By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Hard to disagree with anything mentioned. I too think he speaks a lot of sense. Thoroughly enjoy the debates of his on YouTube. Also, I always find it amusing when he becomes more animated, watching someone posh get irate is quite the site, although he's not on the Starkey level when it comes to that.
Hard to disagree with anything mentioned. I too think he speaks a lot of sense. Thoroughly enjoy the debates of his on YouTube. Also, I always find it amusing when he becomes more animated, watching someone posh get irate is quite the site, although he's not on the Starkey level when it comes to that.
I concur,Ebo doesn't like him though.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
If there are any Mosque's protecting people whose sole purpose in their miserable life's is to become suicide bombers then those Mosque's should be shut down and the supporters of terrorism that frequent the place should be arrested under the terrorism act for wishing harm on the Country they live in, its absolutely fuking ridiculous that we allow this to continue and for those in authority to have kept quiet and pretend that it was never gonna happen, they themselves should be sacked and arrested for gross incompetency..
Country is run by fuking Snowflakes who live in a world where they think that nothing bad is ever gonna happen.
I don't usually agree with David Aaronovitch, but in this case he's spot on.
As for Murray's article: "But it does not change the bigger picture in which it becomes increasingly clear that the far-left and their allies in Britain are prepared to do and say absolutely anything in order to win."
It's as if the far-right, or even the moderate right, don't do this. This is modern politicking employed by both sides, however much we dislike it, and it's disingenuous to imply it's solely the behaviour of the "far-left".
He does raise some good points, and I know he's raised the issue of Saudi Arabia in funding Wahhabism, but he refuses to criticise the unintended consequences of Western foreign policy in giving these extremists more armament to their sick cause.
As with Islamic fundamentalism, there needs to be serious acknowledgement of the growth of far-right extremism in this country. The two go hand-in-hand. Has he explored why there may be a rise in Islamophobic hate crimes and violence, or does he just limit his focus to Islamic fundamentalism? If it's the latter, then he's guilty of engaging in the same hypocrisy he claims to detest.
Nobody can deny that language has consequences; The Sun and the Daily Fail are both guilty of spewing out hate-filled propaganda that only escalates the problem. That Murray also writes for The Sun does him no favour.
I don't usually agree with David Aaronovitch, but in this case he's spot on.
As for Murray's article: "But it does not change the bigger picture in which it becomes increasingly clear that the far-left and their allies in Britain are prepared to do and say absolutely anything in order to win."
It's as if the far-right, or even the moderate right, don't do this. This is modern politicking employed by both sides, however much we dislike it, and it's disingenuous to imply it's solely the behaviour of the "far-left".
He does raise some good points, and I know he's raised the issue of Saudi Arabia in funding Wahhabism, but he refuses to criticise the unintended consequences of Western foreign policy in giving these extremists more armament to their sick cause.
As with Islamic fundamentalism, there needs to be serious acknowledgement of the growth of far-right extremism in this country. The two go hand-in-hand. Has he explored why there may be a rise in Islamophobic hate crimes and violence, or does he just limit his focus to Islamic fundamentalism? If it's the latter, then he's guilty of engaging in the same hypocrisy he claims to detest.
Nobody can deny that language has consequences; The Sun and the Daily Fail are both guilty of spewing out hate-filled propaganda that only escalates the problem. That Murray also writes for The Sun does him no favour.
I don't usually agree with David Aaronovitch, but in this case he's spot on.
As for Murray's article: "But it does not change the bigger picture in which it becomes increasingly clear that the far-left and their allies in Britain are prepared to do and say absolutely anything in order to win."
It's as if the far-right, or even the moderate right, don't do this. This is modern politicking employed by both sides, however much we dislike it, and it's disingenuous to imply it's solely the behaviour of the "far-left".
He does raise some good points, and I know he's raised the issue of Saudi Arabia in funding Wahhabism, but he refuses to criticise the unintended consequences of Western foreign policy in giving these extremists more armament to their sick cause.
As with Islamic fundamentalism, there needs to be serious acknowledgement of the growth of far-right extremism in this country. The two go hand-in-hand. Has he explored why there may be a rise in Islamophobic hate crimes and violence, or does he just limit his focus to Islamic fundamentalism? If it's the latter, then he's guilty of engaging in the same hypocrisy he claims to detest.
Nobody can deny that language has consequences; The Sun and the Daily Fail are both guilty of spewing out hate-filled propaganda that only escalates the problem. That Murray also writes for The Sun does him no favour.
Far left, far right. 2 sides of the same sh*tty coin if you ask me (not that you were)
I didn't pay much heed to that article in the OP, largely for the reason you mentioned. An article about hypocrisy filled with hypocrisy isn't a good start.
You being king of the liberal lefties would like to punch someone?
That's not very liberal leftie of you John.
I wish you'd stop deliberately conflating liberalism when the leftism. They are absolutely not the same thing. Ebo told you the other day he's no liberal and I agree with him.
I wish you'd stop deliberately conflating liberalism when the leftism. They are absolutely not the same thing. Ebo told you the other day he's no liberal and I agree with him.
Well I never thought I'd get a bite out of you anyway.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
I don't usually agree with David Aaronovitch, but in this case he's spot on.
As for Murray's article: "But it does not change the bigger picture in which it becomes increasingly clear that the far-left and their allies in Britain are prepared to do and say absolutely anything in order to win."
It's as if the far-right, or even the moderate right, don't do this. This is modern politicking employed by both sides, however much we dislike it, and it's disingenuous to imply it's solely the behaviour of the "far-left".
He does raise some good points, and I know he's raised the issue of Saudi Arabia in funding Wahhabism, but he refuses to criticise the unintended consequences of Western foreign policy in giving these extremists more armament to their sick cause.
As with Islamic fundamentalism, there needs to be serious acknowledgement of the growth of far-right extremism in this country. The two go hand-in-hand. Has he explored why there may be a rise in Islamophobic hate crimes and violence, or does he just limit his focus to Islamic fundamentalism? If it's the latter, then he's guilty of engaging in the same hypocrisy he claims to detest.
Nobody can deny that language has consequences; The Sun and the Daily Fail are both guilty of spewing out hate-filled propaganda that only escalates the problem. That Murray also writes for The Sun does him no favour.
I agree that there are both anti-muslim and anti-islam ideals. I also agree that the anti-muslim is closely linked to racism. However, I do believe "islamophobia" is a poor word for it, and thus I agree with Murray in his "crock " statement. Islamophobia...by definition should be about an irrational fear of the faith "Islam", and not the people "Muslims". To conflate the two seperate things, then those who use this as a stick are as wrong as those on the right unable to seperate the two ideas too. It was a word introduced to restrict criticism of the faith by conflating it with the followers, a case of special pleading.
I think an honest exchange is needed to stop the silliness. I would be deemed islamophobic by most people on the left, mainly because I find the faith to be barbaric and absurd based on the texts, which I have made the effort to read. I have come to the conclusion through a rational reading of these texts, and also looking at the laws outlined in Islamic run countries, based on the Qu'ran and the teachings of Mohammed, being incompatible with my moral compass. I believe both arms of this gives a route to a rational reasoning behind rejecting Islam as a faith. Add this to the events done in the name of Islam being seen almost daily, and the fear becomes even less irrational.
If the term was "muslimphobic" then it would be easier to clear up. His historical "anti-semitism" comparison has merit due to historical set up, but it does not mean we should automatically conflate Islam (ideology) with Muslims (followers).
The other justifications outlined, are for anti Muslim stances, a more race based argument. Being anti Muslim to me is a hate crime, and has no justification for anyone to be it. Here this is an irrational fear.
That being said, both stances can instill violent behaviour in the far right. Justification for attacks can be brought up for either being anti-islam, or anti muslim. Both extremes are capable of being blind to rational thought, and I have heard many times Murray condemning the far right as much as the far left, just this article focussed on the one group.
The far right is getting dangerous again, and I would say they would justify it is in response to recent attacks. It's a horrible political atmosphere all around. I genuinely have no idea when or how this ends, but i feel the government lost its chance years ago at nipping all this in the bud.
The link you show is disturbing, as is a link within that article showing the response of people celebrating the London bridge attack on the Islamic terroism side.
You don't like him but he does raise sone good points?
One size rarely fits all. I agree with some things he says and others I don't. The suggestion that the Left's view is to turn a blind eye and hoping love will conquer (or words to that effect) is not true. Tackling Saudi Arabia, cutting of the supply to ISIS and working within communities to prevent radicalisation are just some of the ways being put forward by Corbyn. He raises some good points about how we deal with hate preachers but it is still pretty Party political for me.
You have mission in life to hold out your hand,
To help the other guy out,
Help your fellow man.
Stan Ridgway
I agree that there are both anti-muslim and anti-islam ideals. I also agree that the anti-muslim is closely linked to racism. However, I do believe "islamophobia" is a poor word for it, and thus I agree with Murray in his "crock " statement. Islamophobia...by definition should be about an irrational fear of the faith "Islam", and not the people "Muslims". To conflate the two seperate things, then those who use this as a stick are as wrong as those on the right unable to seperate the two ideas too. It was a word introduced to restrict criticism of the faith by conflating it with the followers, a case of special pleading.
I think an honest exchange is needed to stop the silliness. I would be deemed islamophobic by most people on the left, mainly because I find the faith to be barbaric and absurd based on the texts, which I have made the effort to read. I have come to the conclusion through a rational reading of these texts, and also looking at the laws outlined in Islamic run countries, based on the Qu'ran and the teachings of Mohammed, being incompatible with my moral compass. I believe both arms of this gives a route to a rational reasoning behind rejecting Islam as a faith. Add this to the events done in the name of Islam being seen almost daily, and the fear becomes even less irrational.
If the term was "muslimphobic" then it would be easier to clear up. His historical "anti-semitism" comparison has merit due to historical set up, but it does not mean we should automatically conflate Islam (ideology) with Muslims (followers).
The other justifications outlined, are for anti Muslim stances, a more race based argument. Being anti Muslim to me is a hate crime, and has no justification for anyone to be it. Here this is an irrational fear.
That being said, both stances can instill violent behaviour in the far right. Justification for attacks can be brought up for either being anti-islam, or anti muslim. Both extremes are capable of being blind to rational thought, and I have heard many times Murray condemning the far right as much as the far left, just this article focussed on the one group.
The far right is getting dangerous again, and I would say they would justify it is in response to recent attacks. It's a horrible political atmosphere all around. I genuinely have no idea when or how this ends, but i feel the government lost its chance years ago at nipping all this in the bud.
The link you show is disturbing, as is a link within that article showing the response of people celebrating the London bridge attack on the Islamic terroism side.
Islamophobia is, by every definition, a dislike or prejudice against Islam or the followers of Islam.
Turning the argument into one of semantics is a neat avoidance tactic as are the frankly tedious discussions about Islam not being a race, and people, therefore, not acting in a racist manner in attacking Moslems.
Being anti Moslem is, to anyone, a hate crime, as that is the legislation that applies.
The rejection of any faith is not a crime nor a prejudice, nor should it be regarded as such. By definition, the followers of any faith themselves reject the others at a fundamental level.
Extrapolating that rejection to a discrimination against those that do not reject it is where the problem sets in, and, as with the conflation of Israel and Jewish, there are occasions when many find it helpful to mask, or attempt to mask, a dislike or hatred of Moslems with a pretence that it's all about the religion itself.
This isn't, for avoidance of doubt, aimed as a response to your post but rather a continuation of the discussion.
Islamophobia is, by every definition, a dislike or prejudice against Islam or the followers of Islam.
Turning the argument into one of semantics is a neat avoidance tactic as are the frankly tedious discussions about Islam not being a race, and people, therefore, not acting in a racist manner in attacking Moslems.
Being anti Moslem is, to anyone, a hate crime, as that is the legislation that applies.
The rejection of any faith is not a crime nor a prejudice, nor should it be regarded as such. By definition, the followers of any faith themselves reject the others at a fundamental level.
Extrapolating that rejection to a discrimination against those that do not reject it is where the problem sets in, and, as with the conflation of Israel and Jewish, there are occasions when many find it helpful to mask, or attempt to mask, a dislike or hatred of Moslems with a pretence that it's all about the religion itself.
This isn't, for avoidance of doubt, aimed as a response to your post but rather a continuation of the discussion.
I don't wholly disagree with a thing written. However semantics are important in defining people when boxing people. Islamophobia was coined to deliberately conflate both the ideal and the follower as admitted by those who created it in late 70s Iran, around the time you saw the shift of western influence out of the country to regress back to a more fundamental following of islam. It was used as a tool to shut down very real criticism of Islam by claiming bigotry all around to silence.
It is used in the context to close down discussion, pretty much like the term "racist" where the discussion is always shifted to a person defending themselves against a slur rather than continuing the discussion at hand.
I agree, there are people who hide their real views behind anti-islam, but semantically speaking, they are in fact anti-muslim. Also, some hide racist tendencies behind anti-muslim and anti-islamic views too.
I agree that there are both anti-muslim and anti-islam ideals. I also agree that the anti-muslim is closely linked to racism. However, I do believe "islamophobia" is a poor word for it, and thus I agree with Murray in his "crock " statement. Islamophobia...by definition should be about an irrational fear of the faith "Islam", and not the people "Muslims". To conflate the two seperate things, then those who use this as a stick are as wrong as those on the right unable to seperate the two ideas too. It was a word introduced to restrict criticism of the faith by conflating it with the followers, a case of special pleading.
I think an honest exchange is needed to stop the silliness. I would be deemed islamophobic by most people on the left, mainly because I find the faith to be barbaric and absurd based on the texts, which I have made the effort to read. I have come to the conclusion through a rational reading of these texts, and also looking at the laws outlined in Islamic run countries, based on the Qu'ran and the teachings of Mohammed, being incompatible with my moral compass. I believe both arms of this gives a route to a rational reasoning behind rejecting Islam as a faith. Add this to the events done in the name of Islam being seen almost daily, and the fear becomes even less irrational.
If the term was "muslimphobic" then it would be easier to clear up. His historical "anti-semitism" comparison has merit due to historical set up, but it does not mean we should automatically conflate Islam (ideology) with Muslims (followers).
The other justifications outlined, are for anti Muslim stances, a more race based argument. Being anti Muslim to me is a hate crime, and has no justification for anyone to be it. Here this is an irrational fear.
That being said, both stances can instill violent behaviour in the far right. Justification for attacks can be brought up for either being anti-islam, or anti muslim. Both extremes are capable of being blind to rational thought, and I have heard many times Murray condemning the far right as much as the far left, just this article focussed on the one group.
The far right is getting dangerous again, and I would say they would justify it is in response to recent attacks. It's a horrible political atmosphere all around. I genuinely have no idea when or how this ends, but i feel the government lost its chance years ago at nipping all this in the bud.
The link you show is disturbing, as is a link within that article showing the response of people celebrating the London bridge attack on the Islamic terroism side.
"I think an honest exchange is needed to stop the silliness"
See this is the kind of thing we need where people need to come together to sort this country out for the better of everyone. I was thinking about Brexit for instance the other day and that Labour should have some kind of Shadow Brexit Minister who perhaps could be some involved,perhaps not directly but have some kind of input in the Dai Davis negotiations with Europe.
On a side note I think it would make a lot of people feel easier if there was some way to stop this silly newspaper war bollox evolving too because that's just going to get worse how the likes of that fuçking idiot Owen Jones can't see he's just as bad as the Mail/Sun is beyond me,he's like an angry teenager FFS.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
"I think an honest exchange is needed to stop the silliness"
See this is the kind of thing we need where people need to come together to sort this country out for the better of everyone. I was thinking about Brexit for instance the other day and that Labour should have some kind of Shadow Brexit Minister who perhaps could be some involved,perhaps not directly but have some kind of input in the Dai Davis negotiations with Europe.
On a side note I think it would make a lot of people feel easier if there was some way to stop this silly newspaper war bollox evolving too because that's just going to get worse how the likes of that fuçking idiot Owen Jones can't see he's just as bad as the Mail/Sun is beyond me,he's like an angry teenager FFS.
Completely agree about the media thing. I watch a lot of American news , mainly the bigger 3, CNN, Fox, MSNBC (I find them interesting, sad I know), and for as bad Fox's reputation for bias to republican, CNN/ MSNBC is equally, if not more so bias for democrats.
In the UK, Guardian has gone right (or us that left) off the deep end, the opposite pole of nuttiness as the Mail is on the right. Real news goes by the wayside of bias based opinion pieces.
Slighty off topic, It was sad to see Reuters top 5 stories earlier. Number 2 story, above the terrorist attack on the American policeman having his throat slashed at , and the bombing of the Mosul mosque, was a story about some Kardashian having a surrogate baby. Madness.
Completely agree about the media thing. I watch a lot of American news , mainly the bigger 3, CNN, Fox, MSNBC (I find them interesting, sad I know), and for as bad Fox's reputation for bias to republican, CNN/ MSNBC is equally, if not more so bias for democrats.
In the UK, Guardian has gone right (or us that left) off the deep end, the opposite pole of nuttiness as the Mail is on the right. Real news goes by the wayside of bias based opinion pieces.
Slighty off topic, It was sad to see Reuters top 5 stories earlier. Number 2 story, above the terrorist attack on the American policeman having his throat slashed at , and the bombing of the Mosul mosque, was a story about some Kardashian having a surrogate baby. Madness.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.