Andrew Neil Speaks Out Over Latest Attack

[Zacs-Master]

Anyone disagree with him?

[mikey4444]

PP...but ISIS doesn't have a country to free. All that these terrorists will achieve is needless slaughter and a backlash on ordinary law-abiding British Muslims.

[Khandro]

mikey; "nit-picking"? It sounded rousing stuff and I approve of his denigration of the 'jumped up jihadis', but what was he actually saying in essence? That you will not defeat is because we are better and more numerous than you/
I would like to ask a subsequent question as Churchill's name has been raised; What would he have done?

[mikey4444]

Murdo....yes, I realise that, but does it really think that by murdering people, than its going to achieve that ?

[naomi24]

Mikey, //he should be applauded for so doing, not nit-picking. //

Having read your crass and highly inappropriate posts at 07:13 and 07:29, that’s rich to say the least.

[-Talbot-]

although according to some on here, they can't be British, if they are not white and Christian.



mikey, I bet you can't name one poster who has said that.

[Khandro]

murdo; Have you ever read the koran?

[naomi24]

murdo, //The three Abrahamic religions are, at their heart, the same in that they all believe in one creator god. //

And that's where they part company.

[Berniecuddles2]

what a fantastic speech ..well said

[emmie]

what an amazing speech..

[hereIam]

Very good.

[jourdain2]

A very, very good speech. We shall stand, whatever. Churchill would have added something about 'shoulder to shoulder fighting back' - although I don't have an answer as to how to do that. I wonder what Winnie would have suggested?

[Zacs-Master]

Glad most people agree. We need someone to galvanise our thoughts

[Baldric]

What a fine speech, well done that man.

[vetuste_ennemi]

The speech was as bad as his post-Bataclan speech (or was it Charlie Hebod) when he spoke of the "lights of freedom shining over Paris long after ISIS is a distant memory".
It furthers the pretence that the threat to the free West is posed only by a few violent extremists, rather than a significant and very active proportion of the West's Muslim populations who, while not espousing the methods, share their aims. If there were zero percent acts of terror the threat to democracy would remain.

The rest of the program assisted in this avoidance of the ideological roots behind the extremism. The Quilliam Foundation "expert" did an excellent job in advancing the false "nothing to do with Islam" narrative.


I like Neil and think he's totally honest. But - on this topic - he's inadequately informed.
.

[vetuste_ennemi]

"Some chicken - some neck" said Churchill.

Today's chicken:

Light up the Eiffel Tower in red, white and blue.
Walk around with a pencil.
"Je suis Charlie".
Play John Lennon's Imagine.
DON'T under any circumstances show the cartoons for which twelve people died.
"Terrorism is part and parcel of living in a big city".
Report an incident to Tell Mamma if somebody looks at you a bit funny when you're wearing the niqab.

Churchill/

Did somebody mention Churchill?

[vetuste_ennemi]

//murdo; Have you ever read the koran?//

Murdo doesn't need to read the Koran, Khandro - he just needs to read the life of Mohammed. For those who accept the Neil/Tessa proposition that it's just a few nutters who are perverting "a great religion", I invite Mr Neil, Mrs May or any AB surrogate for them to to give me an example of something ISIS has done in the Middle East which Mohammed did not.


Work hard enough and I'm sure you'll come up with something.

[anneasquith]

I like Andrew Neil, but for a reason I can't quite understand I found his speech embarrassing ( watched it life ).