Ken: I will make London a beacon of Islam

[Rico1304]

Uncle Tom strikes again - but it's not a racial slur, because Hades said it.

 

Thank god it wasn't me or Stronts

[General Dryness]

You're saying that as if we don't all think Hades is a cunt.

 

He's just Dennis with less words and a membership.

[Hades]

You're saying that as if we don't all think Hades is a cunt.

 

He's just Dennis with less words and a membership.

Thank you. If the people on here approved of me, I'd know I was doing something very wrong.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

More damning evidence of rampant, uncontrolled anti-Semitism in that evil racist bastard Corbyn's Labour Party.

 

https://electronicintifada.net/content/how-israel-lobby-manufactured-uk-labour-partys-anti-semitism-crisis/16481

 

 

[Strontium]

This is a great, great article by Maajid Nawaz:
 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/08/the-secret-life-of-sadiq-khan-london-s-first-muslim-mayor.html
 
Some extensive highlights:
 
 

I’ve known Sadiq Khan since 2002 when he was my lawyer while I served as an Islamist political prisoner in Egypt, before he became a Member of Parliament. I’m forever indebted to him for visiting me in Mazra Tora prison, while the world gave up on me.

 
 

Sadiq Khan is no Muslim extremist. And it is not only his track record voting for gay rights that proves this. Having known him when I was a Muslim extremist, I know that he did not subscribe to my then-theocratic views.

 

It is as racist to ask these questions, and to have this conversation, as it was when Londoners questioned the white, non-Muslim former Labour mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, about his links to Islamists, or when the press question the white, non-Muslim Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, and the maverick white politician George Galloway over their ties to extremists.

In other words it’s not racist at all, as Atma Singh—Labour’s own South-Asian Affairs advisor to a former mayor of London—points out. To imply that it is, and to hold Sadiq Khan to a lesser standard than his white colleagues merely because he is a brown Muslim, is the very bigotry of low expectations that fuels identity politics even further. Alongside the environment, extremism is one of the most pressing issues of our day. Of course it will come up in an election campaign.

 

So now that the election is over, and London has its first Muslim mayor, let us step back and consider the smoke to this conservative fire.

The seeds were sown with Khan’s now-former in-laws. During London’s ’90s Islamist heyday, Khan’s brother-in-law Makbool Javaid was affiliated and listed as a spokesman to the now-banned terrorist group al-Muhajiroun, founded by the hate preacher Omar Bakri Muhammad, and then led by the infamous fanatic Anjem Choudary. I knew of Makbool back then, too. His brothers were colleagues of mine, affiliated to my former extremist organization, Hizb ut-Tahrir.
 
Through such connections Khan ingratiated himself in the London Islamist scene. In 2003, he appeared at a conference alongside Sajeel Abu Ibrahim, a member of that same banned al-Muhajiroun.
 
Sajeel ran a camp in Pakistan that trained the 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan. Speaking there, too, was one Yasser al-Siri, who had been convicted in Egypt over a political assassination attempt that left a young girl dead.
 
In 2004, Khan gave evidence to the House of Commons in his capacity as the chair of the Muslim Council of Britain’s legal affairs committee. This is the same Muslim Council of Britain that chose to condole the recent Ahmedi murder victim in Glasgow, by declaring Ahmedis not Muslim.
 
In his MCB capacity, Khan argued in Parliament that the Muslim Brotherhood cleric Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi “is not the extremist that he is painted as being.”
 
This is Qaradawi who, among other things, authored a book called The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, in which he justifies wife beating and discusses whether homosexuals should be killed.
 
Infamously, Qaradawi also issued a fatwa advocating suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, a view which has seen him join the likes of Omar Bakri Muhammad in being denied entry to the U.K.
 
Khan’s relationships with extremists ran so deep in fact, that he attended events for the jihadist rights group Cage, and wrote a foreword for one of their reports. Cage has since declared ISIS executioner ‘Jihadi-John’ to be a beautiful man live on the BBC.

 

By 2010, with increasing grassroots popularity among highly organized Islamists and fundamentalists, but carrying the burden of the Labour Party’s War on Terror record, Khan’s bid to get re-elected in his home-base of South London’s Tooting was facing challenges from another Muslim. For unlike the Labour Party, this Muslim’s party had opposed the invasion of Iraq.
 
Khan’s rival was Liberal Democrat Nasser Butt. Liberal Democrat opposition to the Iraq war posed a serious challenge to Khan and his Muslim power base in Tooting. British South Asian Muslims—myself included—overwhelmingly opposed that war. “Luckily” for Khan, Nasser happened to be an Ahmadi Muslim. Yes, this is as relevant as Sadiq Khan being a Sunni Muslim. In other words not at all, in a perfect world. Alas, Khan’s world was far from perfect. Ahmedis are perhaps the most persecuted minority sects among Sunni Muslims.
 
Khan knew this, and yet this fact didn’t stop his campaign working closely with Tooting Mosque to stir up anti-Ahmedi sectarian hatred in order to secure the Sunni vote for his victory. For many of my fellow Sunni Muslims Nasser Butt being an Ahmedi was a doctrinal “offence” for which he was personally responsible, while Khan was too junior of an MP at that time to have much to do with the invasion of Iraq. By now, Khan’s religious writing was clearly on the mosque wall.
 
Again, Khan is no Muslim extremist. Indeed, this cannot be repeated enough. Nor can the fact that Khan clearly has a record of terribly poor judgment in surrounding himself with Islamists and Muslim extremists, and in using them for votes.

 

Among my fellow liberals, it would never fly for a white candidate to say something racist, nor incite religious hatred against those deemed not Christian enough. Likewise, it shouldn’t when a brown Muslim politician does so. Khan’s last-minute general apology is a welcome start, but his time as mayor will need to show a track record of courting the right people, while distancing extremists, before it carries any weight.
 
Why is it OK for a mayor to have shared panels with all manner of Muslim extremists, while actively distancing himself from, and smearing counter-extremist Muslims?
 
Despite this, liberal Muslim reformers and ex-Muslims alike would probably still lend their good will and support to Khan.
 
To be honest, in his personal life he is pretty much a liberal Muslim. So much so that his old friends, the extremists, are already classifying him as a traitor for not being anti-Israel enough, and for supporting gay marriage equality.
 
In a funny twist, some Muslims are now comparing him to those he deemed “Uncle Toms” in the past. Politicians from across the West must learn from a past in playing politics with religion. For anti-Muslim bigots, we’re always too Muslim. For Muslim extremists, we’re never Muslim enough. Luckily for London’s “first Muslim mayor,” God invented Secularism.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Asking fair questions and having a reasonable conversation is not racist.

 

Hiding behind Parliamentary privilege to smear someone as a terrorist sympathiser (knowing that the lie will stick because he's Muslim) or writing a scaremongering piece, illustrated by a picture of a bus on which people were murdered, which opens with the line "London stands on the brink of a catastrophe, the shockwaves from which would be felt across the country" is unmistakably racist.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I've just tweeted Sadiq Khan.

 

@SadiqKhan Years from now, when you are ex-Mayor, what inappropriate Hitler comments will you make?

 

I'll let you know if I get an answer.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

PSC evidence to the Chakrabarti Enquiry.

 

Here is a reminder of PSC’s overall recommendations to the inquiry:

a. If the inquiry finds it necessary to define antisemitism, to adopt the approach that antisemitism is hatred of or discrimination against Jewish people on the basis of their religion or identity;

b. Neither treat criticism of Israel’s policies and actions nor criticism of Zionism - a political ideology - as antisemitic;

c. Ensure that charges of racism (including antisemitism and Islamophobia) and discrimination are judged by objective criteria whilst taking into account the perceptions of the victim;

d. Oppose the attempt to portray the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions as fuelling antisemitism.

[Strontium]

I still have trouble with d. Sorry but I do.

Imagine I have a supermarket, and my security guards catch 100 shoplifters in one week, but we let 99 of the offenders go free, and just prosecute 1. And the 1 we prosecute just happens to be the only black shoplifter. Would that not be a racist act?

 

Similarly, to single one country out of the perhaps hundred or more serious human rights offending countries, isn't it significant if that is the only Jewish state?

 

Please, to the usual suspects, don't turn this into the usual shitfest. This is a genuine question and I am open to having my mind changed if you can show me that singling one group of people out for a boycott can be justified.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Name 100 countries worse than Israel.

 

Many other countries have shitty records on human rights, but few (if any) are so starkly racist as the Israeli state. Few (if any) flout international law to the same degree. Ones that do, tend to be pariah states, subject to official sanctions from other governments. Israel is probably unique in the way it enjoys such a privileged and influential role in international affairs, while maintaining a thoroughly racist and oppressive regime.

 

Palestinian citizens have called on citizens of other countries to stand up to racism where their governments have failed.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Incidentally, your reasoning is horribly flawed. "I can't see a cause of something, so I'll ascribe a cause for which their is no substantive evidence."

 

It's the reasoning of people who ascribe bumps in the night to ghosts.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I still have trouble with d. Sorry but I do.

 

Imagine I have a supermarket, and my security guards catch 100 shoplifters in one week, but we let 99 of the offenders go free, and just prosecute 1. And the 1 we prosecute just happens to be the only black shoplifter. Would that not be a racist act?

 

Similarly, to single one country out of the perhaps hundred or more serious human rights offending countries, isn't it significant if that is the only Jewish state?

 

Please, to the usual suspects, don't turn this into the usual shitfest. This is a genuine question and I am open to having my mind changed if you can show me that singling one group of people out for a boycott can be justified.

One STATE has been singled out, not "one group of people".

 

Dangerous conflation, that.

[cloggypop]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_Palestine

 

Makes sense to look at the state breaking most international laws first really.

[Son of L8]

I still have trouble with d. Sorry but I do.

 

Imagine I have a supermarket, and my security guards catch 100 shoplifters in one week, but we let 99 of the offenders go free, and just prosecute 1. And the 1 we prosecute just happens to be the only black shoplifter. Would that not be a racist act?

 

Similarly, to single one country out of the perhaps hundred or more serious human rights offending countries, isn't it significant if that is the only Jewish state?

 

Please, to the usual suspects, don't turn this into the usual shitfest. This is a genuine question and I am open to having my mind changed if you can show me that singling one group of people out for a boycott can be justified.

 

By that logic, wouldn't you have to call the boycott movement against South African apartheid racist? There were other oppressive, discriminatory states in the world at the time who were not singled out by activists to the extent that the Afrikaner government was, but I've never heard a reasonable, sensible person describe the anti-apartheid movement as anti-Afrikaner racism.

 

That's a bit glib, though, so putting that question aside -- No, I don't think it's significant at all. If people were boycotting Jewish goods, services, etc., from outside of Israel, that would obviously be significant. But there are all sorts of reasons why Israel would be given more attention than other human rights offenders: the length of the conflict (people have been looking for a just solution for generations now, and logically will move to try out new avenues to effect change when the old ones have failed), the scale and global profile of the injustice (rightly or wrongly, we hear far more about Israel and Palestine than we do about conflicts in Africa for example, which directs people's attentions and efforts), the direct defense and support for the offenses from within our own governments and societies and the extent to which Israel's power and impunity is entwined socially, politically, economically, militarily with our own countries (people get angrier when things are done 'in our name'), the conflict's significance in broader social and political terms (settling the Palestinian question would remove a huge barrier to addressing other major contemporary issues like recruitment to extreme forms of Islam, etc)...

 

There's all sorts of reasons why people would logically focus on Israel that have nothing to do with the ethnicity or religion of the majority who live there. Some, even most of these conditions could be satisfied when looking at other states, but all of them? No, not in very many cases at all.

 

To be clear, though, there are most certainly some anti-semitic people involved in activism against Israel. I don't doubt that for a second. I also don't think they're anywhere near a majority or even a significant minority in a movement like BDS. I don't think broader social justice efforts can reasonably be labelled anti-semitic because of those peoples' presence, and I certainly don't think reasonable people with legitimate social justice concerns should be accused of anything like racism without having solid grounds for it. Anti-semitism is a possible explanation for BDS, but there are others that in the case of most people are far more likely; leaping to the least-likely and most-convenient explanation for a person's involvement (convenient from the perspective of dismissing the movement and protecting Israel from criticism, which is very frequently the motivation) usually sounds like pure opportunism to me.

 

The last line there to be taken generally, I hope, and not personally.

[Jose Jones]

That's a pretty damn shit hot good post.

[Anubis]

One STATE has been singled out, not "one group of people".

 

Dangerous conflation, that.

But that's how Israel and it's lobbyists operate to attempt to close down debate over Palastine.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

But that's how Israel and it's lobbyists operate to attempt to close down debate over Palastine.

Yeah, it does seem like Stronts has problems with the first two PSC recommendations, too.

 

I reckon that the onus is on anyone who makes accusations of racism, antisemitism or any form of bigotry to identify specific words or actions and to demonstrate what's wrong with them.

[Bjornebye]

Bump. Some interesting bile spouted on here. 

[Bjornebye]

On 22/03/2012 at 12:31, Strontium Dog™ said:

So I guess Ken supports lowering the age of consent to 9 years old then. Trying to corner the paedo vote, very canny.

Apart from being abhorrently racist here you have actually repped your own post to even out a neg! Hahahahahahahahaha 

[Bjornebye]

HhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaahaHAHAHAHAHahahaahaha]

 

 

 

 

hahaha

 

 

 

 

 

[Bjornebye]

On 23/03/2012 at 01:11, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

 

I understand his point, but I think he's way off base with it.

 

The point about unmanned drones is that while they unquestionably wind up killing innocent civilians about a third of the time, they aren't indiscriminate, not by a long shot. Use of indiscriminate force would be a violation of the Geneva convention. Terrorist bombs, on the other hand, really are genuinely indiscriminate. There's no attempt made to mitigate against the loss of innocent life, because the sole purpose of such attacks is to take as many innocent lives as possible. Whatever you think about drone attacks, the intent is clearly not the same.

 

This is without even touching on the issue of the legitimacy of state armed forces versus that of violent non-state actors.

 

I wouldn't even begin to dispute that an innocent death at the hands of an unmanned drones is every bit as tragic as an innocent death in a terrorist bombing, because it clearly is. Every innocent death is a tragedy. But drone attacks and terrorist bombs are not moral equivalents, no way.

Has anyone got that video of the IDF woman shooting the unarmed Palestinian in the back of the head as he walked away after a beating and interrogation? The one where they high five and laugh about it? 

 

Or the 3 kids being blown up for playing on the beach? 

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Has anyone got that video of the IDF woman shooting the unarmed Palestinian in the back of the head as he walked away after a beating and interrogation? The one where they high five and laugh about it? 

 

Or the 3 kids being blown up for playing on the beach? 

 

What does any of that have to do with me?

[Bjornebye]

On 28/04/2016 at 18:58, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Ah, and here was me thinking you wanted a serious discussion rather than to indulge in more anti-semitic trolling.

 

On 28/04/2016 at 18:59, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Who but a racist would single Israel out for criticism.

 

On 28/04/2016 at 19:09, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Instead of implying stupidity on my part, perhaps you'd like to explain the difference between supporting something and being a supporter of something.

 

And a person who singles the least bad country in the Middle East out for special criticism can be doing so for one reason and one reason alone. Fact.

 

On 28/04/2016 at 19:14, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

I agree.

4 more repping himself.

 

Quite a bit of racism as well being spouted by him in this. Also a few bits I'll keep for next time he lies.  

[Bjornebye]

3 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

What does any of that have to do with me?

Everything. 

[Bjornebye]

Imagine repping yourself though. Imagine looking a woman in the eye and telling her you'll be her man. Then repping yourself on an internet forum when getting pulled up for hypocrisy and racism. Wow. Seriously, wow.