Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Who are the real troublemakers?
60 Answers
Although most of the press have been quiet over this, the EDL are planning a peaceful protest in Birmingham 0n 29th October.
http://www.birmingham...633404/#ixzz1bTGM6NbA
/// Selly Oak Labour MP Steve McCabe urged West Midlands Police to apply to Home Secretary Theresa May for the EDL protest to be banned ///
/// Unite Against Fascism confirmed it was organising an anti-EDL demonstration, to start at noon in High Street. A spokesman said: “The EDL wants to bring its vicious, anti-Muslim racist hatred to the multi-racial, multi-cultural city.” ///
Since it would appear that the UAF are purposely organising an anti-EDL demonstration, which invariably causes trouble, perhaps in this instant it is the UAF who should be banned, just as the EDL should be banned if they tried to disrupt an UAF protest.
What a change that would be to see the headlines:
" MP URGES POLICE TO BAN UNITED AGAINST FASCISM COUNTER-DEMONSTRATION IN BIRMINGHAM"
http://www.birmingham...633404/#ixzz1bTGM6NbA
/// Selly Oak Labour MP Steve McCabe urged West Midlands Police to apply to Home Secretary Theresa May for the EDL protest to be banned ///
/// Unite Against Fascism confirmed it was organising an anti-EDL demonstration, to start at noon in High Street. A spokesman said: “The EDL wants to bring its vicious, anti-Muslim racist hatred to the multi-racial, multi-cultural city.” ///
Since it would appear that the UAF are purposely organising an anti-EDL demonstration, which invariably causes trouble, perhaps in this instant it is the UAF who should be banned, just as the EDL should be banned if they tried to disrupt an UAF protest.
What a change that would be to see the headlines:
" MP URGES POLICE TO BAN UNITED AGAINST FASCISM COUNTER-DEMONSTRATION IN BIRMINGHAM"
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
AOG - you arereferring to me as 'arrogant' far too much for me to accept it any longer. You are the only person in the Ab who refers to me in such terms - you who make so much of personal abuse when directed against you, but freely dish it out in my direction when we disagree. i would ask therefore that you confine your posts to me to the subject under debate, and hold your consel about the purported 'arrogance' of my views - or I will consider reporting you to the AB Ed for personal abuse.
To address your post - you may view my post about the EDl as 'sensationalist' - but that is entirely in keeping with ther remit and stated position.
If there is indeed a threat of 'radical Islam' - and who on earth can be threatened by an seriously minority ideology in a country with the strength of freedom and democracy as ours - the it is not for the aggressive marchers of the EDL to take to the streets on the nation's behalf as though they have been handed some national madate to 'defend' us all from the rising tide of extremism.
Extremism in any form is abhorrent - and use of it by one section of society as a supposed counter-measure to that of another is not in the least helpful.
I would say though - from my perception of the EDL, which like most people's - is through the media, that they do tend to form a majority of large tattooed loudly chanting aggressive and threatening white men - and i have no wish for them to take it upon themselves to 'defend' me from anything - I have freedom of speech and a vote - if i need tne EDL (!) I will be happy to give them a call.
(That faint creaking sound you can hear is hell freezing over!)
To address your post - you may view my post about the EDl as 'sensationalist' - but that is entirely in keeping with ther remit and stated position.
If there is indeed a threat of 'radical Islam' - and who on earth can be threatened by an seriously minority ideology in a country with the strength of freedom and democracy as ours - the it is not for the aggressive marchers of the EDL to take to the streets on the nation's behalf as though they have been handed some national madate to 'defend' us all from the rising tide of extremism.
Extremism in any form is abhorrent - and use of it by one section of society as a supposed counter-measure to that of another is not in the least helpful.
I would say though - from my perception of the EDL, which like most people's - is through the media, that they do tend to form a majority of large tattooed loudly chanting aggressive and threatening white men - and i have no wish for them to take it upon themselves to 'defend' me from anything - I have freedom of speech and a vote - if i need tne EDL (!) I will be happy to give them a call.
(That faint creaking sound you can hear is hell freezing over!)
-- answer removed --
one has to ask, who is the intended audience of this peaceful protest? Are they seeking further support from likeminded individuals.. if so, why protest in an area that is populated largely by, in their eyes, the enemy?
Would you stand in the middle of the Old Trafford and scream "Man Utd fans should go back their own city"? Or would that be viewed as antagonistic?
Would you stand in the middle of the Old Trafford and scream "Man Utd fans should go back their own city"? Or would that be viewed as antagonistic?
andy-hughes perhaps instead of you threatening to report me for using personal abuse against you, you should first count the number of times you have been abusive towards me, even though at times you have been egged on by the baying pack.
i.e. Now there's a thought trig ....
But much more safer to let others speak for you, don't you think?
My use of the word arrogant, was quite in order taking into account the way you seemed to demand that I answer a particular point in your post, while at the same time yourself supplying my answer before I had the chance to, not forgetting to say that you, yourself feel you must be answered and yet choose not to answer others.
This is not personal abuse, but a description of your attitude towards others.
But if you feel you must report me go ahead, let's see if you are supported by the ED, but then I won't know will I perhaps you have already done so but the Ed has took no action against me.
i.e. Now there's a thought trig ....
But much more safer to let others speak for you, don't you think?
My use of the word arrogant, was quite in order taking into account the way you seemed to demand that I answer a particular point in your post, while at the same time yourself supplying my answer before I had the chance to, not forgetting to say that you, yourself feel you must be answered and yet choose not to answer others.
This is not personal abuse, but a description of your attitude towards others.
But if you feel you must report me go ahead, let's see if you are supported by the ED, but then I won't know will I perhaps you have already done so but the Ed has took no action against me.
AOG - in all my years on the AB, I have only ever fallen out with two posters - the gentleman who used the name Ward-Minter - who was constantly falling out with many AB'ers, and yourself, who to an extent does the same.
My record in exchanges with you has at times been heated, and we have both apologised for our conduct, and moved on - I thought.
If 'arrogance' is my attitude towards 'others', why is it only you who uses that term - no-one else has - ever.
I have not reported you to the Ed - I have advised that i would consider it if you continued to use that unpleasant term - and that statement stands. I would not second-guess the Ed's decision - i am merely appealing to your better nature because personal invective is not helpful - and you seem keen to pick me up on it when it is neither intended nor inferred on my part - unless you count a little light joshing with trigger-happy?
I do not -and never have 'demanded' that anyone answer a point i have made - and my record as a poster stands witness to that.
You however have fought many personal battles on many fronts, and I am at a loss to understand why you constantly wish to spar with me in the way that you do.
Hopefully you will reflect on my previous post, and this one, and be mindful of the fact that debate is fine, and enjoyable, personal invective is not, and in common with other regular posters, I will not stand idly by while you feel free to launch it in my direction at will.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
My record in exchanges with you has at times been heated, and we have both apologised for our conduct, and moved on - I thought.
If 'arrogance' is my attitude towards 'others', why is it only you who uses that term - no-one else has - ever.
I have not reported you to the Ed - I have advised that i would consider it if you continued to use that unpleasant term - and that statement stands. I would not second-guess the Ed's decision - i am merely appealing to your better nature because personal invective is not helpful - and you seem keen to pick me up on it when it is neither intended nor inferred on my part - unless you count a little light joshing with trigger-happy?
I do not -and never have 'demanded' that anyone answer a point i have made - and my record as a poster stands witness to that.
You however have fought many personal battles on many fronts, and I am at a loss to understand why you constantly wish to spar with me in the way that you do.
Hopefully you will reflect on my previous post, and this one, and be mindful of the fact that debate is fine, and enjoyable, personal invective is not, and in common with other regular posters, I will not stand idly by while you feel free to launch it in my direction at will.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Zeuhl
/// Small beer compared (for example) with the number of muslim civilians killed by allied actions in the invasion of Iraq and aftermath.///
What about the large number of innocent Muslim civilians killed by Muslims themselves, is that also small beer.
I refer of course to the continuing number of car bombs etc that are set off in markets etc.
/// Small beer compared (for example) with the number of muslim civilians killed by allied actions in the invasion of Iraq and aftermath.///
What about the large number of innocent Muslim civilians killed by Muslims themselves, is that also small beer.
I refer of course to the continuing number of car bombs etc that are set off in markets etc.
andy-hughes
I have no hidden agenda in particularly picking on you, let's first make that clear.
Could not the reason be that it is you who first attacks me, and I do not necessarily mean because you disagree with me, but by your rather harsh approach in challenging me.
My 13.02 post was in answer to your 12.00 post, and surely you can see that although we disagree it was an amiable reply.
But then you went on in your 14.46 post to state:
/// "Are you willing to state that - in line with your admitted and oft-defended right wing views, you regard the EDL as a legitimate political cause, and the UAF to be little more than 'leftie' agitators?" ///
And it was this last paragraph that made me take the stance that I did.
/// I'll take your lack of a response to that part of my question as a 'No' then. ///
Why did I necessarily have to respond to your every word?
And since I didn't why did you find it necessary to add, "I will take it as a 'No' then"?
If this wasn't goading on your part I don't know what is, perhaps before you accuse me of being offensive towards you, perhaps you could also examine your attitude towards me?
I don't wish to fall out with you Andy, but please let's debate in an adult way, surely we can both agree or disagree without any un-niceties? (no I know that isn't a proper word but you get my drift)
I have no hidden agenda in particularly picking on you, let's first make that clear.
Could not the reason be that it is you who first attacks me, and I do not necessarily mean because you disagree with me, but by your rather harsh approach in challenging me.
My 13.02 post was in answer to your 12.00 post, and surely you can see that although we disagree it was an amiable reply.
But then you went on in your 14.46 post to state:
/// "Are you willing to state that - in line with your admitted and oft-defended right wing views, you regard the EDL as a legitimate political cause, and the UAF to be little more than 'leftie' agitators?" ///
And it was this last paragraph that made me take the stance that I did.
/// I'll take your lack of a response to that part of my question as a 'No' then. ///
Why did I necessarily have to respond to your every word?
And since I didn't why did you find it necessary to add, "I will take it as a 'No' then"?
If this wasn't goading on your part I don't know what is, perhaps before you accuse me of being offensive towards you, perhaps you could also examine your attitude towards me?
I don't wish to fall out with you Andy, but please let's debate in an adult way, surely we can both agree or disagree without any un-niceties? (no I know that isn't a proper word but you get my drift)
AOG - thank you for your response.
I have re-read my post, and I can see that oncce again I (we) have fallen victim to the 'intention / perception' gulf that affects written correspondence.
My "I'll take that as a 'No'then' post was intended to be light-hearted, but I can see that on reflection, it could, and indeed was, be taken as being aggressive and offensive - I will hold my hands up for that, but arrogant? I think not.
So, again after reflection, I wish to withdraw that remark, and i hope that we can continue our lively debates in the spirit of the AB, and indeed each other, and I apologise if i got a bit giddy about things.
So - onwards and upwards.
I have re-read my post, and I can see that oncce again I (we) have fallen victim to the 'intention / perception' gulf that affects written correspondence.
My "I'll take that as a 'No'then' post was intended to be light-hearted, but I can see that on reflection, it could, and indeed was, be taken as being aggressive and offensive - I will hold my hands up for that, but arrogant? I think not.
So, again after reflection, I wish to withdraw that remark, and i hope that we can continue our lively debates in the spirit of the AB, and indeed each other, and I apologise if i got a bit giddy about things.
So - onwards and upwards.
<<What about the large number of innocent Muslim civilians killed by Muslims themselves, is that also small beer. >>
and what about all the christians killed by christians etc etc? Yeah yeah it's a circular argument but you are changing the subject.
The subject in question was that Brenden cited several attacks as (I understand it) evidence of a Muslim threat against non muslims.
I was putting those death tolls into proportion.
and what about all the christians killed by christians etc etc? Yeah yeah it's a circular argument but you are changing the subject.
The subject in question was that Brenden cited several attacks as (I understand it) evidence of a Muslim threat against non muslims.
I was putting those death tolls into proportion.
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.