to assist this message and everything to bolster the extraordinary fiction that people who object to rape and murder are hate-mongerers if they point their fingers at the group which is primarily responsible.
Anybody read Watership Down? You don't respond to evil by lighting candles, do art and then claim your cowardly resignation as a moral virtue. You resist and attack it.
e
https:/
Defer normal prejudices for a moment and consider some of the co-organizers of the "Tommy Robinson" demo and their stated aims. (Each would speak at the rally.)
Who Shazia Hobbs? (Ex Muslim woman who understands arranged marriages - not an eighteen year old attention seeker).
Who Mohan Singh? (Hint: founded "Sikh Awareness Society", a movement created because some Sikhs thought twenty (yes, twenty) years ago - rightly or wrongly - that specifically Muslim gangs were grooming their daughters, shared concepts of "honour" making it less likely that a Sikh girl would spill the beans on the rapists than an English girl, and this long before the aspiring rapists had worked out that social services, local councillors and MPs, police chiefs and (wait for it) "community leaders" would collude (given a bit of a nudge - didn't have to be very hard) in order to ensure that "social cohesion" was more important than the prosecution of rape.
One intention of the demo was to point out that Andy Burnham
had resisted all anti-terrorist measures, that at least twelve known jihadi sympathisers were (correction are) living within ten minutes of Didsbury mosque, and that the Burnhams, Mays, Camerons etc are, by sins of commission or omission, partly complicit in this slaughter, its predecessors and, of course, those to come.
The pig-head chewing geezers of the EDL (if they actually existed at that demo) did nothing to assist this message and everything to bolster the extraordinary fiction that people who object to rape and murder are hate-mongerers if they point their fingers at the group which is primarily responsible.
Anybody read Watership Down? You don't respond to evil by lighting candles, do art and then claim your cowardly resignation as a moral virtue. You resist and attack it.
e
Latest Posts
Crosswords8 mins ago
Is Keir Starmer Really Going To Arrest...
News27 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles45 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.