Reply With QuoteWe may be talking about different things. The video I have watched is certainly more than one person and it's in front of a banner talking about Muslim armies.Originally Posted by Dorcus
It's grim.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
You are talking nonsense. Have you heard Braverman asking local Hartlepool police to arrest people calling for revenge against asylum seekers?
Revenge against the innocents is always 100% wrong. In this instance the lone call for "jihad" was contained by the police. This dreadful government is just interfering and playing performative politics to gain brownie points. Had they condemned both the initial Hamas terrorism and the Israeli retaliations they would gain more credibility and kudos.
We may be talking about different things. The video I have watched is certainly more than one person and it's in front of a banner talking about Muslim armies.
It's grim.
The point is that it's been contained by the police. There is absolutely no call for government interference here which is likely to make matters worse. There are times when less is more.
Contained, as in they got away with it. If you invite religious or racial violence it's normally considered a crime. Perhaps everyone should get away with it now? I don't think that's a good idea.
Careful what you wish for!
So you think everything we see in the media, for example Al Jazeera news which is not exactly pro-Israel/West, is carefully vetted so as to be sure to exclude any images of Hamas fighters helping in rescue attempts? Pull the other one. Hamas have no interest in the common man, they are Jihadists pure and simple, just like ISIS.
Everyone has blood on their hands in this conflict not least the folk who supply Hamas with weapons which enables them to attack Israel in the first place.
Not at all it was contained. You might not be happy with it but it's ample evidence the police handled the situation successfully
You might wish to inflame tensions but thankfully not everyone wants to.
Ha, interesting take!
I wonder if you will be this consistent on all racist or violent chanting in public going forward?
I have no idea what the person or people calling for Jihad meant - probably the meaning James and Suella have given it, but maybe not.
Interesting that the BBC have chosen to give a definition of the word in their news report - and acknowledgement that outside the main western media (and social media) it is a word with a range of meanings:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67190812
"Jihad" literally means "effort" or "struggle" in Arabic. In Islam the main meaning is an internal struggle, such as a believer's struggle to live in accordance with their faith. Jihad can also be an outward struggle or war, which in Islamic teaching must be in self defence and within prescribed limits.
Somehow I doubt it was a call for an internal struggle to live a good life - but who knows? Whatever the intention it created a very unhelpful distraction from the main messages of the demonstrations - a gift to those who want to equate Palestinians and their supporters with the Hamas military wing.
Interesting also how much of the reporting is about how the demonstrations and political slogans in support of Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied territories could be upsetting to the UK Jewish community. Leaving aside the fact that a significant minority of the UK Jewish community was on those demonstrations, why is there no concern at all by politicians or the press that the 100% support for Israeli war crimes might be upsetting for the UK Palestinian diaspora or just people who object to mass murder for revenge?
I totally agree everyone has blood on their hands and I'm not excusing the murderous Hamas terrorists for one moment. They are as oblivious to ordinary Palestine suffering as the Israeli government is.
However, an eye for an eye is not the way to settle this conflict. Hamas and Israel will ensure it prolongs itself far into the future. The only possibility of a settlement is for the bigger client powers to take the responsibility to settle it themselves.
Hardly interesting, just purely factual. As much as you might dislike it further disturbances were prevented. I think if we can keep Braverman and her swivel eyed troops as far away from the situation we might ensure the peace is held.
Sadly an eye-for-an-eye seems to be the philosophy of the Israeli government. As someone on Radio 4 said the other day an eye-for-an-eye means that eventually everybody ends up blind - not the ideal scenario.
It originates in the Abrahamic religions so naturally the Christians, Jews and Moslems will all espouse it. But it's totally wrong. It only creates a continual cycle of bloody revenge and ups the ante every time. Something has to break it and restraint is a good starting position to take. It definitely claims the higher moral ground.
Nah sorry, you can't get away with that shape shifting.
Further disturbance prevented at the expense of allowing racist and violent chanting on Britain's streets.
They should go after them after the event if not before. It's mental that you tolerate stuff like this tbh. It's so odd.
I think it's rather more odd, and indeed disturbing that you wish to risk inflaming more tension just because of your ideological beliefs.
The Palestinian sympathisers have every right to demonstrate against the repression, abuse and slaughter of their people. If the Metropolitan Police managed to allow freedom of expression without major, violent disruption (which they achieved) then they should be applauded and should not have dangerous politicians interfering with their work and undermining their authority.
With respect, Christians (of which I am one) do not espouse an eye-for-an-eye mentality. IMO Jews are still stuck in an Old Testament mentality and have mainly rejected Jesus (although I understand that there are an increasing number of Jewish Christians) hence I am not surprised that they still have that sense of revenge in their make-up. Sadly we get the world we deserve and it is heartbreaking to see the effect, especially on innocent children.
Keep turning a blind eye to racism and violent chanting Dorcus. Maybe then it will go away.
How about a blind eye to other things too? Don't want to make a fuss after all.
There's no way I'd turn a blind eye to racism but I'm proud that, unlike you, I have no desire to instigate further violence in an already highly charged climate. Is it bloodlust and superiority that fuels your ignorance Jim?
You may not, I never said you did, but it is a doctrine entrenched in the Gospels, and within the other two Abrahamic texts as well.
It sounds like you may be one of the more enlightened Christians but not everyone is like you. We only need cast our gaze across the pond to see just how violent Christian sects can be in America. Generally, the Western world powers, borne out of the Abrahamic teachings will espouse the belief particularly when it comes to backing one of their own colonial settler states. The fact that Muslims hold similar beliefs only inflames the situation..
You literally are the one advocating turning a blind eye to it. That is absolutely what you are doing.
Police doing their job is it "bloodlust" and "superiority".
By your definition the police wouldn't arrest anyone, least of all anyone violent.
Not at all, there are instances where arresting people is the correct thing to do. The event you are alluding to is definitely not one of them.
Thank Goodness you're not the Commissioner for Police.
Because it's racism aimed at Jews? I can't understand why you would tolerate people calling for jihad under a banner of a Muslim army in the UK and think that's okay.
Your argument seems to be that those being arrested would react angrily. But as I said, by that token you wouldn't arrest anyone.
Man beats his wife on street - don't arrest him, he could get violent.
I can't believe you are okay with it
Again you're spouting nonsense.
A lone man called for "jihad". I doubt you read it properly but earlier in the thread Jon explained there are nuances to the word which non Muslims would probably not understand or interpret wrongly. This lone instance of someone chanting the word did not encite violence, therefore it was not illegal. Had the police arrested the man then violent scenes might well have occurred. The police managed the situation correctly.
Did not some Jewish people call for revenge after the Hamas attacks? Do you not think that might have been harrowing and offensive for Arab people? Yet there was no public condemnation over that.
It may boil your piss that one lone person cried "jihad" and was allowed to get away scot free but the sensible amongst us would prefer not to escalate tensions. In any case it's reported the Police had a quiet word with the chap afterwards. Top marks in my opinion and all credit to a professional approach.
I have seen plenty of clips of Jewish protestors saying horrendous things. That is why people outside of the conflict need to stay objective and not get drawn into the emotional side of things, that just fans the flames.
There appears to be a narrative in the UK/world media that this conflict began the other week when Hamas murdered and kidnapped Israeli civilians. That is not objective and needs to be challenged because it provides cover to the Israeli response.
Very powerful speech by Matt Carthy - the need more like him and Clare Daly to speak truth to power and hypocrisy, but instead we get the likes of Sunak and Starmer.
Posting Permissions