‘Entryism’ appears to be the opening gambit.

‘Entryism’ appears to be the opening gambit.

As it is you that has made this into a car crash of a thread, with your unhumanitarian, stupid comments, perhaps it would be best if you were the one to close it down with some sort of apology for your idiocy?

As any one can see by reading your amazinlg erudite, and divisive, contribution @ 69.

———————————-

It is pretty obvious that no-one that is posting here, and has been for a while, is in favour of Islamists. Y’know the sons and daughters of racially and religiously dominant Islam. And I’d have thought that that was a minority opinion within Islam itself. But there you go, argue about the marginalised psychopaths that dominate every religious extremism you care to mention.

Would that be right or would that be wrong?

———————————————–

But the ways in which that should be tackled seem as beyond reasoned judgement, and seem also to alienate the likes of Sunny and Faisal in ways that I do not really understand.

You make an enemy of someone who was once a close friend because you see a detail between your approaches as more important than tackling that issue, and staying united.

I think this is how the left dies, so I do. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Douglas Clark @ 79. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a very dangerous man, trial or no trial. He killed Daniel Pearl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed

Assuming he is still at large, catch him, try him and punish him.

What the heck is complicated about this? Normal criminals are dealt with in this way.

Perhaps I am wrong about that.

Perhaps he actually ran away before he was challenged. Hit and run would seem to be the modus operandi of the Labour Party’s dirty squad.

are you accusing me of lying about something here?

No, I don’t think you are a liar, of course I don’t.

Could we have a difference of opinion, even one this wide, without descending into that sort of gutter?

What I do think is that you bring is a great deal of passion to this debate, and that you get more than a little upset when other people, (oh, OK, me then) doesn’t see it in quite the same way.

————————————————–

Dunno how to summarise this, I think it is completely wrong for you to suggest that something which is done under government black ops, rendition, Gitmo, etc is in any way acceptable to anyone that thinks whatsoever.

Someone else said that we could hold people as long as we liked whilst there was a war on. I could almost subscribe to that if Gitmo didn’t look so much like a fucking concentration camp and not a prisoner of war camp. Where do you stand on, at the very least, applying Geneva Convention rules to these prisoners? Don’t seem too obvious that any government cares too much about that. It is this sort of cunning subvention of reasonable conduct that makes your side of the arguement look ridiculous from a humanitarian point of view. Yes, I know the arguements about uniforms and stuff. You do not treat people like that, and you do not use it as prime time entertainment, which is what G W Bush did. Talk about pandering to the crowd. Shower of fucking bastards, from medieval land.

———————————————-

My comment has been up on your site for a fortnight. Not a word. It is all very well to slander one politician, it is not reasonable to stay schtum on another who is fighting exactly the same seat and also has, argueably far larger, skeletons in his cupboard.

You may appreciate that I find that unacceptable, biased and wrong. You gave a post to some sort of wannabe Labour Party supporter who ran away when challenged. It is utterly pathetic.

I’d stop frothing at the mouth now if I was you Faisal. This is looking increasingly embarrassing for you.

No I said he gets a lot right about Islamists.

#108

No I said he gets some things right. Try again sunshine.

10 min apart. So much for consistency.

1. That detaining people for a long time without trial is wrong.

2. That not all organisations which oppose such detention are respectable bedfellows.

No I said he gets some things right. Try again sunshine.

You really need to explain to me the LINK between one and the other. It is completely unrelated.

Credulous. Scroll up and read what I’ve said on this thread and on my blog about how Amnesty have diminished their own rally by paying no credence to the victims of terrorism. I’m going hoarse here.

No I said he gets a lot right about Islamists. His fascist equivalents. Perhaps your fundamental problem is that you don’t know the difference between Islam and Islamists and as a result conflate the two.

No, that’s exactly what Robert Spencer does everyday. And to you he is an expert on Islamists. Go figure.

It sickens me when pompous, credulous buffoons like yourself diminish the suffering of the victims of terrorism just to win a cheap feelgood point about your own inconsistencies.

Oh I see, fighting against illegal detention is diminishing the suffering of victims of terrorism? You really need to explain to me the LINK between one and the other.

No I said he gets a lot right about Islamists. His fascist equivalents.

Perhaps your fundamental problem is that you don’t know the difference between Islam and Islamists and as a result conflate the two.

It sickens me that people like yourself are using the ‘terrorism card’ to undermine this effort, as if it had any importance whatsoever.

It sickens me when pompous, credulous buffoons like yourself diminish the suffering of the victims of terrorism just to win a cheap feelgood point about your own inconsistencies.

Yes, most definitely. He’s a fascist who gets quite a lot right about his Islamist equivalents. I hold to my opinions, unlike you evidently.

It takes guts to say that someone who demonises Muslims and their religion for a living (Robert Spencer) gets quite a lot right about anything related to Islam.

All the people that participated in this rally should been given a lot of credit for showing up their faces and demanding that International Law be applied even to people that may have commited the most horrendous of crimes. It sickens me that people like yourself are using the ‘terrorism card’ to undermine this effort, as if it had any importance whatsoever.

Yes, most definitely. He’s a fascist who gets quite a lot right about his Islamist equivalents. I hold to my opinions, unlike you evidently.

“Oh really? But then you could have ranted and raved about Amnesty on your blog? Why are you telling me what event I should be going to or not?”

On my blog? Well there was this rant.

Where on this thread have I told you what event you should be going to or not? Show me it.

You’re the one who introduced my opinions on Robert Spencer into this discussion (#84). What was the relevance of that? So I obliged, by bringing back your opinions about censoring the BNP – which you’ve tried, in a very ugly manner, to deny outright. Though the witnesses can help you out with refreshing your spotless mind.

You can read what I’ve said above. Will those mates also ‘testify’ to your comments praising Robert Spencer for ‘getting a lot of things right’ and you first saying you didn’t have any problem with him and later backtracking and saying he had ‘fascist tendencies’?

I’m not telling you write anything or partner with anyone.

Oh really? But then you could have ranted and raved about Amnesty on your blog? Why are you telling me what event I should be going to or not?

I have heard with my own ears some members of one of the small extremist groups, outside the Regent’s Park Mosque mosque on a friday after prayers, urging through a megaphone, for Muslims to go to Afghanistan and ”fight for your religion and your brothers”.

This was a week after NATO started bombing Afghanistan after 9-11. There were police there filming this gathering. Most of the people who had being praying had a quick look at was going on and walked on by, back to work or whatever. But many stayed around to listen. It was a rally of sorts, but I understand that it was an emotional time and these Al-Mujaharoun type people knew how to press people’s buttons.

Should those guys have been arrested and charged with something?
Or could you argue that it was their right to free speech? I’m really not sure myself.

What about the charges for having attended a terrorist training camp?
Last week The Independent quoted MI5 as saying there were about a hundred Brits going to Somalia for ‘jihad training’ every year now.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jihad-the-somalia-connection-1786608.html

I wonder what would be seen a a proper sentence for someone who was proved to have gone to one of these?
15 years maybe? Less? .. or more? Or could a defense be that a young (Somali) man had gone to Somalia on a family visit and had learned about guns and fighting because that was what his clanspeople did. And that all young men were expected to know how to strip down a kalashnikov as it was part of being a man.

Then you’d have to get into discussion about whether that particular clan or grouping was considered terrorist or not.

Unless NATO (or whoever) have satellites and listening devices filming and monitoring these camps then proving anything might be very difficult.
And I’d imagine it’s not all clndestine camps way out in the desert like in some Steven Seagal movie. Training probably goes on in people’s back yards and kitchens too.

Unless I’m wrong and I missed someone’s introduction, no one from Cageprisoners actually spoke there on saturday.

From just looking up their name on google and youtube I came up with this Cageprisoners event.
The speaker (in the first 60 seconds) speaks a load of rot I think.
http://www.youtube.com/user/cageprisoners#play/all