Verbal
-
Posts
6,867 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Verbal
-
-
May will lose this.
But the format is anaemic - especially the distinctly outdated Paxman inquisition. And the twosome should be on stage together.
Oh well, TV formats designed and imposed by politicians and their SPADs - what more could we expect?
-
Everything you say is of course correct but you miss two important points.
1. They were not soldiers yes, but they believed they were. That's quite important when you are trying to understand their motivation behind what they do.
2. When a Muslim says "brothers" or "my people" they just mean people of the same faith - wether they have been to the places or actually met the people is irrelevant.
1. I don't think anyone outside their tiny nihilist clique gives any credence to the idea that they were 'soldiers'. And frankly, if anyone did, they might be the sort of people to watch out for.
2. The only people who call others 'brother' are usually hectoring fundamentalists. Even more so when you hear the word 'sister' directed at a Muslim woman - it is usually followed by an aggressive diatribe about some offence she's caused by not covering her head/elbows/ankles/tip of her nose.
As for 'my people' I can honestly say that in more than 30 years traveling throughout South Asia and the Middle East, as well as having extensive connections with the Muslim 'community' here (the idea of a community is such a mirage), I have never heard this expression.
So no, secular Muslims, who make up the majority, do not use this terminology, and the suggestion that there's a set form of language like this that applies to all Muslims is simply wrong.
Salafist jihadis are set apart not just from us but from the Muslim diaspora generally. They are lured in by triggers playing on their own psychological weaknesses.
There's some research somewhere (which I'll have to look up again) that shows that jihadist recruits prepared to carry out random suicide attacks have identifiable mindsets, which always include (from memory): a belief that the world has gone to hell; that change by peaceful means is impossible; that sacrificing oneself is honourable and attracts the ultimate reward; that God-sanctified ends justify brutal means; and, above all, that by these means it's possible to create a Utopia. They are also heavily susceptible to conspiracy theories.
While you might find the odd one or two of these mindsets among 'normal' populations, including Muslims, you'll only find the full lethal combination in the Salafist death cultists.
-
Best tell that to Boris Johnson, David Cameron and the former head of MI5 then because they all agree with Corbyn on this.
The words of one of the 7/7 bombers:
"Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world.
And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters.
Until we feel security, you will be our targets. And until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight.
We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation."
From one of Lee Rigbys killers:
"I am a soldier of Allah," he told the jury. "It is a war between Islam and those militaries that intervene in Muslim lands."
I don't see any validity in taking the word of two preening Salafist narcissists as evidence of anything.
Mohammad Siddique Khan's reference to 'my people' is self-aggrandising bull****. 'His people'? He grew up in Beeston in Leeds. He had zero contact with anyone who actually suffered through anything you'd remotely describe as war.
Michael Adebolajo was born in Lambeth in South London and grew up a Christian.
What both of them have in common is that were radicalised by members of al-Muhajiroun, the extreme Salafist group run variously by Abu Hamsa and Anjem Choudary.
Neither of them was a 'soldier' of anything - just over-eager recruits to a death cult, willing to kill anyone in acts of self-glorification.
-
Presumably you defend the contents of this. So in what way is it 'extreme Zionism' to defend Israel's right to exist or to say that one is 'pro-Israel'?
-
This one seems to be a proper academic article from the London school of economics:
Let's leave aside for the moment that this report was written by a committed Corbynist.
https://think-left.org/tag/bart-cammaerts/
Let's also leave aside the dodgy methodology. (Under the report's own terms, if Corbyn does something stupid, like appoint only men to key ministries, and he's reported as doing that stupid thing, the LSE document counts the report as 'negative'. And where is the control analysis? Why wasn't the national newspaper coverage accorded to David Cameron set side by side with the coverage of Corbyn?)
And let's acknowledge the non-rocket-science fact that the bulk of the newspaper industry is right-wing. Always has been.
There are two newspapers in the LSE list which are broadly left-leaning and, at election time, broadly Labour-supporting - the Daily Mirror and The Guardian. Both of these newspapers have been thought to be so beyond the pale by the Corbyn inner circle that they have been denied access to the great leader at times when Sky, the Telegraph, and other right-wing-owned media were not. The Guardian site, furthermore, has been bombarded with a constant stream of hysterical abuse by Corbynists for failing to toe the Corbyn line. All the reporting the guardian has done - including breaking the Snowden story and countless investigations into social injustices - counts for nothing because the paper fails to see that its primary duty is to be a Pravda-like fan sheet for the wonder that is Jeremy.
So how horribly biased against Corbyn are the Mirror and the Guardian?
By this pro-Corbyn report, not at all.
Just under 20% of articles in the Guardian are classed as 'positive', and more than 70% of articles are either positive or neutral. Only around 16% are 'critical', and a tiny fraction - about 2% - are 'antagonistic'.
In the Mirror, the picture's much the same. Very slightly more are positive - a shade over 20%, and around 67% are either positive or neutral. About 7% re 'antagonistic'.
On the statistical evidence, neither of the newspapers is, overall, 'anti-Corbyn'. So why do hysterical Corbynists scram loudest at the 'establishment tools' at the Mirror and the Guardian?
The authors conclude by lumping the Guardian and the Mirror into a general condemnation of the press as the enemies of democracy.
This is bad research that's politically loaded. But if even bad research shows that the Mirror and the Guardian report Corbyn fairly, maybe it's time for you and other fanboys to stop whinnying.
-
To the 'kill us, we deserve it' Stop the War acolytes, here, from the horse's mouth*, is the 'number one reason' given by ISIS for its hatred of the West:
'We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah - whether you realise it or not - by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you.'
*From Dabiq 15, if you want to risk an MI5 file.
-
If the recent polls are anything to go by (yes, I know... "polls"... chortle... etc), it's beginning to look like this prophecy might not have been as bonkers as it first seemed...
When Neil Kinnock led the Labour party into the 1987 general election - the one after the disastrous Foot election of 1983 - he got within 4% of Thatcher in the opinion polls. Thatcher's majority on election day was 102.
-
To be fair he probably is correct.
Former MI5 chief Baroness Manningham-Buller told the Iraq Inquiry in 2010 that the 2003 invasion of Iraq had "undoubtedly increased" the terror threat to the UK and had radicalised "a few among a generation who saw our involvement in Iraq, on top of our involvement in Afghanistan, as being an attack on Islam".
The grievance psychosis that drives the Islamist killers is more generalised. Think of the some of the most recent targets with the heaviest casualties. The Bataclan in Paris, during a music concert (130 dead). Manchester, during a pop concert (23 dead). Pulse, in Florida, a gay nightclub (49 dead).
These are venues that were full of young people enjoying themselves - a HUGELY transgressive act in the eyes of a religious sect hell bent on viciously bullying people into cowed silence and retreat.
They target venues like these with no thought about some vague concept of solidarity with other Muslims - in fact, MOST of their victims are actually fellow Muslims.
So it's even more depressing, after Manchester, to hear people like Corbyn winding themselves up with their tedious 'kill us, we deserve it' speeches. He not only misses the point spectacularly; he manages to find one of several points of agreement with ISIS themselves. The Alt Left absolutely revel in the unspecified accusation that 'the West' is to blame for everything - an argument repeated ad nauseum by the ISIS media centre.
Aside from everything else, this victim-blaming of the West is unintentionally racist - because it denies agency to Iraqi dictators or ISIS killers or Syrian death squads, who apparently only do unspeakable things because we made them do it.
-
The simple, indisputable fact is if we hadn't had mass muslim immigration we wouldn't have this problem now.
People wanted muslim immigration, this is what we've got. That's a fact.
Is the wrong answer.
Britain's Muslim population is under 3 million, or around 4.4% of the total population. From time to time, the country experiences Islamist violence, usually 'home grown'.
India's Muslim population is around 172 million, or just over 14% of the total population - even though it's predominantly Hindu, it's the second largest Muslim country in the world. The country rarely experiences Islamist violence, and when it does, it is almost always rooted in activities across its borders with Pakistan. Terrorist attacks from Islamists is almost never 'home grown'.
There is no correlation between Muslim population size and the incident of home-grown Islamist violence.
Nor is there a correlation between 'multiculturalism' and Islamist violence. France pursues a diametrically opposite philosophy of a single national identity, and its rate of Islamist violence is higher than the UK's.
-
I think the most productive conversations to be had are those that acknowledge that Islam is very much a part of this and discuss how it can be combatted by a number of parties. My suggestion is that a lot more needs to be done within the mosques themselves.
A awful lot of mosques and imams already do this, and it's usually ineffective.
Unlike, say, Catholicism, Islam is a religion without leaders. There is no 'government' in the literal sense of something like the Vatican, and there is no Muslim equivalent of the Papal hierarchy. However, the Saudi government presides over the two most important sites in the religion, Mecca and Medina. As guardians, the Saudis have enormous moral authority. The Saudi government has frequently condemned Islamist terrorism, and has led many crackdowns against Al Qaeda and ISIS offshoots.
But what they haven't done is say that the underlying ideology of the terrorists, Salafism, should be shunned. Without this active discouragement, Salafism will continue to flourish. It is an ideology that amounts to a death cult, but more especially fuels deeply corrosive psychosis of grievance - a hatred that's off the scale. (This is at least one point of contact with the Alt Left, who espouse the 'kill us, we deserve it' meme, by sneering that 'the West' is the first and final cause of Islamists' hatred).
Salafism is, at its heart, a repudiation, not of the West, but of the tiniest perceived deviation from a brutally medieval interpretation of Islam. It is a cover for violent bullying, torture and murder - all justified in the name of 'cleansing' the religion of its inadequate believers. In the wake of that ideology lies an epic trail of dead and broken bodies.
Will the Saudis repudiate Salafism? Of course not. The hate that threatens them is also the hate that protects them.
-
It's being reported that Abedi's father used to work for Gaddafi's internal 'security' but fell out with the regime and went to Saudi Arabia, where he was indoctrinated by Wahhabi extremists. It's likely he infected the rest of his family with this vicious garbage.
Donald Trump just signed off on a colossal $110 billion arms deal with the same Wahhabi-dominated Saudi Arabia, which has been exporting its murderous ideology since 1979. Trump removed from his speech announcing the deal any mention of a connection between the Saudis and terrorism.
On the same visit, Trump sabre-rattled at Iran as a vast exporter of terrorism. Whatever one might say about a brutal regime, Trump was saying this just as more progressive forces this week won a general election there. He might also have to think hard to come up with any Iranian state-inspired terrorist assaults in New York, Paris, Washington, London or Manchester.
Wahhabism is the problem - Wahhabism and its Salafist variants are almost always the problem when people in shopping malls, hotels and concerts are cut down by nail bombs and other paraphernalia of mass killing.
-
What the **** is a "Jeremy Corbyn bag"? .
OMG! I never leave home without mine!
http://www.leftwardtendency.co.uk/product-page/jeremy-corbyn-pop-art-tote-bag
One size fits all ****wits.
-
I'll just leave this here for the inevitable scumbag freak-out.
As so often, documentaries have the most interesting things to say...
-
A bit of cultural enrichment. Never did any European country any harm.
Remember folks, there's literally nothing we can do about this. Nothing whatsoever.
Just give it a rest for a little while.
-
Hi Frbl. How are you?
You might not know, because you prob ain't upto date with papsweb, but corbyn is actually v.likely to win the upcoming election. Probably quite a large margin too! Pap has made quite a lot of memes about it, and videos. Pap has also been door-to-door canvassing for corbyn, but I think only in Liverpool, so don't worry, it shouldn't cost Labour too many votes nationally.
Sounds like quite a few on here have been brainwashed by the tory press and their anti-corbyn agenda! I have been hearing quite a lot about that. I should watch out for that, if I was you!
Thanks for the bulletin, Brian. I’m not utterly surprised to hear that the humourless homunculus has become a fulltime member of the cult. One or two of his **** holsters evidently post on here – no idea how they could stoop so low.
-
They don't want corbyn annihilated. He needs to stay on. PMQ could get v.embarrassing for May if she had to face a politician.
Quite so, Brian. But are you going to tell the fanboys or am I, that they and May are on the same page re: Corbyn's annihilation/ascension on 8 June?
-
I feel terribly sorry for Nia Griffith. Like Clive Lewis before her, she's espoused and defended the longstanding and recently reaffirmed Labour party policy that Trident will be renewed. She's also defending an explicit Labour party manifesto commitment made only a few days ago.
But she's been thoroughly undermined by Corbyn and Lady Nugee - the exact same culprits who chopped Lewis off at the knees and whose behaviour led to his resignation. Until that point, remember, Lewis was a committed Corbynist.
So the fact of the matter is that Labour is fighting on a key manifesto pledge which the leader of the Labour party and the shadow foreign secretary both reject.
Perhaps fanboy, in his long awaited in-his-own-words explanation as to why anyone should vote for Labour, would care to include an explanation of this complete mess?
-
So you're voting for Theresa?
Instead of this lazy trolling, why don't you make a detailed case for anyone to vote for Corbyn's Labour. No cutting-and-pasting, no deathless one-liners - just you, all alone with your own thoughts, expressed in your own words.
Go...
-
Glad to hear you agree and look forward to you voting Labour.
If only it didn't require a shower to vote for Labour, given its deeply morally corrupt leadership, egged on by cultish, doe-eyed dimwits.
John McDonnell's contribution to the peace process - which no doubt in your mind was profound - was to say in 1986 that 'the ballot, the bomb and the bullet' would reunite Ireland. He also took aim [sic] at some local Labour councillors in London who objected to meetings by saying ('joking' was his get-out) that they were 'gutless wimps' whose minds would be changed by knee capping.
Diane Abbott, in 1984, said in an interview that 'Ireland is our struggle - every defeat for the British state is a defeat for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.'
This is aside from Corbyn's own declarations in support of Republican violence, which can be read from numerous incidents, including a statement by Labour Briefing, which he helped run as an editorial board member, 'the British only sit up and notice Northern Ireland when they are bombed into it.' He also attended commemoration services of dead IRA terrorists for seven years running.
If this is 'dialogue' then it's the dialogue of the deaf conducted by the terminally stupid - unless you can post on here even the slightest bit of evidence that Corbyn really was engaged in dialogue, which invariably means talking to BOTH sides. How would it be 'dialogue' otherwise? Got any links to all those meetings he MUST have had with Loyalist militia leaders? Or with anyone other than his 'friends' in Hamas and Hezbollah who might be, you know, Israeli?
It's not just that Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell - the leading triumvirate of the party now - are grandstanding, narcissistic virtue signallers. They took it upon themselves to attempt to normalise terrorist violence, and even to praise it. All fine - if you defend freedom of speech you have to defend their right to say what they said. But don't expect British voters to trust them with the levers of the very power they wished was destroyed.
To be clear, there are plenty of good people in Labour. It's tragic - especially given the banal horrors of May - that none of them are in the leadership of the party.
-
And their investigation found out what?
That in a 30-year career defined by non-achievement, Corbyn was as usual merely a grandstanding, self-aggrandising waffler, who invited senior Republicans on to the Commons terrace to polish his right-on credentials.
See also: his protest at the trial of the IRA men actually found guilty of the Brighton bombing.
(Seen the file.)
-
Democrats are falling for fake news about Russia, Why liberal conspiracy theories are flourishing in the age of Trump.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch.
None of the three twitterers in that article are Democrats. Louise Mensch is a former Tory MP, and Taylor and Schindler are registered Republicans. What they represent is a quite traditional Cold War wing of the Republican party, allied with a deferential stance towards what the call the 'IC' - the FBI, CIA NSA, etc.
So for them, Trump is a monstrous offence for one thing only - the Russia thing, and his defence of Flynn and Manafort in particular. They've turned a story about Trump's inveterate corruption, and his dealings with equally corrupt lobbyists, into a story about Trump's non-existent traitorous Machiavellism.
Nothing to do with 'liberals' and Democrats. Just another right-wing conspiracy theory which, like all conspiracy theories, tells you more about the 'theorists' than anything else.
-
take away his dead balls and he is at best, Average.
He might say the same about you.
-
The cover of this week's Time magazine. This is pretty staggering.
https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/865164921054666752
There's an animated version, with sound, that's even better (for those with better posting skills than me...)
-
What is it with politicians and numbers? Michael Gove's turn this morning...
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/michael-gove-numbers-hopelessly-wrong/
Not just Gove. Maybot herself was at it this week as well. Since when was incompetence evidence of 'strong and stable' government?
And as for the Tory party manifesto - talk about missing an open goal. It's a truly terrible piece of work that in any other election would have Tory candidates watching the polls with their nails bitten down to their wrists.
As it is, May's missed open goal is easily than matched by Corbyn's and his front-bench's repeated own goals.
General election? June 8th?
in The Lounge
Posted
If the May can run a campaign this badly, you wonder how on earth she'll manage Brexit.
Corbyn, on the other hand, has done pretty well so long as he's mindered (the Women's Hour debacle notwithstanding). The evidence of the sidelining of the deathly Suemas Milne and his replacement by experienced GMB campaigners is a smarter, crisper Corbyn who for the most part has stayed on message.
Corbyn's campaign has also made a greater effort than the Tories might have predicted to reach out beyond its base. Corbyn is the last person you'd expect to steal his core slogan from Tony Blair, but that's exactly what this election is being fought on - and it's a pretty hotly contested piece of Blairism at that. For 'the many not the few' is a direct lift from Blair's rewriting of Labour's Clause IV - part of the great 'watering down' of Labour's socialist declaration of faith.