"Put Britain First" - Right Wing Extremism on the rise

[marcus]

In a case of not-seeing-the-irony-whatsoever, Islamophobic hate group Britain First is angry that all followers of its party are being tarnished by one man's actions.

Here is the group's leader's statement.

[Guest]

In a case of not-seeing-the-irony-whatsoever, Islamophobic hate group Britain First is angry that all followers of its party are being tarnished by one man's actions.

Here is the group's leader's statement.

Do you think they should be?

[-TSS-]

Some people say that the murder may swing the referendum for the remain-side. How fickle can people be if that is the case? Even in Sweden the murder of the foreign minister in the middle of a heated euro-referendum campaign didn't change the outcome of the vote when the Swedes overwhelmingly rejected the single currency.

[ironstone]

Yes, but leftist Marxist goons burn flags and interrupt speeches.

Seriously?No violence coming from the left?

[Rue]

No, various radical Islamist groups promote violence, yet suddenly you start blaming Islam and not the radicals.

He did not blame Islam. Nothing in his words attacks Islam. There is a huge difference between the words VARIOUS RADICAL ISLAMIST GROUPS and ISLAM. You not Tim G make them synonomous.

Using your reasoning any criticism of radical Islamic groups can not be allowed ever because it necessarily is an attack on Islam.

Nonsense. You have TimG mixed up with individuals on this forum who interchange the words, Israeli, Zionist and Jew as all being the same.

You have him mixed up with people like you and Obama and other polticaly correct individuals who allow radical and terrorist Muslims to play victim of anti Muslim discrimination because they are violent and fascist.

Your reasoning equates radical Islamist groups and Islam as being the same, TIM G differentiated. You in fact are using the very disriminatory reasoning you claim he does not him.

[Rue]

The individual who killed the British MP is mentally ill. The fact that he is and happens to believe Britain should not be part of Europe does not mean anyone else in the UK who wants Britain out of the EU is mentally ill, or violent. Some may me motivated by a feeling that the EU is responsible for the immigration problem all across Europe but that is not the only reason people are anti EU in UK and to smeer them all as ignorant because of this one in individual is as stupid and absurd as blaming all Muslims because of the idiot who massacered innocent gays. The Isla, criticized is the type of Islam that says gays are evil and should be punished and condones violence and terrorism. That is the Islam being criticized. No one says blame al Muslism for the actions of their terrorists or radicals. What we do argue is don't deny there is a tie in between Islamic religion, extremism an terrorism using that religion as the pretense to engage in that terrorism and violence. Spare us the bull crap that tries to depict Iran or Saudi Arabia or Syria, Iraq, Turkey, the Arab League nations as not drowning in radical Islamist civil war and uprisings.

In the UK the anti EU sentiment is not based on religion although some of it may be fueled by anti immigration feelings. However the anti EU sentiment has always existed in the UK because many UK citizens feel the EU is an unecessary layer of government that is redundant and not needed and that its members do nothing for the UK's best interests and cow tow to German or French interests first.

UK citizens have the right to believe its an unnecessary layer of government, does not best represent them and engage sin economic policies that

cause hardship to UK citizens. Its their right to believe this. It doesn't make them all evil or anti immigrant.

So spare me the smeer against anti EU people. Its a bi-partisan issue. People are not pro EU simply because they afre Labour or leftist. That is a

crock. People of all British parties are all over the place on this issue.

Some of you should understand UK citizens have the right to decide what's good for them and your presumptions you can speak for them and generalize as to what they think is a crock.

Its a complex issue. If you think the EU is popular travel in Europe and ask Spanish, Portugese what gthey think for example o r French trade unionists for that matter.

Some argue the EU as a government is a waste of money and a free trade agreement can achieve anything it does right now without the cost to run it.

Edited June 19, 2016 by Rue

[marcus]

Nothing in his words attacks Islam. There is a huge difference between the words VARIOUS RADICAL ISLAMIST GROUPS and ISLAM.

I agree. Radical Islamists are political groups. Their agenda is political. They may try to equate their ideology with the religion, but majority of Muslims do not agree with their actions. These fascist groups do not represent all Muslims.

This is somewhat similar to how Zionists and their fascist and racist ideology does not represent all Jews.

[Guest]

I agree. Radical Islamists are political groups. Their agenda is political. They may try to equate their ideology with the religion, but majority of Muslims do not agree with their actions. These fascist groups do not represent all Muslims.

This is somewhat similar to how Zionists and their fascist and racist ideology does not represent all Jews.

Do you think Radical Islamists have anything to do with Islam at all then? Just pretending, for the most part? If you went in there and said, I'm with you, and here's a picture I drew of Mohammad having sex with Benjamin Netanyahu, they would be fine with it.

Radical Islamists are not political groups. They are religious groups. If they have political goals as a way of implementing their religious ideology over a wider area, then so be it, but their raison d'etre is their religion

Edited June 19, 2016 by bcsapper

[?Impact]

There is a huge difference between the words VARIOUS RADICAL ISLAMIST GROUPS and ISLAM.

...

Your reasoning equates radical Islamist groups and Islam as being the same, TIM G differentiated.

I accept TimG's definition of Islamist as being different from Islam. Note however that he did not use the term 'radical' which is what I was pointing out. He is stating that Islamists are implicitly radical, but different from Islam. I agree the same kind of issue exists between Israeli, Zionist, and Jew.

We have a problem when a Presidential candidate however equates them by wanting to ban Muslim travel, and the low intelligence followers just lap that up because they don't make the distinction. I was pointing that out with my sarcasm the other day saying that conservatives should be banned from traveling to Canada because of Thomas Mair. That is the exact same equivalence that Donald Trump made.

I am not following your 'reasoning' however, I am asking for clear distinction.

[bush_cheney2004]

....We have a problem when a Presidential candidate however equates them by wanting to ban Muslim travel, and the low intelligence followers just lap that up because they don't make the distinction.

That is because no distinction need be made to achieve the stated short term or long term objective. Such a policy purposely and explicitly challenges the status quo by design.

[Argus]

I agree. Radical Islamists are political groups. Their agenda is political. They may try to equate their ideology with the religion, but majority of Muslims do not agree with their actions. These fascist groups do not represent all Muslims.

While most Muslims do not agree with their actions, the polls say large majorities in most Muslim countries agree almost completely with their ideology and their political aims.

This is somewhat similar to how Zionists and their fascist and racist ideology does not represent all Jews.

Some day you will post something without attacking Jews but I doubt I'll ever see it.

Edited June 19, 2016 by Argus

[poochy]

In a case of not-seeing-the-irony-whatsoever, Islamophobic hate group Britain First is angry that all followers of its party are being tarnished by one man's actions.

Here is the group's leader's statement.

Your post will start making sense when dozens, and hundreds, and thousands of the Britain first group murder people.

[eyeball]

Do you think Radical Islamists have anything to do with Islam at all then? Just pretending, for the most part? If you went in there and said, I'm with you, and here's a picture I drew of Mohammad having sex with Benjamin Netanyahu, they would be fine with it.

Radical Islamists are not political groups. They are religious groups. If they have political goals as a way of implementing their religious ideology over a wider area, then so be it, but their raison d'etre is their religion

I'm pretty sure Islam has a lot less to do radical Islamists than the other way around and I think many are just pretending actually simply because it has such a terrorizing effect on the West. I think there's certainly a bunch who would make a big deal about your picture but the vast majority would likely just conclude there was something wrong with you.

Their raison d'etre is as various as the people and areas its predominant and EVERYTHING is political especially when its religious...good grief.

Edited June 20, 2016 by eyeball

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure Islam has a lot less to do radical Islamists than the other way around and I think many are just pretending actually simply because it has such a terrorizing effect on the West. I think there's certainly a bunch who would make a big deal about your picture but the vast majority would likely just conclude there was something wrong with you.

Their raison d'etre is as various as the people and areas its predominant and EVERYTHING is political especially when its religious...good grief.

Right. I was just going by the Dictionary definition. I think it's very important that we make it clear that when we are talking about barbaric, subhuman religious behaviour we make sure we don't include all members or adherents of that religion. So those whose raison d'etre is their religion and whose behaviour is subhuman and barbaric, those are the ones I am talking about.

Edited June 20, 2016 by bcsapper

[Hudson Jones]

for terrorism to be effective people must believe that more attacks will come unless the group gets it way. Without the sponsoring group there is no threat of future attacks which means it can't be terrorism.

It makes no sense to call Roof's acts terrorism because there is no group out there promising more attacks.

I understand your thoughts on it, but that's not what the meaning of terrorism is.

Plus, racism and right wing nationalism is on the increase. We don't have to have a group saying "there will be more attacks against blacks" in order for this to be a political statement. Roof's act was a political statement. It was exactly what I mentioned:

Dylann Roof wanted to murder black people at a black church in order to advance his anti-black agenda as well as to intimidate a civilian population – the latter goal being a key factor.

Furthermore, the Orlando shooting was a lonewolf act, much like Roof's act.

It was a mentally disturbed individual, with no affiliation or direct link to any foreign terrorist group, killing people based on the group they belonged to.

Would you not agree that they should be categorized the same?

[Rue]

I agree. Radical Islamists are political groups. Their agenda is political. They may try to equate their ideology with the religion, but majority of Muslims do not agree with their actions. These fascist groups do not represent all Muslims.

This is somewhat similar to how Zionists and their fascist and racist ideology does not represent all Jews.

Zionists are not fascist or racist and they do not claim to represent all Jews. Those are bigoted stereotypes you engage in no different than the bigots who try blame all Britain Firsts as being anti Muslim. You engage in the very same bigotry against Zionists and Jews you don't want beingd one against Muslims. That's why you words have zero credibility.

[Rue]

I accept TimG's definition of Islamist as being different from Islam. Note however that he did not use the term 'radical' which is what I was pointing out. He is stating that Islamists are implicitly radical, but different from Islam. I agree the same kind of issue exists between Israeli, Zionist, and Jew.

We have a problem when a Presidential candidate however equates them by wanting to ban Muslim travel, and the low intelligence followers just lap that up because they don't make the distinction. I was pointing that out with my sarcasm the other day saying that conservatives should be banned from traveling to Canada because of Thomas Mair. That is the exact same equivalence that Donald Trump made.

I am not following your 'reasoning' however, I am asking for clear distinction.

Thank you for the first sentence. He did use the phrase "various Islamist groups regularly promote and participate in violence". That differentiates them from all Muslims or the religion-he made it clear its some groups. His statement also is quite correct. Various Muslim groups do promote violence and there is no point calling them radical or terrorist because they may not be engaging in terrorism and their views may not be radical at all just reactionary so with due respect you jumped the gun. Also I defend Tim G because he has never stated on this forum all Muslims are radical or terrorist neither have I or others who are highly critical of Muslim radicals and terrorists. If we don't make that distinction you have a right to challenge it as bigoted.

As for Donald Trump and the comments you made I agree. His comments deliberately do not distinguish between Muslims and terrorist Muslims. We both know he's engaging in the most primal of electioneering appealing to his followers to find and hate scapegoats and right now he's chosen Mexicans and Muslims which are code words for all Latinos and anyone with brown skin let alone Muslim. Its vile yes.

I hate it when Marcus does it with Jews and Zionists and I hate it when others on this forum do it with Jews, Zionists,, Christians, Americans, conservatives, etc. Its lazy. Its the symptom of lazy mind.

Some people do it unintentionally others deliberately.

The disdain for the EU in Britain has always been there. I don't doubt immigrant feelings have fueled some of it. Of course not. You an hear it in the comments. But anti immigration sentiment is not the exclusive domain of the extreme right-there are just as many anti immigrant people who are communist, socialist, anarchist, labour in Britain or just plain boring moderate people worried about the flood of migrating poor people some whom they fear may harbour values incompatible with Britain's. Not everyone is a bigot-some of those people are saying they don't want bigots coming in using the cover of poverty or persecution to get in.

Also I am saying some anti EU people consider its administration a redundant, corrupt, layer of government that does nothing for Britain.

Some argue there is no need for any EU assembly at all. They say meetings between EU leaders and free trade agreements are all that is needed and the EU council of elected members should be disbanded because its corrupted. My question is how many layers of government does anyone need? Its a legitimate question to ask.

I have to say, I am not a fan of the EU government. The concept of an EU economically makes sense of course, but the elected members are bloated and rich and do nothing for their respective nations. I guess I am taking in this case he Libertarian view against more government.

Its up to UK citizens to decide. It looks like the killing of the MP will push the vote in favour of remaining.

As for the anti immigrant feelings in Europe, in the next twenty years a civil war with Muslim immigrants and poor Africans and Asians in Europe is a distinct possibility. It would not take much to set the fuse. One more serious terrorist attack. Its a tinder box. We know how tense things are in all European countries especially Belgium. France, Germany..

Edited June 20, 2016 by Rue

[?Impact]

But anti immigration sentiment is not the exclusive domain of the extreme right-there are just as many anti immigrant people who are communist, socialist, anarchist, labour in Britain or just plain boring moderate people worried about the flood of migrating poor people some whom they fear may harbour values incompatible with Britain's.

I agree there is anti-immigration sentiment across the political spectrum, but that is very different from anti-immigrant sentiment. There are two driving factors to support immigration: to provide new opportunities for the immigrants (compassion), and to grow our economy (greed). While I don't subscribe to a simplistic left/right political spectrum, if you want to look at in those terms then realize that the different driving factors don't carry the same weight on both sides. Growing the economy for example might be looked on benefitting all, or it might be seen as a way to acquire cheap labour to benefit a few. Likewise the fear is not the same across the board either.

[taxme]

"Britain First" has never advocated violence as means to achieve its political aims so someone shouting those words as they kill someone has no significance beyond the rantings of a crazy person. OTOH, various Islamist groups regularly promote and participate in violence so a killer shouting 'Allahu Akbar' does have a significance beyond the individual carrying out the act.

That is like saying that someone who kills one of Hillary Clinton's staff, and shouts long live Trump, that some how Trump was behind or supports it. But there are many fools out there who would believe Trump was behind it.

[taxme]

With Right Wing Nationalism rhetoric on the rise in the West, we're seeing more and more violent behaviour. From the Norway right wing extremist who killed 77 people and injured dozens of others, to the increasing attacks on immigrants, what's the right way to approach this?

Jo Cox, a Labour MP was stabbed and shot by a man yelling "Put Britain first".

Link

Rumor has it that the shooter might have been part of a conspiracy to make the pro-Brexit supporters look like a crazy bunch of killer fanatics, and it was then suppose to help gain the anti-Brexit supporters some sympathy from the people for Britain to stay in the EU. It may have worked because the support for Britain to leave the EU has dropped. It looks like it could have been a false flag setup. If the British people don't get out of the EU then they will end up like Greece, and will eventually lose most of their social services and most of their pensions. Source: paulcraigroberts.org.

[jacee]

Rumor has it that the shooter might have been part of a conspiracy to make the pro-Brexit supporters look like a crazy bunch of killer fanatics, and it was then suppose to help gain the anti-Brexit supporters some sympathy from the people for Britain to stay in the EU. It may have worked because the support for Britain to leave the EU has dropped. It looks like it could have been a false flag setup. If the British people don't get out of the EU then they will end up like Greece, and will eventually lose most of their social services and most of their pensions. Source: paulcraigroberts.org.

Tff.

So buddy sacrificed himself to the cause?

You and paulcraigroberts really think so?

??

Ya but ... you think the zionists are out to get Ezra.

You'd better ask paulcraigroberts what he thinks about that.

?

.

Edited June 21, 2016 by jacee

[taxme]

Tff.

So buddy sacrificed himself to the cause?

You and paulcraigroberts really think so?

Ya but ... you think the zionists are out to get Ezra.

You'd better ask paulcraigroberts what he thinks about that.

.

Many people have always sacrificed themselves for what they believe in. Nothing new there. It's always nice to get the other side of the story, and Roberts does a good job of doing just that. How can anyone who listens to what he says cannot believe that what he is saying may be truthful? I guess that you have not bothered to take a little time to listen to what he has to say have you? The mainstream media ignores him so he must be one of those crazy conspiracy people out there. Aw well, believe what you want to believe.

It looks like they are not to happy with Ezra. They may have been responsible for getting the Sun News Network off the air. Besides, if zionism is no big deal, and they have nothing to hide, why then don't we ever hear more about them in the mainstream media? I never have. Maybe Roberts does know the reason why. He is a well informed person who does his political homework unlike others who have no clue about politics but think that they do. The world is full of people who have not got a clue about world events they just listen to what the MSM tells them. Most really don't care anyway.

[jacee]

Many people have always sacrificed themselves for what they believe in. Nothing new there.

You really believe that "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain" is going to jail for a very long time ... to discredit Brexit?

Seriously?

It looks like they are not to happy with Ezra. They may have been responsible for getting the Sun News Network off the air. Besides, if zionism is no big deal, and they have nothing to hide, why then don't we ever hear more about them in the mainstream media? I never have.

The Zionists got Sun News off the air?

You should read more about it.

And about Ezra.

.

Edited June 21, 2016 by jacee

[-TSS-]

I think Bremain will win the referendum. People even though being discontent are too afraid to take a leap into the unknown. A similar what happened two years ago in the Scottish independence-referendum.

[Argus]

That is like saying that someone who kills one of Hillary Clinton's staff, and shouts long live Trump, that some how Trump was behind or supports it. But there are many fools out there who would believe Trump was behind it.

The politics in the US have gotten so nasty on both sides that it would be fairly easy to see how would-be killers could be inspired by the viciousness of the message being delivered against their opponents by their 'side'.