EDL thugs attacks bookstall run by Muslims


by Sunny
17th October, 2011 at 6:37 pm    

Halesown News reports:

A MUSLIM book stall in Cradley Heath market was stormed by over 25 thugs from the English Defence League this weekend. The shocking attack occurred in front of shoppers, many of which were women and children, at the market at 2.30pm on Saturday. The local Ahmadiyya Muslim book stall and Qur’an exhibition was attacked and volunteers were manhandled and abused by members of the Far Right organisation.

“We have the book stall to raise awareness of our work in Britain and in the local community we are proud to be British Muslims and this incident saddened us.

“Our motto is ‘Love for All – Hatred for None’ and we do not meet violence with violence so we just stood there and did not respond to the provocation.”

I thought the EDL lot were against violence and British values huh? So much for that pretence. via @HopenotHate

On Boxing Day in 2009, Cradley Heath Mosque and the local Islamic Centre was burnt to the ground by arsonists.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: EDL,Race politics






124 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Tangram

    Pickled Politics » #EDL thugs #attacks bookstall run by #Muslims http://t.co/ZZdQxvr5


  2. Summer Jamal

    RT @sunny_hundal: #EDL thugs attacks bookstall run by Muslims http://t.co/K5ugFx90 #Islamophobia #Violence


  3. Saif Sultan

    Blogged: : EDL thugs attacks bookstall run by Muslims http://t.co/gP6PiebS


  4. Stop the War

    Blogged: : EDL thugs attacks bookstall run by Muslims http://t.co/gP6PiebS


  5. Joseph Willits

    EDL thugs attacks bookstall run by Muslims http://t.co/HfwaU9nq by @Sunny_Hundal #EDL #Racism #Islam


  6. Iffa

    EDL thugs attacks bookstall run by Muslims http://t.co/HfwaU9nq by @Sunny_Hundal #EDL #Racism #Islam


  7. Umm Hasan (TMCS)

    Blogged: : EDL thugs attacks bookstall run by Muslims http://t.co/gP6PiebS


  8. Rai M. Azlan Shahid

    RT @sunny_hundal: EDL thugs attacks bookstall run by #Muslims http://t.co/ALoSCggM


  9. Iheke

    Blogged: : EDL thugs attacks bookstall run by Muslims http://t.co/gP6PiebS


  10. Owen Blacker

    Blogged: : EDL thugs attacks bookstall run by Muslims http://t.co/gP6PiebS


  11. Edward Clarke

    Blogged: : EDL thugs attacks bookstall run by Muslims http://t.co/gP6PiebS


  12. No2EDL

    Blogged: : EDL thugs attacks bookstall run by Muslims http://t.co/gP6PiebS




  1. Mam Tor — on 18th October, 2011 at 10:09 am  

    Hmm, so was it attacked? Were the police remiss in not doing more? The photo makes it look like some sort of counter demonstration.

  2. platinum786 — on 18th October, 2011 at 11:39 am  

    What are the police doing to investigate this? Its about time the edl was recognised at the right wing gang it is, like combat 18, not a political group.

    Also a small correction, Ahmedis are not Muslim. They do not believe in the finality of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).

    An ahmedi is as muslim as I am christian or jewish. Just because i believe jesus was a messenger of god, that does not make me christian, i dont recognise his as the son of god.

    Just because some Muslims belueve guru Nanak was a holy man, doesnt make them Sikhs.

    There is a significant diference in thier beliefs and those of Muslims. There is solid, logical, evidenced research into this. This is a mainstream islamic opinion. I think it is immature to call them Muslim simply because the most vocal groups against them are people who wish them harm.

  3. Optimist — on 18th October, 2011 at 11:52 am  

    Well, this is nothing new. The EDL thugs have been attacking mosques, Hindu temples, individuals in the streets, left wing meetings and book shops for sometime now.

    They seem to be trying to emulate the thugs of the Jobbik party in Hungary who go around wearing uniforms, setting up road blocks and invading Roma areas in order to intimidate and terrorise the minority.

    Thugs who tried to smash their way into a mosque and attacked the imam in Redbridge, east London, have been sent to jail.
    The court heard how one of the thugs screamed “EDL” – the initials of English Defence League, an organisation of racists and fascists – during the violent attack.

    http://uaf.org.uk/2011/09/edl-attack-on-redbridge-mosque-thugs-jailed/

    Supporters of the racist English Defence League attacked a Hindu temple in Dudley when their rally on Saturday 17 July descended into violence.

    http://uaf.org.uk/2010/07/edl-attack-on-dudley-hindu-temple-confirmed/

    Three Asian youths have just been seriously assaulted by racist EDL thugs over in Dagenham. They were viciously set upon as they were standing on the side of the road as the racist rabble walked past.

    http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/1281/breaking-news-edl-thugs-attack-asian-youths-a

    On the eve of the elections, party leader Gábor Vona declared, “Hungary belongs to Hungarians,” and pledged that “with Jobbik, actions speak louder than words” – and it’s the Hungarian Guard, a paramilitary militia with close links to Jobbik that is expected to implement this promised concrete action.

    http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/28071-jobbiks-anti-roma-crusade

  4. damon — on 18th October, 2011 at 12:16 pm  

    This sounds like a rather moronic and nasty thing to have done. It’s the kind of thing you expect in today’s ignorant and intolerant climate.
    The EDL goons obviously don’t even know the difference between Ahmadis and Salafis. I wounder if they would be embarassed if it was pointed out to them.

    Not that it should matter even then. I think that people should be free to set out their book stalls in peace whoever they are. The EDL know though that they would get attacked if they tried to set up a stall like that. It hardens people and makes this kind of thing more likely.

    Also, some of these Islamic bookstall people are clearly micky taking islamists, like the ex-Taliban bloke who just got convicted in Manchester.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8752587/Manchester-jihad-recruiter-jailed-for-life.html

    All over the country you get these guys standing out in the high street – even in Dublin. What the Ahmadis are hoping to do I don’t know. Convert other muslims? That wouldn’t go down well. And I can’t see much point in trying to explain themselves to non muslims, who would have very little understanding of such differences.
    But like the Mormons and everyone else, they should be free to do what they want.

  5. platinum786 — on 18th October, 2011 at 12:41 pm  

    Ehat is going to happen if race based gang wars. The Edl is clever in the way it avoids cities with large muslim populations. They pick smaller whiter towns for this kind of stuff. They will march anywhere because they know marches have police protection.

  6. GarryB — on 19th October, 2011 at 4:48 am  

    where is there anymore info on this issue other than the slanted article with a little pict? I didn’t find anything as to this attack on their website, either.
    I’m coming from the other side of the pond, but know about the different groups over there, mainly the EDL and the UAF. I wrote the UAF a letter and yet have gotten a response. Because, I pointed out their racism, hate and violence to which I have seen enough videos. I also asked the UAF that, where was their wreathe to lay in honor of almost 3,000 innocent lives, on that day in Britain on the 9/11 memorial? I would ask any Brit other than the EDL, where was your respect? Almost all Britain spit in the faces of those dead ones and their families, as well as to all of America with having that extremists hate group there. They had all the same ideals and hate that the same terrorists that attacked freedom that day, that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. To add injury to insult Britain chose those animals, he extremists and turned away the EDL. As far as many here can see, clearly, is that the EDL is what we always thought of when thinking of our brothers whom we came from, as a honorable and dignified people.

    And you people say you stand for what was that, anyway?

  7. Red320d — on 19th October, 2011 at 11:51 am  

    They wouldn’t dare try it in Normanton.

  8. platinum786 — on 19th October, 2011 at 12:24 pm  

    Gary, the angry man routine doesnt make for good reading.

    I really dont get your point. You wrote a letter about 911, to UAF?

  9. Sarah AB — on 19th October, 2011 at 8:26 pm  

    There was an attack on a (more conventionally) Muslim bookstall/stand in Cambridge when the EDL demonstrated there in the summer. They are a moderately regular, quiet presence (by contrast with some rather startling Christian preachers).

  10. damon — on 20th October, 2011 at 9:50 am  

    While it’s always wrong to use violence against people who are doing what the the Ahmadi people were doing, I’m sure many people here might take a different view if it was people they didn’t care for who had set up stall in their high street on a saturday.
    If you are strongly against fox hunting and the Countryside Alliance were there trying to hand you a leaflet, is it alright to tell them to bugger off? Or the anti-abortion people with their sick photos of aborted fetuses?

    Certainly a BNP or an EDL stall would get kicked over and their people threatened and manhandled in many locations. What if there was something called the ”English National Party” – who you didn’t really know anything about, but didn’t like the look of?
    A guy I know was punched in the face in the middle of Glasgow several years ago for selling a magazine with this on the cover.
    http://powerbase.info/images/thumb/8/8f/Living_Marxism_44.jpg/200px-Living_Marxism_44.jpg

    It was some football fans from another city and they took exception to that depiction of the Queen.
    In the UK, people who push religion in public have often been viewed as somewhat annoying. Jehovah’s Witnesses knocking on doors get some bad press and are the butt of jokes. Mormon missionaries can be seen as odd, or even sinister. They really are out all over the world, even in small towns in South America. Is it OK not to like their activities?
    The same with other Christian evangelists trying co convert Catholic people in Central America. Often the poor and vulnerable.

    And some of these muslim guys who do the same in Britain are quite nutty themselves. Perhaps even sinister. Like MAC, but not just them. The radical converts they recruit are sometimes met in the street when they are doing this street work. Where I live, Christians are always handing out cards about ”Jesus” and inviting people to come along and join their church group.

    My point is …. where do you draw the line?
    When is it OK to kick someone’s stall over and threaten them, or just mumble ”idiot” at them as they try to hand you a leaflet? Never? Sometimes?
    Is it black and white or are there grey areas too?

  11. platinum786 — on 20th October, 2011 at 10:32 am  

    Im never rude to such people, charity people, church people, even the HT lot. It doesnt hurt to say no thankyou and carry on walking. There is not a lot great about Britain anymore, but the fact anyone can speak freely or campaign a cause on the High street has to be one of those great things.

  12. Don — on 20th October, 2011 at 6:42 pm  

    When is it OK to kick someone’s stall over and threaten them…?

    Tricky. I’m going with ‘never’. What is your position?

  13. damon — on 21st October, 2011 at 1:44 am  

    ”Tricky. I’m going with ‘never’. What is your position?”

    I think it’s right that the BNP and the NF got chased out of Brick Lane where they used to sell their newspapers years ago. I’m not so sure about whether they should be allowed to set up stall in a town centre though. They couldn’t do it in a lot of places anyway. I don’t like the SPUC people you get in Dublin with their anti-abortion posters, but they’re often religious nuts, saying the catholic rosary in the street. Some of them used to stand outside an abortion clinic near where I lived in south London. I think it would be OK to tell them to p*** off for that.

    While I think that the islamist extremists should probably be left alone, some of them are clearly insulting the general public with their pushing their views in public.

    And the ‘Free Gaza’ murals that were painted on walls in Birmingham were also somewhat taking the mickey I thought. Particularly when you saw it was the guy from Cage Prisoners behind them.
    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Mohammed+ali+murals+birmingham+gaza&aq=f

    Would ”direct action” against those murals be justified if one thought they were divisive?

    As completely unjustifiable as the attack on the Ahamadi people was, the people who did it might have had the idea that they were Anjem Choudary types.
    It would still be wrong even then, but they were probably a victim of the ignorance of the EDL blokes – who hardly know one kind of Asian person from another sometimes.

  14. Beyond Belief — on 21st October, 2011 at 7:37 pm  

    MUSLIM THUGS MURDER SCORES IN CENTRAL LONDON

    On the morning of Thursday, 7 July 2005, four British born Muslims detonated four bombs, three in quick succession aboard London Underground trains across the city and, later, a fourth on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square. Fifty-two people, as well as the four bombers, were killed in the attacks, and over 700 more were injured.

  15. Don — on 21st October, 2011 at 9:22 pm  

    And your point is?

  16. douglas clark — on 22nd October, 2011 at 1:09 am  

    Don @ 15.

    You’re the schoolteachery kind of guy around here.

    So.

    If you lead a noun, in front of a noun:

    viz: Scottish Lunatics.

    Can we reasonably say that two nouns have gone to war?

    Is one not, gramatically, assuming that all lunatics are Scottish, or alternatively that all Scots are lunatics?

    It then becomes a choice thing, does it not? It becomes a question of which is it?

    It is vaguely amusing to deal with that at one remove, for we Scots are used to that sort of insensitive nonsense.

    We are damned if we are and we are damned if we aren’t.

    I’d assume Beyond Belief hasn’t thought his comment @ 14 through.

    Assume for a moment that the words ‘Beyond Belief’ and ‘Thug’ are both nouns.

    Are they, also, interchangeable?

    The use of “MUSLIM THUGS” suggests an unneccessary confluence of two nouns.

    Can I suggest:

    White Thugs

    Christian Thugs

    Thugee fans of Thugs,

    etc, etc.

    It is meaningless. It is cheap and it is wrong.

  17. Beyond Belief — on 22nd October, 2011 at 4:29 pm  

    MUSLIM THUGS MURDER THOUSANDS IN UNITED STATES

    On September 11th 2001, 19 Muslim thugs hijacked four passenger jets. The hijackers intentionally crashed two planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City; both towers collapsed within two hours. Hijackers crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. The fourth jet, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers attempted to take control before it could reach the hijacker’s intended target in Washington, D.C. Nearly 3,000 died in the attacks.

  18. J to the T — on 22nd October, 2011 at 4:59 pm  

    “If you lead a noun, in front of a noun … Can we reasonably say that two nouns have gone to war … It is meaningless. It is cheap and it is wrong.”

    Except when used as ‘EDL thugs’ right?

    Didn’t hear you protest then.

  19. Trofim — on 22nd October, 2011 at 9:43 pm  

    douglas clark @ 16:

    Must learn to distinguish between adjectives and nouns. “Scottish” is an adjective, “lunatics” is a noun in the phrase you cite.

    J to the J @ 18;
    “EDL” functions here as a relative adjective. “Thugs” is a noun.

    A basic grounding in formal logic would not go amiss with most posters here either.

  20. J to the T — on 23rd October, 2011 at 4:29 am  

    Thanks so much Trofim.

    So to recap: Its OK to say ‘EDL thugs’ for misdemeanours, with no proof that the thugs in question are ‘EDL’ at all, or that, as Douglas points out, the inference could be that all EDL are thugs or all thugs are EDL.

    But it is absolutely not, under any circumstances, OK to use the phrase ‘Muslim thugs’ for the countless murders committed clearly by Muslims and clearly in the name of Islam?

    Is that the size of it?

  21. WTFHITS — on 23rd October, 2011 at 6:31 am  

    J to the T

    It’s tempting to say spare your breath, the moral narcissism of these fuckwits precludes any recognition of stench of their own hypocrisy.

  22. Kismet Hardy — on 23rd October, 2011 at 1:33 pm  

    Disregard for punctuation: noted. Synonym misuse: noted. Repeated preposition: noted. Sentence structure: clunky.

    When will these racists learn the correct way to communicate in English?

  23. J to the T — on 23rd October, 2011 at 2:52 pm  

    Not sure Kismet, when will you?

  24. Kismet Hardy — on 23rd October, 2011 at 3:37 pm  

    Full stop after ‘Kismet’ (although a strict pedant would insist on a comma after ‘sure’).

  25. Beyond Belief — on 23rd October, 2011 at 4:01 pm  

    UAF THUGS EXTREME VIOLENCE INJURES POLICE, PROTESTERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

    “We have seen groups of people, predominantly associated with the UAF, engaging in violent confrontation. It is clear to me that a large number have attended with the sole intention of committing disorder and their actions have been wholly unacceptable. Turning their anger on to police officers, they acted with, at times, extreme violence and their actions led to injuries to police officers, protesters and members of the public.”

    “I would also like to praise the efforts of the EDL stewards who worked with us in the face of some very ugly confrontations.”

    Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan
    Greater Manchester Police
    21/02/2010

  26. Kismet Hardy — on 23rd October, 2011 at 4:34 pm  

    This is fast turning into a child’s facebook page where putting up a re-hashed quote in big letters passes off as making some kind of point…

  27. Sarah AB — on 23rd October, 2011 at 4:36 pm  

    I have no particular problem with the use of the term ‘UAF thugs’ – so – can we please carry on talking about ‘EDL thugs’ – when they are thuggish?

  28. J to the T — on 23rd October, 2011 at 5:01 pm  

    Kismet: Childish?! After your silly little contributions? Beyond Belief is making his / her point very clear.

    Sarah AB: And we can we please carry on talking about ‘Muslim thugs’ – when they are thuggish? And lets face it, Muslim thuggery, as illustrated by Beyond Belief, is not just in another league entirely, but another dimension altogether.

  29. Kismet Hardy — on 23rd October, 2011 at 6:08 pm  

    Christ, stop being so insistent on sticking to Beyond Belief’s definition of thug. If blowing up people is an act of thuggery, I’d hate to imagine what act would have to be committed to make it deemed the act of a terrorist.

    Sheesh. Buy a dictionary for thug’s sake…

  30. skidmarx — on 23rd October, 2011 at 6:52 pm  

    I have no particular problem with the use of the term ‘UAF thugs’
    Perhaps you’d like to justify the use of the term?

  31. Sarah AB — on 23rd October, 2011 at 7:00 pm  

    Good point Kismet – I wouldn’t want to brush aside concerns about extremists, but it’s a complex issue – see for example

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/03/poll-muslims-atheists-most-likely-to-reject-violence/

  32. Optimist — on 23rd October, 2011 at 7:29 pm  

    Beyond Belief @25 -

    There is plenty of evidence to refute that remark – infact in all the court cases evidence has emerged that it was a pre-meditated attack by the police upon the UAF side. The IPCC is now invesigating the ‘police violence’ on that day!

    “Channel 4’s “Coppers” programme on Monday night – which followed Greater Manchester Police’s Tactical Aid Unit on duty in Bolton that day – showed Bronze Commander Donna Allen admitting that a decision to arrest the “ringleaders” was taken at an “early stage” in the day.

    The programme also broadcast police admitting that the front of the EDL demo was full of BNP and Combat 18 members.”

    http://justice4bolton.org/2010/12/coppers-broadcasts-police-admitting-uaf-leaders-arrested-irrespective-of-their-actions/

    “As the police version of events gradually unravels – so too does the attempt to criminalise the organisers.”

    http://justice4bolton.org/2010/12/cps-stops-conspiracy-investigation-against-anti-fascists/

  33. damon — on 23rd October, 2011 at 7:52 pm  

    I have no particular problem with the use of the term ‘UAF thugs’

    I disagree Sarah. UAF aren’t really thuggish. They just get caught up in a bit of pushing and shoving mostly. Although their OTT rhetoric does lead to hightened tensions where acts of violence do then take place. Like the attack on the EDL coach.

    The EDL are thuggish because they are drawn from a section of society that sees hitting someone as a perfectly reasonable thing to do ”if they desreve it”.
    The way they see things, some people are taking the mickey out of their country, culture and society and they resent it. When looking around on youtube I came across a BNP video where they drove around the most Muslim parts of Birmingham filming from the car and passing comment on what they were seeing.
    I won’t do a link, but type in ”No go areas in the UK” into youtube and you’ll see it.

    They start off at that ‘Free Gaza’ mural that I linked to in my last post. They think it’s a ”diabolical liberty” and a sign of how their culture has been taken over by a ”foreign one”. They drive past one of the guy’s old school which is now an Islamic centre with a dome over the building. All the shops have the names of places in Pakistan or are in Urdu etc.
    Yes they’re ”Nazis” if you insist on calling them that, but it’s completely understandable (in a tribal way) that some people will have this reaction to wide change in areas like that.
    The EDL are of that type of mentality, even if they say they’re not racist. They are pretty much.

    Will anyone look up that ”no go areas” youtube and comment on it? Instead of faffing about all the time and skirting issues, I think it’s better to face them head on. Some people don’t like the way that parts of Birmingham – or East London – change so much that they become like a different place. (Discuss?)

  34. Don — on 23rd October, 2011 at 8:23 pm  

    Yes they’re ”Nazis” if you insist on calling them that,

    Nobody has, except you. Why do you keep doing that?

  35. J to the T — on 23rd October, 2011 at 10:31 pm  

    Kismet:So we do agree on something at least:

    The extremely murderous crimes of Muslims acting in the name of Islam are mind-blowing in their ferocity, barbarity and scale. They in a completely different dimension to the low level criminal argy-bargy of some blokes purported to be from the EDL throwing books around and cannot even remotely be compared.

    Sarah AB:Extremism is taught in the Koran. You should read it. It isn’t pleasant. Especially not for non-believers, woman, gays etc

    The reality is that these people are not extremists according to their core religious text, they are practicing what it preaches.

    Optimist:I notice above that you have an affinity with UAF by the amount of stories you link to from their site. Are you a member? Of course you don’t have to answer, I’m just trying to determine if you are hopelessly biased.

    The EDL often complain about the police attacking them / provoking them, do you think there is any merit in that?

    Did the police, protesters and members of the public injure themselves on that day?

    Damon:The UAF are very thuggish. They exist only to silence opinions they don’t like by way of force. The favourite banner on all ‘demos’ produced by their party masters calls for political parties to be ‘smashed.’ If this is not a rallying call, an incitement for violence, then I don’t what is.

  36. Kismet Hardy — on 23rd October, 2011 at 10:45 pm  

    “The extremely murderous crimes of Muslims acting in the name of Islam…”

    Yes, you’re referring to two seperate bunch of evil cunts who carried out the two vicious acts that were so henious, it’s sick to compare them…

    to a bunch of cunts who hate ALL muslims because of these handful of pricks

    Please get this in your head: Muslims don’t stand by the actions of terrorists any more than all dogs can be judged by the handful that go rabid and bite children’s faces off

    In the case of the EDL, however, all of them hate all Muslims and want great harm to befall them

    Organisations such as the UAF are around to ensure you don’t get your way

  37. Kismet Hardy — on 23rd October, 2011 at 10:58 pm  

    “Extremism is taught in the Koran. You should read it. It isn’t pleasant. Especially not for non-believers, woman, gays etc”

    I have read the Koran. Yup, it’s harsh on non-believers, gays and so on but for every quote you can dig up from Wikiquotes, I can dig up a hundred that’s far worse from the Bible.

    The Koran, which you have NOT read, when you syphon off the man’s world authors’ cultural bigotry that exists in most holy books written back in those times, is ultimately a self-help book that (piss-poor sub-editing aside) urges you to meditate, be tolerant and forgiving.

    Again, get it into your head: Being religious is not a crime. The terrorists didn’t become terrorists because they read the Koran anymore than football hooligans are violent scum because football fans are angry at the referee.

    Some people are simply cunts. And no book in the world can be blamed for that.

    Think harder. Please.

  38. damon — on 24th October, 2011 at 1:25 am  

    ”Nobody has, except you. Why do you keep doing that?”

    Oh come on Don. What does ”ANL” stand for?
    And UAF? What are they always chanting about getting off their streets?
    Nazis and fascists, that’s who.

  39. Sarah AB — on 24th October, 2011 at 8:35 am  

    skidmarx and damon – I have reservations about the UAF’s politics and tactics. Rumbold criticises them here:

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/7960

    However I wasn’t, primarily, having a go at them when I said I didn’t object to the phrase ‘UAF thugs’. For me, associating thugs with an organisation (even one I’m associated with myself, eg ‘Labour Party thugs’, if some had done something thuggish)is different from associating thugs with a religion – so ‘Muslim thugs’ makes me rather uncomfortable – it sounds a bit Daily Star. That doesn’t mean I don’t think some Muslims do thuggish (and worse) things, and that some do so in the name of Islam. But other Muslims will invoke Islam to *condemn* their actions in the strongest term.

    damon – don’t have time to watch the video right now, but it can be difficult to unpick xenophobia from what I’d see as legitimate concerns, the kind of thing Andrew Gilligan focuses on, communalism etc, which actually have most impact on Muslims.

  40. AbuF — on 24th October, 2011 at 5:29 pm  

    >>it can be difficult to unpick xenophobia from what I’d see as legitimate concerns

    You appear to have difficulty ever making a stand on anything, let alone “unpicking xenophobia”, whatever that is meant to mean.

  41. Sarah AB — on 24th October, 2011 at 7:34 pm  

    AbuF – I have no wish to quarrel with you and no memory of anything substantive we disagree about. If it helps, before reading this, a while ago, I did explicitly take issue with an accusation raised against you by an HP commenter.

  42. damon — on 24th October, 2011 at 9:30 pm  

    Xenophobia is a good word to use Sarah. The EDL are thuggish xenophobes. Not that different to others like them all over the world. Tribal, small minded people.

    Cataloguing what they get up to is far less interesting than trying to get into the psyche and possible raison d’etre of their movement IMO.

    Btw, I really think we need some multiple posts on some ”Killer Questions for the Occupy Movement”. I haven’t really got a clue what they’re up to.
    Are they making any impression on Britain’s Asian origin communities? It doesn’t seem so.

  43. J to the T — on 24th October, 2011 at 10:02 pm  

    Kismet:

    Why the hysteria? And who is this ‘we’?

    But no the UAF are around to silence anyone they disagree with: Fascism at purest. You don’t see it that way because they are your fascists fighting your cause célèbre and people you don’t regard as legitimate in either opinion or being. Same old story.

    As for your rather silly claims that Muslims have only carried out 2 terror attacks in the name of Islam, one documented estimate is that they have carried out 17903 since 2001 alone.

    In fact just in one week gone (15 -21 October) Islamists have carried out at least 42 recorded attacks, killing at least 118 people and critically injuring another 101.

    In September that was at least at least 144 recorded attacks, killing at least 658 people and critically injuring another 1377.

    Many of these were women and children.

    A 2007 Populus revealed the hollowness too of your claims that ‘ Muslims don’t stand by the actions of terrorists.’ In fact the indications are very grave indeed for this country.

    Poll

    The 2001 census showed 1,591,000 Muslims resident in the UK of which 18.2% are aged 16-24 so roughly 300,000 and of those around 30,000 admire terrorist organisations that kill British soldiers and innocent civilians for the crime of being non-believers.

    Around 110,000 want a legal system that punishes and executes homosexuals; executes atheists; executes religious converters; stones adulterous women to death on the say so of her husband and one other; physically punishes women for being raped etc etc

    Around 108,000 want to murder people who no longer believe in Islam and around 222,000 view women as second class citizens to be forced into medieval costume.

    Of course these figures will actually be very significantly higher in 2011 but we can get the general flavour from these available statistics.

    And as for your fluff about the Koran, have you really read it? And it doesn’t influence Islamic acts of depravity such as stoning and amputations? And it doesn’t drive Islamic terrorists? Inspire suicide bombers? That is just plain rubbish.

    Just one little snippet can illustrate that:

    “… But the phone also contained Taliban songs, mostly hypnotic chants without music, in the kind of Pashto spoken in Afghanistan’s eastern and southern areas, or the dialect of Pakistan’s tribal areas.

    One song goes: “You are the martyr of Islam. You are fighting for the religion of God. God doesn’t forget such sacrifices.”

    An intelligence official, by chance from the same village as Wazirwal, told me that he himself can get confused about his allegiances, listening to such songs.”

    Source

    And tell me Kismet: When was the last time, lets say any CoE people in the name of their religion, cut off heads, hands, stoned women to death or blew themselves up?

  44. Kismet Hardy — on 25th October, 2011 at 12:34 pm  

    J to the T (hello Reza), I’m just going to repeat just the one thing: there are bad people who are Muslims, there are also good ones. Now swap the word Muslim for anything.

    Polls are wank. (Not poles, they’re very hardworking)

    Incidentally, remember your lot banging on about the ‘black and Asian’ riots? Home Office data today shows 42% of the rioters were white.

    You’re full of shit.

  45. J to the T — on 25th October, 2011 at 7:17 pm  

    No Kismet, it is you who is full of shit. And how.

    For a start I have never heard of ‘Reza’, so I guess this is just the usual internet ad hom ‘look over there’ stunt when commenter’s like you are faced with solid facts over the ignorant fluff they peddle.

    Secondly who are ‘my lot’ exactly? Which I suspect ties into:

    Third, when did I mention anything about ‘riots’? Strawman. And a rather odd one at that as your figures show that the majority of the rioters (looters) were non-white. What was your point with this? Why are you bringing this to racial lines? Who are ‘my lot’ again?

    Lastly, polls are always ‘wank’ when people don’t like the results. But politicians live by them, and as we see most elections, they usually aren’t that far off.

    In any case, clearly there is a significant body of opinion amongst Muslims that is diametrically opposed not only to British values, but basic humanity.

    And we also know that it isn’t merely words: It is backed up on a daily basis across many countries with extreme violence.

    The facts are above. That is the reality. Your position is hopeless nonsense.

  46. Kismet Hardy — on 25th October, 2011 at 8:05 pm  

    You bored me at no.

    (just need to add: one cares)

  47. J to the T — on 25th October, 2011 at 9:18 pm  

    What I have done, Kimset, is show up your ignorant fluff as, well, ignorant fluff.

    If you don’t care why do you keep coming back to post? Especially when you don’t actually have anything to post.

    All of your silly claims have been shot down in flames by the facts.

    Islamists are the biggest source of terrorism in this world, and by far.

    On a daily basis dozens of men, women and children are killed in the name of Islam.

    There is a significant body of support for such terrorism amongst young Muslims in Britain, and even more support still for murdering people who no longer believe in Islam, murdering gays, and atheists, and also for punishing women who have been raped, as well as shoving all women into medieval costume whether they like it or not.

    To varying degrees, majority Muslim countries are intolerant of all others: From low-level religious discrimination to sectarian attacks and murder through to outright prohibition.

    These are facts.

    What you spout is empty nonsense.

  48. AbuF — on 25th October, 2011 at 10:32 pm  

    No, Sarah AB, you did not “explicitly” take sides with me. You asserted that your position was “softened” by the insanity of another regular HP’s poster’s libelous accusations.

    I still do not understand what “unpicking xenophobia” means. One is either a xenophobe, or one is not.

    Incidentally, I do not now and will not ever post on HP again after the appalling manner in which I was traduced, smeared and libeled on that site over a sustained period with little or no intervention.

  49. Sarah AB — on 26th October, 2011 at 6:41 am  

    Abu Faris – I said it’s difficult to unpick xenophobia from legitimate concerns. I can’t see what is unclear about that but I wrote a post essentially about that issue here.

    http://hurryupharry.org/2011/08/24/troping-bigotry/

    You are a regular commenter, and write posts above the line sometimes too. For that reason I tend to assume you can look after yourself, although I haven’t been aware of any special pattern of attack, and the only accusation I noticed about you was really too absurd to engage with.

    I don’t think you have been reading what I wrote properly. I never said I explicitly took sides with you, I said I took explicitly took issue with Lamia. You have questioned people’s mental health repeatedly – many people do have mental health problems at some point in their life, so that seems like a line of attack best avoided. I also didn’t use the word soften in the way you mean. Here’s what I wrote:

    “Although I really haven’t followed this spat in detail I do feel I should say that it struck me as completely unfair, totally bizarre, to accuse AF of antisemitism – the one thing which softened it for me was the fact that I didn’t think anyone, including Lamia actually, could take it seriously for a moment.”

  50. Sarah AB — on 26th October, 2011 at 6:43 am  

    Reposting without link.

    Abu Faris – I said it’s difficult to unpick xenophobia from legitimate concerns. I can’t see what is unclear about that but I wrote a post essentially about that issue – ‘troping bigotry’.

    You are a regular commenter, and write posts above the line sometimes too. For that reason I tend to assume you can look after yourself, although I haven’t been aware of any special pattern of attack, and the only accusation I noticed about you was really too absurd to engage with.

    I don’t think you have been reading what I wrote properly. I never said I explicitly took sides with you, I said I took explicitly took issue with Lamia. You have questioned people’s mental health repeatedly – many people do have mental health problems at some point in their life, so that seems like a line of attack best avoided. I also didn’t use the word soften in the way you mean. Here’s what I wrote:

    “Although I really haven’t followed this spat in detail I do feel I should say that it struck me as completely unfair, totally bizarre, to accuse AF of antisemitism – the one thing which softened it for me was the fact that I didn’t think anyone, including Lamia actually, could take it seriously for a moment.”

  51. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2011 at 9:33 am  

    AbuF,

    ré 48.

    It’s what they do. A shower of bully boys without a brain between them. Unless you see some sort of speed xenophobia dating as an arguement perhaps.

    “There are none so blind as will not see.”

    They would tell you that they ‘see’ when they clearly do not. A stranger bunch of litigants it would be hard to find.

    Arseholes, the lot of them…..

  52. AbuF — on 26th October, 2011 at 4:26 pm  

    I do not agree with that, Douglas Clark. My contention would be that the very lax moderation on HP can, when it is lazily understood, lead to unfortunate incidents. I am pointing to a particular example of the same, rather than making some general condemnation. The point being that one of the people concerned chose to comment here on the issue.

  53. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2011 at 5:26 pm  

    AbuF,

    Disagree with it if you like. It is my experience of HP and all who sail in her. You really do need to try arguing with the root cause of their point of view. They are right and you, assuming you have a point of contention with them, are not just wrong you are evil.

    That is how they argue, that is who they are.

    They are a particularily nasty bunch of bastards.

  54. AbuF — on 26th October, 2011 at 6:23 pm  

    I do not think that is fair, Douglas.

    I think that there are a range of writers, above and below the line, on HP. Some of these I strongly disagree with. Some *do* contend in such a manner as you claim; and I *do* have a problem with such people.

    However, I think it is simply mistaken to assert, as you appear to be doing, that *every* contributor and commenter on HP argue in such an illegitimate manner. They simply do not.

  55. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2011 at 7:34 pm  

    AbuF,

    You might think so. My experience of them is somewhat different. Sure, there may be the odd commentator on there that fights against the flow – Flying Rodent comes to mind – but that is not to allow you to pretend that they are not the Borg, because they are.

    I cannot be bothered to find the thread on here, but it was said that Moazzam Begg of Caged Prisoners fame, had not opened a school in Kabul. You’d have to be a fool to think that the idiots from Harry’s Place won that arguement.

    But, what is more interesting, apart from their complete use of every trick in the lexicon of debate, was how they all piled in. The ‘above the line’ folk and the ‘below the line’ folk. It was Stepford Wives stuff.

    Frankly, I couldn’t have cared less whether he did or he didn’t, the point was that we should all believe whatever Harry’s Place said. The further it went, the less credibility they had.

    It is what they do. They are right. You are wrong. Lets try to rubbish you.

    They have been caught out numerous times doing that sort of thing. Don’t make me find the cases, but ambulances blown apart in Lebanon come to mind for starters. I think Connor Foley can give you chapter and verse on that little insanity.

    I take it some of them are your chums. I suggest you find new chums.

  56. AbuF — on 26th October, 2011 at 7:45 pm  

    Douglas Clark

    As you are quite clearly unable to detect nuance, let alone strong differences and distinctions between various commenters and writers at HP, there seems little sense in continuing this discussion.

    Clearly any sane view of HP would not view every single contributor and commenter as “the Borg”, as you have it. There are considerable differences of opinion on that site, this is quite evident.

    As you mention Connor Foley, it is perhaps worth pointing out Connor’s opinion that much of what is written above the line on HP is commendable – it is the cess pit that yawns below the line (partly, if not in the main, due to the lax moderation policy on HP) that, as he put it, is like contemplating the contents of an unflushed toilet. Sadly, I think too often that is a correct judgement of much of what passes for comment on HP (and increasingly so as the site appears to being swamped with some seriously deranged right-wing trolls).

    Whether some or any of the contributors are my friends is neither here nor there. As it happens some of them are – one of the reasons why they are is precisely because they will and do address any complaints or issues I may have. It is a shame you find yourself unable to do so. Instead you simply repeat as some sort of mantra the same circular argument. Why is that?

    Might I point out, if I may, that my very comments here would tend to suggest that there is variance and difference in HP commenters’ and contributors’ (and I am both) views quite clearly on display in these very comments of mine. Variance and difference that you fail to recognise – despite the evidence before your very eyes?

  57. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2011 at 8:10 pm  

    AbuF,

    I agree. There is little or no point in continuing as you choose to see nuance where there is, fundamentally, none.

    I threw ‘the Borg’ in as I suspected you’d jump on it. You fulfilled my expectations. Wow!

    Whether some or any of the contributors are my friends is neither here nor there. As it happens some of them are – one of the reasons why they are is precisely because they will and do address any complaints or issues I may have. It is a shame you find yourself unable to do so. Instead you simply repeat as some sort of mantra the same circular argument. Why is that?

    In what way is my arguement circular AbuF? My arguement is simple. Harry’s Place plays games with reason and plies a singular point of view. Your arguement is that some of their commentators ask you whether you want one lump or two with their anti Palestinian rant. That is what they do.

    You should ask Connor Foley what he made of the ambulance story, which, I do believe, was ‘above the line’.

    I haven’t been around Harry’s Place for a long time – it tended to make me angry seeing so many people dropping into a group mind (better than Borg?) Just so’s you know, I find some SNP sites equally annoying for exactly the same reason, and you know my politics….

    It surprises me that you write for them now.

    Why?

    You were better than that.

    If you tell it to the man perhaps it’d be worth reading, but I doubt you do….

  58. AbuF — on 26th October, 2011 at 8:44 pm  

    Douglas

    I am glad I pleased you by rising to your bait. Such little victories clearly make your day. Well done.

    You appear to (I rather hope willfully) entirely miss my point.

    You also appear to have missed my first comment: I do not write for HP anymore.

    In any case, Douglas. I have better things to do with myself than continue this argument with someone who (hopefully willfully) cannot detect the rather large problems with his own argument.

  59. AbuF — on 26th October, 2011 at 8:47 pm  

    “Your arguement is that some of their commentators ask you whether you want one lump or two with their anti Palestinian rant.”

    Erm…no… that was not my point at all.

    Rather, it is a projection of your own position concerning HP. A position which is both simplistic and basically false.

    Incidentally, when I was better than what?

  60. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2011 at 9:01 pm  

    AbuF

    I should assume that, because you say so, my position ré Harrys Place is simplistic and false?

    Your masters have taught you well.

    ____________________________________________

    In case you don’t get the point just saying something doesn’t make it true.

  61. AbuF — on 27th October, 2011 at 4:51 pm  

    My “masters”?

    Are you out of your fecking mind?

  62. Refresh — on 27th October, 2011 at 6:56 pm  

    I think this sums it up pretty well:

    ‘Harry’s Place plays games with reason and plies a singular point of view. Your arguement is that some of their commentators ask you whether you want one lump or two with their anti Palestinian rant. That is what they do.’

  63. damon — on 28th October, 2011 at 1:09 am  

    Harry’s Place plays games with reason and plies a singular point of view.

    I agree. But they throw up a lot of important stories that are otherwise ignored.

    Just today they had a post about more rockets being fired from Gaza into Israel. Who knew of that?

    http://hurryupharry.org/2011/10/27/hey-guess-what/

  64. AbuF — on 28th October, 2011 at 2:10 am  

    Thank you, Damon, But do be aware that you only comment on that because some mysterious force – known only to Douglas – told you so…

    Tinfoil. Hat. Put. On.

  65. dmra — on 28th October, 2011 at 1:57 pm  

    AbuF

    Owing to illness I was taking a sabbatical from HP and the other sites I usually visit so didn’t see the incident(s) you talked about earlier.

    Because of that I don’t know the details of what happened but, as it all sounds fairly nasty, I can see why it might have put you off posting there. I think though that it will be a shame if you do carry through with your stated intention not to comment there again.

    I don’t always agree with what you said but, even when I didn’t, it was still clear that you were one of the more reasonable and sensible below the line posters. There aren’t so many of them at the moment that HP can afford to lose one.

  66. skidmarx — on 28th October, 2011 at 2:43 pm  

    @61 – And they don’t bother with stories like this (warning,picture of injured child) or this.

    @AbuF – I do not now and will not ever post on HP again after the appalling manner in which I was traduced, smeared and libeled on that site over a sustained period with little or no intervention.
    I’m inclined to say something sarcastic at this point, but don’t know if you’d understand it. Where have you been when I’ve been traduced, smeared and libelled on that site over a sustained period with little or no intervention?

  67. damon — on 28th October, 2011 at 6:15 pm  

    @61 – And they don’t bother with stories like this (warning,picture of injured child) or this.

    You’re right. Then after reading them you look somewhere else for another view, and between them you can come to a more balanced idea.
    Remember the saying about putting all your eggs in one basket? Well the same applies to politics IMO.

  68. AbuF — on 28th October, 2011 at 9:53 pm  

    Thank you, dmra – and I hope that whatever illness you have been suffering is over.

    I deeply appreciate what David, Gene and others at HP have been trying to put together. And I thank them for the chance to speak/write.

    Skidmarx

    You were, and always will be, an unpleasant fool. With the emphasis on “fool”.

    Get over yourself.

  69. AbuF — on 28th October, 2011 at 10:01 pm  

    “Where have you been when I’ve been traduced, smeared and libelled on that site over a sustained period with little or no intervention?”

    Oh, I have obviously been sitting on my hands, That is, surely clear.

    Fuck off?

  70. Shamit — on 29th October, 2011 at 2:02 am  

    “I cannot be bothered to find the thread on here, but it was said that Moazzam Begg of Caged Prisoners fame, had not opened a school in Kabul. ”

    Douglas,

    I have a lot of res[ect for you – but there are enough reasons to cast doubts on Mr. Begg’s story.

    Was it a girls school or a boys school? Or both – now he claims it was both and so why did the Taliban allow him to do so when they did not allow anyone else.

    And not to mention this is a guy who thought Taliban were doing a splendid job in Afghanistan. And I can write on and on and on -

    Harry’s Place was right to slam him and back Gita Sahgal – yes they have some loony moments but the Moazzam begg challenge and backing Sahgal was definitely one of their finer moments.

  71. AbuF — on 29th October, 2011 at 10:18 am  

    Shamit

    Spot on.

  72. KB Player — on 29th October, 2011 at 1:19 pm  

    AbuF – I’m sorry you’ve broken with HP. I hope you change your mind. I enjoy your contributions.

  73. AbuF — on 29th October, 2011 at 3:39 pm  

    No, Sorry KB Player, there is a limit. And being repeatedly smeared as an anti-Semite, a quisling for al-Ikhwaan and a spreader of misinformation – despite my track record – AND without a peep from the administrators and moderators was the final straw.

  74. douglas clark — on 30th October, 2011 at 2:14 am  

    Shamit @ 68,

    I have a lot of respect for you too. But when one guy – me – can cast a whole lot of doubt on the narrative that Harry’s Place want to promulgate, then you’ve got to wonder.

    The point is that they can’t disprove Moazzam Begg, they can only play a game with what we know, and don’t know.

    There is a name for it in logic or summat, it is arguement by disbelief. It is not valid as a technique. When it is backed up with lots of chums leaping in to support the cause it becomes sinister.

    I have serious doubts about Moazzam Begg. But I will not see someone be the victim of a witch hunt where incredulity is seen as a valid method of discussion.

    It is down to people that disbelieve it to at least publish some frigging evidence. That they have not done. Have you any evidence?

    My point of view is reasonable, that of Harry’s Place was, and apparently still is, not.

    What if they all jumped on your back with their false logic and their majoritarianism? What if you had done what you said? Who’s going to stand up for you then?

    I will.

    They won’t.

    They are a nasty little crew.

  75. douglas clark — on 30th October, 2011 at 2:20 am  

    AbuF @ 71,

    What is that all about? Are you being satirical?

    Frankly I’d assume you are but I have a lot of time for KB Player (@ 70) and she appears to take you seriously.

  76. Sarah — on 30th October, 2011 at 1:31 pm  

    @AbuF – I have made a couple of attempts to reply to you which were blocked by PP, but I’m trying again as the conversation isn’t going away – I am very sorry if you have been upset by comments on HP – I tried to intervene, as did others, and deleted some comments both spontaneously and when requested by both you and your antagonist, although as I’ve got family/work commitments there’s a limit to how vigilant I can be. As I tried to explain before, the allegation that you were antisemitic struck me as so absurd that it hardly seemed necessary to leap to your defence, although I did do so, and I apologise if I didn’t do so quickly/forcibly enough.

  77. Don — on 30th October, 2011 at 5:47 pm  

    Douglas,

    You are mistaken in your argument about the Begg question. Argument from disbelief is a very specific theological issue which doesn’t apply here. Just saying that you don’t believe a claim and require evidence for it is not a logical fallacy. It’s entirely legitimate.

    Argument from incredulity is also quite specific and not really relevant here. It’s the most common creationist fallacy of ‘It’s just way too big and complicated for me to understand so I demand a simpler, more comforting explanation for the universe.’

    The onus of evidence is always on those making the claim. AFAIK no evidence has been produced for Begg’s school and the story shifts. I find the claim unpersuasive.

  78. AbuF — on 30th October, 2011 at 6:11 pm  

    Douglas,

    As a person who likes a drink or two himself, might I suggest you try commenting when sober?

  79. Refresh — on 30th October, 2011 at 8:08 pm  

    I must admit I am quite surprised, even dismayed that KBPlayer has time for HP.

    The Begg question is irrelevant even though its been made to appear reasonable. It is a hook that HP have used to avoid the real questions about Guantanamo and to diminish both Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. Both groups are themselves on some sort of HP watch list for their observations on Israeli behaviour and transgressions.

    HP doesn’t need evidence. Just a goal.

    Its astonishing that they seem to have such influence that they were willing and able to launch a manifesto which harnessed human rights and interventionism to only benefit themselves. People fell for it.

  80. Don — on 30th October, 2011 at 8:28 pm  

    The Begg question is irrelevant even though its been made to appear reasonable

    Could you explain how that works? (Bearing in mind that I don’t give a tinker’s damn about HP.)

  81. Refresh — on 30th October, 2011 at 8:46 pm  

    Here’s my reading of the situation.

    Guantanamo detainee is freed from incarceration. He writes a book, goes on tour: highlights his experience.

    A pro-war outfit does not wish Guantanamo Bay (and with it torture) to gain traction as an issue with the public. It goes for the soft option of maligning the merits of Begg’s case and takedown Amnesty with it.

    It is as simple as that.

    For HP it would have been enough to have proven he was a muslim, a non-afghan in Afghanistan, so more than likely would have had some tough questions to answer. And where do you ask tough questions: Guantanamo Bay.

  82. Don — on 30th October, 2011 at 9:00 pm  

    It is as simple as that.

    I was following your point until then. Obviously it is not that simple. The merits of his case are questionable, regardless of hostile agendas.

  83. damon — on 30th October, 2011 at 9:23 pm  

    You don’t have to like HP to think that they raise a lot of interesting stories or things that most other people ignore. We hear a lot about the EDL on PP, but there was no mention of Cageprisoners holding a fundraising event at East London Mosque. I only found out about it because it was written about on HP.
    It’s sort of important, because Cageprisoners are hostile jihadi supporters of war against the West.

    I thought this was quite funny.
    ”Cleaning up the Medinah”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QGdzJ2NuQM&feature=related

    It’s the kind of thing that would probably annoy those people who attacked the stall in Birmingham. It shows quite a degree of segregation.

  84. KB Player — on 30th October, 2011 at 9:53 pm  

    I must admit I am quite surprised, even dismayed that KBPlayer has time for HP.

    In fact, I write the odd post for them.

    My reading of the Begg case:-

    Islamist, Begg, and Islamist organisation, CagePrisoners are given credibility by respected human rights organisation, Amnesty International. Islamism, with its religious supremacism, misogyny, anti-semitism and gross violations of human rights when in power, eg in Afghanistan and Iran, is the last kind of movement that Amnesty International should support.

    I don’t want to go over all that old ground but what got me was that if you said you thought Amnesty International were very wrong to give Begg so much exposure, you were immediately accused of wanting him to be locked up and tortured.

  85. Refresh — on 30th October, 2011 at 10:29 pm  

    Don,

    But it is that simple.

    Due process would have done us all some good. Now we are left with nothing but speculation.

  86. Refresh — on 30th October, 2011 at 10:31 pm  

    ‘In fact, I write the odd post for them.’

    I am shocked. I clearly misjudged your position.

    Was that also the reason for your very hostile reaction to Earwicga?

  87. AbuF — on 30th October, 2011 at 10:57 pm  

    Refresh

    It would be refreshing if you might address KB Player’s points.

  88. AbuF — on 30th October, 2011 at 11:06 pm  

    Sarah

    It was not simply the allegation of being anti-Semitic, it was also the allegations that my presence in Egypt during and after the Revolution here should be read as meaning that I was active in the movement to install Islamist clerical fascist rule in this country.

    This is clearly absurd, as many of my published commentaries on events in revolutionary Egypt and comments made on blogs such as HP, would show. However, it is also incredibly scurrilous and damaging to my reputation as an honest observer of the events still unfolding in Egypt.

    That I do take an equal exception too – quite as much as the dirty and equally unfounded, repeated allegations that I was some sort of anti-Semite engaged in dissimulation and misinformation of the readership of sites such as HP.

    Again, the stench of conspiratorial, paranoid, sub-JihadWatch batshit craziness would under normal circumstances have made me laugh. It was, however, the rankness of the accusations – and their proper injustice – that rankled and seriously upset.

    I remain very angry about the way in which I feel I was let down by the moderators of HP over this matter. I have contributed quite regularly and sometimes at considerable risk in order to expose the fundamentally reactionary, bigoted and vile misrule that Islamism both imposes on sections of the people in the MENA region and threatens to impose upon others. Despite this, it appears, when the chips are down I am to expect absolutely no support from those for whom I have produced copy and shared ideas.

    I think that stinks, frankly.

  89. Refresh — on 30th October, 2011 at 11:07 pm  

    The Sahgal affair was done to death, and its not one I wish to rehash.

  90. AbuF — on 30th October, 2011 at 11:10 pm  

    And yes, Douglas and Refresh, I am stating this quite publicly here, on this blog – a site with which I have had considerable differences.

    However, to disabuse you, this is not because I feel this some sort of haven of agreement with my own views; but, rather, at the least because I do not have to be subject to the torrent of ignorant, crass, untrue and frankly nasty abuse that passes too often for comment over on HP – and especially of late.

    For that, at the very least, I should thank PP.

  91. AbuF — on 30th October, 2011 at 11:12 pm  

    Refresh

    I bet. It is, after all, never wise to pick up the stick with which one has previously been thoroughly thrashed and ask for another beating with the same.

  92. Refresh — on 30th October, 2011 at 11:18 pm  

    AbuF,

    ‘at the least because I do not have to be subject to the torrent of ignorant, crass, untrue and frankly nasty abuse that passes too often for comment over on HP – and especially of late.’

    Its rare for that to happen on PP. And we don’t thrash people. We engage and attempt to understand each other’s points of view and hope to persuade. You can bet on that.

  93. AbuF — on 30th October, 2011 at 11:19 pm  

    Sara

    Just to pick up on your comment above about my questioning of some commentors’ mental health on HP.

    In doing so, I am not trying to be rude, I am trying to understand why so many apparently otherwise bright and literate people on HP cling to such evidently strange and offensive notions.

    Surely, that should be of some concern, if as you suggest many people have mental health issues at some time in their lives? The question begged being: why do so many of them seem to post on HP?

  94. AbuF — on 30th October, 2011 at 11:24 pm  

    I was unaware that interactions I might have on the threads at HP were to be designed so that they should have psychotherapeutic concerns. If I had known that I should have brushed up on my Jung.

  95. Refresh — on 30th October, 2011 at 11:28 pm  

    HP has always been full of nasty abuse, and your ‘sub-Jihadwatch batshit’ observation is spot on. I always viewed HP as a step removed from Robert Spencer, where people were on journey on their way back to the real world and it was just one of the stopping points.

    But I believe having lost its ‘manifesto’ ploy its become a gateway for traffic in the other direction.

  96. AbuF — on 30th October, 2011 at 11:40 pm  

    No, that is not the case, Refresh. I was not making a general charge against reportage or commentary on HP. I was commenting on a particular set of posters, who engage in wholesale and savage, personalised campaigns of vitriol against other posters on that site.

    As it happens, I think it is a consequence of a misunderstanding of their very motto (from Orwell). One in which the “right to say things others do not like” has a scope which quite illegitimately is understood to include untruth – on the spurious grounds that any and all opinions have some sort of equality of value and right to expression.

    As far as I understand him, Orwell was not trying to argue that spitting lies, smears and hate in the direction of someone with which one disagreed constituted useful or sensible debate.

    However, I do not think the editorial or moderation policy of the site is necessarily symptomatic or telling of some sort of essential political malaise on the part of the editors or moderators of that site.

    Then, I cannot agree with you that HP stands in any sort of continuum with JihadWatch. It clearly does not.

  97. AbuF — on 30th October, 2011 at 11:43 pm  

    Refresh

    @91 If that were but true, unfortunately.

  98. Refresh — on 30th October, 2011 at 11:48 pm  

    Then we can safely disagree.

  99. AbuF — on 30th October, 2011 at 11:51 pm  

    Patently, I should think.

  100. Sarah — on 31st October, 2011 at 8:05 am  

    AbuF – again, I really hadn’t been strongly aware of the accusations you mention – there are a lot of threads and I don’t read all parts of all of them – I *have* just found some quite bizarre comments addressed at you (which you have seen already, nothing new!) which I have pruned, and would have done so anyway, partly because the main offender asked us to. But, as with the antisemitic comments – comments suggesting you are an Islamist sympathiser are so bizarre I just – tune them out. I think the fact that you are someone who posts above the line at HP actually makes me more likely to ignore such comments – it underlines how silly they are.

    I normally find Pickled Politics a civil and interesting forum too – though I *seemed* to be deliberately prevented from commenting here the other day, and was most certainly repeatedly deleted in the past, again for no reason other than the HP link as far as I could tell. I’m quite open to Abu F’s suggestions about being more firm with offensive comments on HP, but it’s equally irksome to be censored when you haven’t offended – it would never occur to me to delete or ban a commenter just because they linked to, say, Socialist Unity.

  101. KB Player — on 31st October, 2011 at 9:43 am  

    @85

    My “hostile” reaction to earwicga was because her only way of replying to people she disagreed with was to insult them and shout at them. It didn’t matter how politely you expressed your point – if she didn’t like it, out would come the abuse. I thought her antics brought down this site, which is pretty good on the whole.

  102. Lamia — on 31st October, 2011 at 12:28 pm  

    I’m pleased to see that my retaliation has so needled Abu Faris. It has given him a tatse of his own medicine.

    What you have been reading above is the self-justificiation of a pompous bully who regularly stalks and abuses other posters, openly admits he misrepresents what others say, but seems to think it is justified as ‘revenge’ for other things which, if pressed, he will admit they haven’t said either. He is amiable enough if your views concur with his, but diverge significantly and immediately starts that abuse, earwicga style.

    Abu Faris started stalking me around HP with said tactic a few weeks back. He seemed to find it very amusing. I put up with it for a couple of weeks, then retalitated. Within a day he was running to the mods trying to ge tmy posts taken down, and here he has been sitting, pouring his pompous bullying heart out. How dare they let this happen to him? With his ‘track record’? Don’t they know who he is? Don’t they know different rules apply to him?

    Incidentally, his self-denying “I do not now and will not ever post on HP again” is, like so much of what he says, complete pompous bollocks. He’s posted there since that grand statement.

    Abu Faris has flounced out of HP for ‘the last time’ so many times that his family coat of arms must feature a revolving door.

    See you around, bully. Now dry your eyes.

  103. Refresh — on 31st October, 2011 at 2:51 pm  

    KBPlayer, I’ve confused you with someone else. For a while I thought I’d completely lost my ability to judge people on their contributions alone.

    Going by AbuF’s experience (after all he is one of your own) and the nature of what passes for debate on HP its impossible to understand your hostile reaction to Earwicga other than partisanship.

  104. KB Player — on 31st October, 2011 at 4:54 pm  

    Going by AbuF’s experience (after all he is one of your own) and the nature of what passes for debate on HP its impossible to understand your hostile reaction to Earwicga other than partisanship.

    It’s impossible for someone who doesn’t believe in honest debate, but any reasonable person who has seen Earwicga in action will understand my point – she is rude, abusive and irrational, and her absence has improved this site no end.

  105. Refresh — on 31st October, 2011 at 10:20 pm  

    That is just my point, given the acquiesence to vicious and thuggish views and behaviour freely expressed on HP, you cannot claim a higher principle when on PP.

    Don and Douglas Clark can make the point without a note of hypocrisy but not posters from HP.

    Earwigca expressed her frustration, a little too freely to some peoples liking, about Sarah directing traffic from the calm waters of PP to a pro-war cesspit.

  106. KB Player — on 1st November, 2011 at 12:05 am  

    Refresh – it would only be hypocrisy if I acted like Earwigca on HP or anywhere else. I don’t.

    Otherwise – the “calm waters of PP”? – For goodness sake! Haven’t you read some of the threads here?

    By the way, is that’s Earwicga’s own explanation of her behaviour or your interpretation? I love your euphemism of how she “expressed her frustation, a little too freely to some peoples liking” – i.e., flew off the handle at any opposition to her views, and jeered or yelled insults and abuse.

  107. Refresh — on 1st November, 2011 at 12:30 am  

    ‘Haven’t you read some of the threads here?’

    Most of them are refreshing and occasionally challenging.

    ‘…..or your interpretation?’

    Mine.

    I objected to her response only because of her monosyllabic language. Her crime was she was far too succint.

    I am still hopeful she will return, and fly off the handle from time to time. She might even occasionally add a sentence or two to explain her reasoning.

  108. Sarah — on 1st November, 2011 at 8:31 am  

    I have routinely linked to HP on the ‘website’ box when I fill in my personal details – it is a blog on the PP blogroll – PP is on the HP blogroll too. I began to comment on this blog a couple of years ago. I don’t agree with all the articles or, I suppose, editorial positions (though of course the writers have a wide range of views) but I had never seen my relationship with it as particularly antagonistic, and link to/hat tip its writers from time to time.

    It’s interesting that someone mentioned Begg as an HP/PP quarrel – I found that a very interesting and constructive debate here – I had been on the pro Gita side, and I auppose still am, or am certainly not pro Begg, but I found the comments here helped me see other perspectives which have stayed in my mind – particularly Arif, even though I don’t always agree with him.

  109. Ernie Christ — on 1st November, 2011 at 5:51 pm  

    AbuF, in the unlikely event that you’re still reading this thread, I reckon it’s a damn shame if you’re not going to make a reappearance at HP…

    Who cares about a few insane comments? Let them call you an Islamist, or an anti-Semite, or whatever bizarre insult pops into their heads. You can’t expect to be liked by the ternminally deranged and you don’t need to be.

    Ach well. I think I’ve missed the boat with this thread. Wish I’d seen it earlier, I might have had a pop at persuading you to stick around.

    All the best

    Ernie

    PS: the “where were you?” comment here from skidmarx is hilarious, and further proof that the blogosphere needs more AbuFs…

  110. douglas clark — on 2nd November, 2011 at 10:24 pm  

    Bloody hell, I go into rehab (you wish AbuF) and I come back to this.

    If anyone is still reading this then I have a few questions and a few comments to make.

    Don @ 76.

    You say:

    Argument from disbelief is a very specific theological issue which doesn’t apply here. Just saying that you don’t believe a claim and require evidence for it is not a logical fallacy. It’s entirely legitimate.

    Argument from incredulity is also quite specific and not really relevant here. It’s the most common creationist fallacy of ‘It’s just way too big and complicated for me to understand so I demand a simpler, more comforting explanation for the universe.’

    Frankly arguing from incredulity is all that the Harry’s Place folk that attempted to talk about Moazzem Begg brought to the party here. I saw them using it as a technique. I am not exactly sure if you are with me or against me or simply correcting my admittedly poor understanding of logical arguement. If it is the latter, then so be it.

    ______________________________

    AbuF. Where to begin, hic!

    You say that Shamit is ‘spot on’ referring to Shamit’s comment at 69. I replied to Shamit @ 73. I’d really appreciate a reply from Shamit rather than from you. Shamit has been a tad silent on here since then and I’d really like to hear what he has to say. Shamit and I have argued back and forth for ages, but I like to think that neither claims the other, as you did, nor are we as committed to a point of view that we would not change it in the face of evdence. Of which there is none. You, on the other hand…

    _________________________

    KB Player @ 83,

    My reading of the Begg case:-

    Islamist, Begg, and Islamist organisation, CagePrisoners are given credibility by respected human rights organisation, Amnesty International. Islamism, with its religious supremacism, misogyny, anti-semitism and gross violations of human rights when in power, eg in Afghanistan and Iran, is the last kind of movement that Amnesty International should support.

    It is not about any of that. It is about a shower of bully boys on Harrys Place and subsequently on here attempting to say that Moazzem Begg is a liar. Specifically about a school in Kabul. Without a shred of evidence that he is.

    I do not know whether what he says is true. I do know that what his opponents say is mendacious bullshit. They don’t know either. They just say shit and assume everyone else will swallow it.

    Well, I don’t and hopefully some readers of this blog will wonder about the Harry’s Place’s contingent’s commitment to justice. Just so’s you know, I think they haven’t a clue……

  111. AbuF — on 4th November, 2011 at 3:02 pm  

    Shamit and I have argued back and forth for ages, but I like to think that neither claims the other, as you did[.]

    What on earth does that mean? Claims the other? Claims the other what?

    nor are we as committed to a point of view that we would not change it in the face of evdence.

    Erm… who was arguing about intransigence of claims? is this what you are claiming of HP readers/writers too? This is a new accusation, Douglas, on top of your earlier ones. However, I agree with you, of evidence for this, there is none.

    Of which there is none. You, on the other hand…

    As I have not argued that HP readers/writers are (or are not) intransigent in their views (as you have just introduced this new accusation), I can hardly be accused of taking a position on this claim, Douglas.

    Clearly, the rehab failed.

  112. Don — on 4th November, 2011 at 6:44 pm  

    Douglas,

    Mainly the latter.

    However, on the Begg issue I find his claim extraordinary for obvious reasons and I incline towards Sagan’s dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    As for HP, I’m afraid I’ll have to pass – I’ve barely glanced at it in years and when I did I left quickly because it is such a depressingly unpleasant place. I’ll take your word for it that the discussion there was malign and vicious – that is hardly an extraordinary claim. But logically the onus was not on them to provide evidence for the non-existence of something for which no evidence had been presented.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.