Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Trump retweets Britain First videos
Topic Started: Nov 29 2017, 01:08 PM (1,073 Views)
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
This is going to push a lot of news out of sight:-

More at link:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42166663

Trump Twitter account retweets incendiary videos 13 minutes ago From the section US & Canada


Donald Trump's Twitter account has retweeted three inflammatory videos from a British far-right group.

The first tweet from Jayda Fransen, the deputy leader of Britain First, claims to show a Muslim migrant attacking a man on crutches.

This was followed by two more videos of people Ms Fransen claims to be Muslim.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Deleted User
Deleted User

Is it over yet?
Wonder what he will troll everyone with next?
He really knows how to rustle baizou jimmies.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Curious Cdn
Member Avatar
Frozen Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Someone in Trump's position could get facts checked before retweeting stuff.

Someone in Trump's position could get facts checked before they formulate an election platform.
Edited by Curious Cdn, Nov 30 2017, 11:59 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 30 2017, 09:36 AM
Delf
Nov 30 2017, 09:23 AM
Steve K
Nov 30 2017, 08:58 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
PorkyPie: Your either a bad liar or unaware.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-viewers-of-online-terrorist-material-face-15-years-in-jail

“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” said Rudd. “There is currently a gap in the law around material [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded.

Right out of Ambers mouth.
And you didn't even read the snippet you quoted did you let alone the whole article.

Such a proposal by Rudd would require a change in the law and has such a change occurred? No

And such proposed change was for repeatedly viewing such not a single viewing as you were alleging. Do I have to repeatedly explain the difference to you?

And you forgot the 'reasonable excuse' defence and viewing such a politically highlighted video would easily fit such a defence.

So Delf the simplest explanation is you were lying and are now desperately trying to connive a false defence. You may have noticed no one died of shock when your lie was pointed out

As you interpret it, his statement, it would be a Lie in your reckoning.

Here it is :-
Quote:
 
If you even go to look at Britain First you are in danger of ending up inside as they have been deemed far right and not long ago threats of long sentences for viewing such material were made. . .


As I read it it is entirely correct!
Viewing that sight can result in the authorities taking action, being arrested. And threats of long sentences have been made.
I read it as an honestly made warning.
As it is I do doubt that going to their internet site is much of a risk ........ contributing, adding incitement, could be, as would linking its content on social media.
Edited by Affa, Nov 30 2017, 05:01 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
As far as withdrawing the invite to the office of the President of the united states who is also a staunch ally of the UK is concerned, well let's have a quick look at some past precedents that have set the benchmark.

And when anyone can point a finger at Trump and call him a murderer tyrant or despot then I will listen.

https://news.sky.com/story/five-controversial-state-visits-to-the-uk-10748635

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-01-31/controversial-state-visit-the-queens-been-here-before/
Edited by Rich, Nov 30 2017, 06:24 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 30 2017, 04:58 PM
Steve K
Nov 30 2017, 09:36 AM
Delf
Nov 30 2017, 09:23 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-viewers-of-online-terrorist-material-face-15-years-in-jail

“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” said Rudd. “There is currently a gap in the law around material [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded.

Right out of Ambers mouth.
And you didn't even read the snippet you quoted did you let alone the whole article.

Such a proposal by Rudd would require a change in the law and has such a change occurred? No

And such proposed change was for repeatedly viewing such not a single viewing as you were alleging. Do I have to repeatedly explain the difference to you?

And you forgot the 'reasonable excuse' defence and viewing such a politically highlighted video would easily fit such a defence.

So Delf the simplest explanation is you were lying and are now desperately trying to connive a false defence. You may have noticed no one died of shock when your lie was pointed out

As you interpret it, his statement, it would be a Lie in your reckoning.

Here it is :-
Quote:
 
If you even go to look at Britain First you are in danger of ending up inside as they have been deemed far right and not long ago threats of long sentences for viewing such material were made. . .


As I read it it is entirely correct!
Viewing that sight can result in the authorities taking action, being arrested. And threats of long sentences have been made.
I read it as an honestly made warning.
As it is I do doubt that going to their internet site is much of a risk ........ contributing, adding incitement, could be, as would linking its content on social media.
Well no-one has kicked my door in

And as I said, i was at the South Wales meeting held to find interested founder nembers
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 30 2017, 04:58 PM
Steve K
Nov 30 2017, 09:36 AM
Delf
Nov 30 2017, 09:23 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-viewers-of-online-terrorist-material-face-15-years-in-jail

“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” said Rudd. “There is currently a gap in the law around material [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded.

Right out of Ambers mouth.
And you didn't even read the snippet you quoted did you let alone the whole article.

Such a proposal by Rudd would require a change in the law and has such a change occurred? No

And such proposed change was for repeatedly viewing such not a single viewing as you were alleging. Do I have to repeatedly explain the difference to you?

And you forgot the 'reasonable excuse' defence and viewing such a politically highlighted video would easily fit such a defence.

So Delf the simplest explanation is you were lying and are now desperately trying to connive a false defence. You may have noticed no one died of shock when your lie was pointed out

As you interpret it, his statement, it would be a Lie in your reckoning.

Here it is :-
Quote:
 
If you even go to look at Britain First you are in danger of ending up inside as they have been deemed far right and not long ago threats of long sentences for viewing such material were made. . .


As I read it it is entirely correct!
Viewing that sight can result in the authorities taking action, being arrested. And threats of long sentences have been made.
I read it as an honestly made warning.
As it is I do doubt that going to their internet site is much of a risk ........ contributing, adding incitement, could be, as would linking its content on social media.
Oh FFS Affa did you even read Delf's supposed backing for his post and my complete dismantlement of it

You cannot be jailed for doing something while it is legal even if it may be made illegal in the future - which it won't.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Barry
Member Avatar
Junior Member
[ *  * ]
I've just watched her speech recorded outside of Belfast City Hall, and if what I watched was all of it, then it's not much more severe than a Pat Condell Youtube video. She painted Islam as our enemies and a threat to our society.
I really think we need a freedom of speech law in the UK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJzDmZDfQI8
Link to a Pat Condell video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoRnYSodIrI
Jayda Fransen speech

This Youtube video is longer than the 2.5 minutes I watched earlier on her Twitter account, so I'll reserve judgement until I've listened to every word.
Obviously PSNI thought it worthy of investigation and it's up in court in December.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Barry
Nov 30 2017, 10:56 PM
I've just watched her speech recorded outside of Belfast City Hall, and if what I watched was all of it, then it's not much more severe than a Pat Condell Youtube video. She painted Islam as our enemies and a threat to our society.
I really think we need a freedom of speech law in the UK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJzDmZDfQI8
Link to a Pat Condell video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoRnYSodIrI
Jayda Fransen speech

This Youtube video is longer than the 2.5 minutes I watched earlier on her Twitter account, so I'll reserve judgement until I've listened to every word.
Obviously PSNI thought it worthy of investigation and it's up in court in December.
Pat Condell is very clever to stay a millimetre inside the law

However when that evil cow Jayda Fransen said in Belfast "“The world is at war with Islam. Every single Muslim is obliged to kill you and your husbands and your wives and your children.” She was clearly breaking the law and I hope she gets to spend a fair few years in jail for such an evil incendiary statement. But the courts will decide.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 30 2017, 11:19 PM
Barry
Nov 30 2017, 10:56 PM
I've just watched her speech recorded outside of Belfast City Hall, and if what I watched was all of it, then it's not much more severe than a Pat Condell Youtube video. She painted Islam as our enemies and a threat to our society.
I really think we need a freedom of speech law in the UK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJzDmZDfQI8
Link to a Pat Condell video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoRnYSodIrI
Jayda Fransen speech

This Youtube video is longer than the 2.5 minutes I watched earlier on her Twitter account, so I'll reserve judgement until I've listened to every word.
Obviously PSNI thought it worthy of investigation and it's up in court in December.
Pat Condell is very clever to stay a millimetre inside the law

However when that evil cow Jayda Fransen said in Belfast "“The world is at war with Islam. Every single Muslim is obliged to kill you and your husbands and your wives and your children.” She was clearly breaking the law and I hope she gets to spend a fair few years in jail for such an evil incendiary statement. But the courts will decide.



I honestly do not know where you get all these names from.

do you spend half of your lives trawling the internet to find out these things?

Sheesh :facepalm:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
johnofgwent
Nov 30 2017, 06:37 PM
Affa
Nov 30 2017, 04:58 PM
Steve K
Nov 30 2017, 09:36 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-viewers-of-online-terrorist-material-face-15-years-in-jailNo

And such proposed change was for repeatedly viewing such not a single viewing as you were alleging. Do I have to repeatedly explain the difference to you?

And you forgot the 'reasonable excuse' defence and viewing such a politically highlighted video would easily fit such a defence.

So Delf the simplest explanation is you were lying and are now desperately trying to connive a false defence. You may have noticed no one died of shock when your lie was pointed out

As you interpret it, his statement, it would be a Lie in your reckoning.

Here it is :-
Quote:
 
If you even go to look at Britain First you are in danger of ending up inside as they have been deemed far right and not long ago threats of long sentences for viewing such material were made. . .


As I read it it is entirely correct!
Viewing that sight can result in the authorities taking action, being arrested. And threats of long sentences have been made.
I read it as an honestly made warning.
As it is I do doubt that going to their internet site is much of a risk ........ contributing, adding incitement, could be, as would linking its content on social media.
Well no-one has kicked my door in

And as I said, i was at the South Wales meeting held to find interested founder nembers

Delf didn't say or claim that you would be arrested, did he.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 30 2017, 10:48 PM
Affa
Nov 30 2017, 04:58 PM
Steve K
Nov 30 2017, 09:36 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/03/amber-rudd-viewers-of-online-terrorist-material-face-15-years-in-jailNo

And such proposed change was for repeatedly viewing such not a single viewing as you were alleging. Do I have to repeatedly explain the difference to you?

And you forgot the 'reasonable excuse' defence and viewing such a politically highlighted video would easily fit such a defence.

So Delf the simplest explanation is you were lying and are now desperately trying to connive a false defence. You may have noticed no one died of shock when your lie was pointed out

As you interpret it, his statement, it would be a Lie in your reckoning.

Here it is :-
Quote:
 
If you even go to look at Britain First you are in danger of ending up inside as they have been deemed far right and not long ago threats of long sentences for viewing such material were made. . .


As I read it it is entirely correct!
Viewing that sight can result in the authorities taking action, being arrested. And threats of long sentences have been made.
I read it as an honestly made warning.
As it is I do doubt that going to their internet site is much of a risk ........ contributing, adding incitement, could be, as would linking its content on social media.
Oh FFS Affa did you even read Delf's supposed backing for his post and my complete dismantlement of it

You cannot be jailed for doing something while it is legal even if it may be made illegal in the future - which it won't.

Oh dear! another ffs.

There were two words used that a pedant would recognise (if it suited him/her).
The first was 'risk', as in risk attracting the attention of the authorities.
The second was 'threat', which is entirely correct. A minister A Judd clearly expressed it.

Quote:
 
“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” said Rudd. “There is currently a gap in the law around material [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded.

Edited by Affa, Dec 1 2017, 02:11 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

We all see the insanity of western leftists.
Billions of people are mocking us.

baizuo...
Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Delf
Dec 1 2017, 08:13 AM
We all see the insanity of western leftists.
Billions of people are mocking us.

baizuo...
Are you OK?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

papasmurf
Dec 1 2017, 08:51 AM
Delf
Dec 1 2017, 08:13 AM
We all see the insanity of western leftists.
Billions of people are mocking us.

baizuo...
Are you OK?
Worry not old horse.
I'm enjoying myself  !bgrin!
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Barry
Nov 30 2017, 10:56 PM
I've just watched her speech recorded outside of Belfast City Hall, and if what I watched was all of it, then it's not much more severe than a Pat Condell Youtube video. She painted Islam as our enemies and a threat to our society.
I really think we need a freedom of speech law in the UK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJzDmZDfQI8
Link to a Pat Condell video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoRnYSodIrI
Jayda Fransen speech

This Youtube video is longer than the 2.5 minutes I watched earlier on her Twitter account, so I'll reserve judgement until I've listened to every word.
Obviously PSNI thought it worthy of investigation and it's up in court in December.
Thanks for the Pat Condell link Barry, didn't show up on my youtube feed. Nothing we didn't know but he rounds it all up well.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 1 2017, 01:48 AM
I honestly do not know where you get all these names from.

do you spend half of your lives trawling the internet to find out these things?

Sheesh :facepalm:
It's not hard to actually read a thread before you reply in it Rich. Maybe you should try it sometime as both those names featured in preceding posts
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Dec 1 2017, 02:04 AM
Oh dear! another ffs.

There were two words used that a pedant would recognise (if it suited him/her).
The first was 'risk', as in risk attracting the attention of the authorities.
The second was 'threat', which is entirely correct. A minister A Judd clearly expressed it.

Quote:
 
“I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” said Rudd. “There is currently a gap in the law around material [that] is viewed or streamed from the internet without being permanently downloaded.

And today's prize for missing the point while throwing ad homs goes to . . . . .

Which part of you're not exactly at real risk of jail if you haven't broken the law do you need explained?

And if you don't want to see FFS! posted in response to error strewn posts then frankly the solution is in your hands
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 1 2017, 10:00 AM


Which part of you're not exactly at real risk of jail if you haven't broken the law do you need explained?

And where did Delf say differently?
He referenced where a minister advocated strengthening the law in order to prosecute terror/hate crimes which in her delivery included visiting far right online propaganda sites.

Just to clarify .... is your ad-hom accusation from SK the Poster, or as SK Moderator?
And before you ask, to me there was no ad-hom expression. Just a general observation that the literal content of Delf's post bears no relation to your interpretation of it!

How do I collect my prize?
Edited by Affa, Dec 1 2017, 10:52 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Dec 1 2017, 10:49 AM
Steve K
Dec 1 2017, 10:00 AM


Which part of you're not exactly at real risk of jail if you haven't broken the law do you need explained?

And where did Delf say differently?
He referenced where a minister advocated strengthening the law in order to prosecute terror/hate crimes which in her delivery included visiting far right online propaganda sites.

Just to clarify .... is your ad-hom accusation from SK the Poster, or as SK Moderator?
And before you ask, to me there was no ad-hom expression. Just a general observation that the literal content of Delf's post bears no relation to your interpretation of it!

How do I collect my prize?
This has moved beyond Delf's post. You stepped in for god knows what reason totally missing the point and throwing allegations of me being a pedant

And of course not for the first time. You do seem to love trying to be some advocate of false causes don't you.

Now perhaps you would address the questions posed.

1. If something is not illegal then just how are you at risk of jail if you do it?

2. Do you really need the difference between a singular looked and repeatedly looking explained?






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 1 2017, 12:34 PM
Affa
Dec 1 2017, 10:49 AM
Steve K
Dec 1 2017, 10:00 AM


Which part of you're not exactly at real risk of jail if you haven't broken the law do you need explained?

And where did Delf say differently?
He referenced where a minister advocated strengthening the law in order to prosecute terror/hate crimes which in her delivery included visiting far right online propaganda sites.

Just to clarify .... is your ad-hom accusation from SK the Poster, or as SK Moderator?
And before you ask, to me there was no ad-hom expression. Just a general observation that the literal content of Delf's post bears no relation to your interpretation of it!

How do I collect my prize?
This has moved beyond Delf's post. You stepped in for god knows what reason totally missing the point and throwing allegations of me being a pedant

And of course not for the first time. You do seem to love trying to be some advocate of false causes don't you.

Now perhaps you would address the questions posed.

1. If something is not illegal then just how are you at risk of jail if you do it?

2. Do you really need the difference between a singular looked and repeatedly looking explained?







If you require I explain my comments, I will.
But first a few more (hopefully that do not confuse you further).
I did not call you a Pedant! If you believe the generalisation I used referred to you then you identify yourself as being one!

I do not support or advocate 'false causes'. What I read here is a criticism of Delf's post that used false assumptions, and made an accusation that Delf was lying. (here post 37)
It was that accusation that caused me to defend the poster - because he did not lie!
Here is that Delf post in which you state he lies -
post 27

I too have been accused of lying, have had post removed, warnings issued, when I have not lied. Such actions should not go unchallenged - I have maintained that there is no lie ....... and he certainly did not post that you risk jail if you visit extreme far right web sites. He referenced that A Rudd advocated changing the law in order to make it so.
So your question requires no answer! Rather the question is - why did you pose it?

And just to prove my argument you then ask this -
"2. Do you really need the difference between a singular looked and repeatedly looking explained?".
Here you do manage to make a 'literal' interpretation because this time is 'does suit'!
btw ....... "if you look at ....... " can read as repeated, does not only apply to the singular action -- 'if you only look once at ......' would be the affirmative of what you allege was so,

No-one lied here. Some presumed wrongly and cannot apply the 'benefit of doubt'.
Oh; and Delf made no suggestion that the 'door would be kicked in'!

edit - I am also aware that nobody else interpreted Delf's post as you did prior to you doing so.



Edited by Affa, Dec 1 2017, 06:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa why not answer both questions. You will then realise two things

a) you are wrong

b) Delf was wrong too

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Barry
Member Avatar
Junior Member
[ *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 30 2017, 11:19 PM
Pat Condell is very clever to stay a millimetre inside the law

However when that evil cow Jayda Fransen said in Belfast "“The world is at war with Islam. Every single Muslim is obliged to kill you and your husbands and your wives and your children.” She was clearly breaking the law and I hope she gets to spend a fair few years in jail for such an evil incendiary statement. But the courts will decide.



Yes, I agree.
She should have said:
"The world is at war with radical Islamists. Every single fundamentalist Koran following Muslim is obliged to kill..."
There wouldn't have been a case to answer, then.

Having said all that, I do wish all people were allowed to stand on street corners and spout whatever drivel they want in the name of free speech.
I won't be listening to them.
Incitement to hatred is a different matter.
Fransen needs lessons from Pat Condell.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Barry
Dec 1 2017, 09:59 PM


Having said all that, I do wish all people were allowed to stand on street corners and spout whatever drivel they want in the name of free speech.
As long as the personal consequences to them gobbing off in the street did not lead to legal action against the angry mob beating them to death I agree.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Does your average person have a detailed enough knowledge of the law to be safe posting online?

Lets say I woke up really grumpy one day next week(maybe Thursday) and sperged out something horrid. The police turn up because someones feelings were hurt and I get my day in court. Would my internet history showing I had visited Britain First be brought up as evidence I was a horrid Nazi?

Still not been there btw :)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Delf
Dec 2 2017, 09:36 AM
Does your average person have a detailed enough knowledge of the law to be safe posting online?

Lets say I woke up really grumpy one day next week(maybe Thursday) and sperged out something horrid. The police turn up because someones feelings were hurt and I get my day in court. Would my internet history showing I had visited Britain First be brought up as evidence I was a horrid Nazi?

Still not been there btw :)
:rubchin: imho probably as it might be evidential of your intent in posting that material and the obvious offence is about intent. It would be up to your defence to refute its relevance
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Delf
Dec 2 2017, 09:36 AM
Does your average person have a detailed enough knowledge of the law to be safe posting online?

Posting online is not safe, regardless of personal knowledge of the law.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

This is interesting, makes some good points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEaqUQvDXws
Raheem Kassam on Pres. Trump retweeting 'racist' Tweets, row with UK (30Nov17)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Delf
Dec 2 2017, 12:25 PM
This is interesting, makes some good points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEaqUQvDXws
Raheem Kassam on Pres. Trump retweeting 'racist' Tweets, row with UK (30Nov17)

Having had a recent thread where the issue of the main media giving scant attention to events this government would prefer were not aired, we see it again being said to be relevent.
The vacuum they create sucks in oxygen for extremist!

The State works towards protecting itself and not the public.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Anyone see Katherine Ryan's comment on HIGNFY last night?


"Donald Trump is planning his European trip. He's going to see Britain First then the EDL and finish off by seeing the BNP"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

“The way to understand Trump, I think, is pretty simple,” Chomsky said. “Apart from the pathological megalomania, he is an astute enough politician to understand that his only hope for power is to keep his adoring base in line, and they relish the fact that he is lashing out at those they see as their enemies and persecutors: Muslims, elites, foreigners … Not unknown in history, and not with welcome outcomes.”

Noam Chomsky
Quote Post Goto Top
 
xosg
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 29 2017, 01:58 PM
Rich
Nov 29 2017, 01:40 PM


What can we as a country do to stop this sort of thing crossing the bounds of the laws of this land?
If you read all of the link "we" already are BUT the videos have not been removed.
Are the videos REAL ? YES,they are.

If you want to stop people posting them,then maybe they should stop making them.

As for the handicapped boy being attacked,he is the son of immigrants apparently.

As for the other two,what is wrong with them exactly ?

Do they involve Muslims and Islam ?

Maybe people should see more of them,I got millions I could post.All from the same region.Funny that don't you think ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
xosg
Dec 6 2017, 04:09 PM


As for the handicapped boy being attacked,he is the son of immigrants apparently.

As for the other two,what is wrong with them exactly ?

Do they involve Muslims and Islam ?

Maybe people should see more of them,I got millions I could post.All from the same region.Funny that don't you think ?
Those videos where thorough trashed earlier in the thread, you must have missed that.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

papasmurf
Dec 6 2017, 05:04 PM
xosg
Dec 6 2017, 04:09 PM


As for the handicapped boy being attacked,he is the son of immigrants apparently.

As for the other two,what is wrong with them exactly ?

Do they involve Muslims and Islam ?

Maybe people should see more of them,I got millions I could post.All from the same region.Funny that don't you think ?
Those videos where thorough trashed earlier in the thread, you must have missed that.


I certainly did. Can you provide a link here?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Dec 6 2017, 09:44 PM


I certainly did. Can you provide a link here?
No problem:-
More at link:-

https://www.snopes.com/2017/11/30/trump-britain-first-videos-context/

None of these videos were taken in the United Kingdom.

We previously addressed the footage that was shared with the caption “Muslim migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches!” and found that the attacker not a migrant, and that his religion is unknown. You can read more about that video here.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

papasmurf
Dec 7 2017, 08:38 AM
gansao
Dec 6 2017, 09:44 PM


I certainly did. Can you provide a link here?
No problem:-
More at link:-

https://www.snopes.com/2017/11/30/trump-britain-first-videos-context/

None of these videos were taken in the United Kingdom.

We previously addressed the footage that was shared with the caption “Muslim migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches!” and found that the attacker not a migrant, and that his religion is unknown. You can read more about that video here.


Thanks PS 👍
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · America · Next Topic »
Add Reply