I think it’s despicable that Trump has blamed Sadiq Khan for terrorism.

[Monty92]

Khan has always stood firmly against Islamic extremism.

Apart from when he

1) Tried to lift the UK ban on the leader of the Nation of Islam
2) Spoke at the same conference as a member of an organisation that trained a 7/7 bomber
3) Appeared on a platform with 5 Islamic extremists and promoters of Holocaut denial
4) Defended a Muslim scholar who endorsed wife beating and suicide bombing by saying he’s “not an extremist”
5) Used the racist phrase “Uncle Tom” to denigrate a Muslim critic.

[Sir C]

You can do all those things and still not be responsible for terrorism, Monty.

You really do struggle with logical thought. Out of interest, do you have A levels or a degree and if so what were they in?

You realise it is possible to hold a different opinion to someone without having to be abusive to them, right?

[Pat Vegas]

Where did WES's post go?

[Monty92]

You can do all those things and still not be responsible for terrorism, Monty.

You really do struggle with logical thought. Out of interest, do you have A levels or a degree and if so what were they in?

I know, but in idiotically and ignorantly blaming Khan directly, Trump still actually got closer to the truth than the hordes of denialists and obscurantists incapable of even acknowledging the links between migration and Islamic terrorism.

The point being, Trump is terrible in may ways, but he's still ultimately on the right side on this issue.

[WES]

I know, but in idiotically and ignorantly blaming Khan directly, Trump still actually got closer to the truth than the hordes of denialists and obscurantists incapable of even acknowledging the links between migration and Islamic terrorism.

The point being, Trump is terrible in may ways, but he's still ultimately on the right side on this issue.

No, he isn't. The overwhelming majority of the world, including the Muslim world, is on the same side, it is only a tiny minority that actually support terrorism. None of the things you have listed are drivers for terrorism and the cost of associating a publicly elected official who happens to be a Muslim based on so little evidence leads only to more divisiveness between communities which hardly helps the situation.

What he said was daft and unhelpful and puts him on the wrong 'side'.

[WES]

You realise it is possible to hold a different opinion to someone without having to be abusive to them, right?

a) that's pretty rich coming from you
b) this is Monty, different standards apply to him for obvious reasons which you know better than anyone

[eastgermanautos]

Khan has always stood firmly against Islamic extremism.

Apart from when he

1) Tried to lift the UK ban on the leader of the Nation of Islam
2) Spoke at the same conference as a member of an organisation that trained a 7/7 bomber
3) Appeared on a platform with 5 Islamic extremists and promoters of Holocaut denial
4) Defended a Muslim scholar who endorsed wife beating and suicide bombing by saying he’s “not an extremist”
5) Used the racist phrase “Uncle Tom” to denigrate a Muslim critic.

Nation of Islam? Go back to 1968 bruthaman. There's never a Muslim you did like, is there? You side with Trump and want to turn the world into a Judeo-Christian cabal full of sh!tty food. I think it's a promising idea except that we don't fvck enough. There's too many Muslims and Chinks and they're gonna overrun us any minute now.

[eastgermanautos]

insulted your leader. Is there no such thing as patriotism on Awimb, in England? Damn. I ain't a fan of Trump and I'll say so. I think he's ridiculous and the people who work for him are fvcking stuff up. But you -- you ought to defend your own leader, even if you don't really like her. Just do it, all right? I promise, being patriotic leads to positive feelings.

[Monty92]

No, he isn't. The overwhelming majority of the world, including the Muslim world, is on the same side, it is only a tiny minority that actually support terrorism. None of the things you have listed are drivers for terrorism and the cost of associating a publicly elected official who happens to be a Muslim based on so little evidence leads only to more divisiveness between communities which hardly helps the situation.

What he said was daft and unhelpful and puts him on the wrong 'side'.

When you say a "tiny minority" what kind of numbers are we talking?

Because all reputable polling of recent years, while certainly showing a majority of Muslims are strongly against terrorism, still shows that millions upon millions of Muslims across the world (including in the West) condone or support it, e.g.

A YouGov survey published two weeks after the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground, showed that 6% of UK muslims (about 100,000 individuals) fully supported them, and one British Muslim in four expressed some sympathy with the motives of the bombers.

[7sisters]

The same with the Paddies whenever an IRA man was snuffed out. Lots of rhetoric on all sides about the heinous actions of those involved and yet streets lined with mourners at the funeral procession. You could probably only point the finger at a handful of activists but the underlying support within the community....

[eastgermanautos]

When you say a "tiny minority" what kind of numbers are we talking?

Because all reputable polling of recent years, while certainly showing a majority of Muslims are strongly against terrorism, still shows that millions upon millions of Muslims across the world (including in the West) condone or support it, e.g.

A YouGov survey published two weeks after the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground, showed that 6% of UK muslims (about 100,000 individuals) fully supported them, and one British Muslim in four expressed some sympathy with the motives of the bombers.

You're good at throwing these bombs. Less good at what I have had occasion to call "debate." *I would express some sympathy for the motives of the bombers. That is, to escape oppression, poverty, etc. It's these silly surveys you quote which give you the answers you're always seeking.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

Khan has always stood firmly against Islamic extremism.

Apart from when he

1) Tried to lift the UK ban on the leader of the Nation of Islam
2) Spoke at the same conference as a member of an organisation that trained a 7/7 bomber
3) Appeared on a platform with 5 Islamic extremists and promoters of Holocaut denial
4) Defended a Muslim scholar who endorsed wife beating and suicide bombing by saying he’s “not an extremist”
5) Used the racist phrase “Uncle Tom” to denigrate a Muslim critic.


Ironic as you could probably apply variations of some or all of those to Donald Trump, himself. Perhaps he has more in common with our muslim mayor and that makes him very uncomfortable?

[Burney]

Nation of Islam? Go back to 1968 bruthaman. There's never a Muslim you did like, is there? You side with Trump and want to turn the world into a Judeo-Christian cabal full of sh!tty food. I think it's a promising idea except that we don't fvck enough. There's too many Muslims and Chinks and they're gonna overrun us any minute now.

Why on earth would one like a Muslim? Have you any idea what these people believe?

Oh, and the Nation of Islam has nothing to do with actual Islam. It’s a lunatic cult of angry black men who think white people are devils created by a mad scientist. So they’re even madder and less credible than real Muslims.

[Burney]

You're good at throwing these bombs. Less good at what I have had occasion to call "debate." *I would express some sympathy for the motives of the bombers. That is, to escape oppression, poverty, etc. It's these silly surveys you quote which give you the answers you're always seeking.

Hang on. You have ‘sympathy’ with the motives of British Muslims who have grown up amongst tolerance, comfort and opportunity deciding to murder and maim hundreds of their innocent fellow citizens in tunnels hundreds of feet underground?

What ‘oppression’? What ‘poverty’ justifies that, you ridiculous, ignorant, arrogant Yank cùnt?

[eastgermanautos]

Hang on. You have ‘sympathy’ with the motives of British Muslims who have grown up amongst tolerance, comfort and opportunity deciding to murder and maim hundreds of their innocent fellow citizens in tunnels hundreds of feet underground?

What ‘oppression’? What ‘poverty’ justifies that, you ridiculous, ignorant, arrogant Yank cùnt?

Total debate-team dodge, for which I commend you. It's clear that I meant sympathy for the motives of the terrorists. Yes, one has sympathy for someone's motives, in many cases, even when one deplores their actions. I have sympathy for the motives of Adolph Hitler. Dissed by the artistic establishment (he wanted to be an acclaimed painter), jacked up in WW1, economically shat upon, he wanted to get his own back. I am sympathetic. Now, do I think he took it too far? Also yeah.

[eastgermanautos]

Why on earth would one like a Muslim? Have you any idea what these people believe?

Oh, and the Nation of Islam has nothing to do with actual Islam. It’s a lunatic cult of angry black men who think white people are devils created by a mad scientist. So they’re even madder and less credible than real Muslims.


Yes, I saw the movie Malcolm X, thank you. Two hours of my life wasted.

[taxman10]

Khan has always stood firmly against Islamic extremism.

Apart from when he

1) Tried to lift the UK ban on the leader of the Nation of Islam
2) Spoke at the same conference as a member of an organisation that trained a 7/7 bomber
3) Appeared on a platform with 5 Islamic extremists and promoters of Holocaut denial
4) Defended a Muslim scholar who endorsed wife beating and suicide bombing by saying he’s “not an extremist”
5) Used the racist phrase “Uncle Tom” to denigrate a Muslim critic.

Trumps an idiot, but you are clearly a bigger idiot/ a ****