From America, “Since the vote the protesters have been constantly vomiting over themselves. They need to wipe their chins and get on with it because it’s getting tiresome.”
Could so apply to the UK.
Usual BBC Islam clap-trap on News at 1pm R4. Interview with female Muslim convert who’s son went away to fight for the Islamic State and was subsequently killed.
The piece was introduced incredulously as “despite bringing their son up to respect his religion and the country in which he was born he became increasingly radicalised”.
Well I think I can see the problem right there!
How can anyone respect Islam and respect any western society? This makes no sense but was narrated in passing by the BBC announcer as if this was the most natural thing in the world.
To respect Islam you must believe that Mohammed was the final prophet of Allah and every action he took was that of a ‘perfect man’. Mohammed married a six year old infant (I won’t say child) and raped her when she was nine years old. Is that the actions of a perfect man everyone should emulate? Mohammed was a slave trader, thief, encouraged the taking and trading of sex slaves as war booty, tortured many victims and summarily executed many more. He believed that Muslims are the ‘best of peoples’ and non-Muslims are the ‘worst of creatures’.
Needless to say, this is the merest scratch into the sort of person Mohammed was (if he even existed).
How can anyone respect that and respect western democracy? It makes no sense to me and I’d be grateful if someone could persuade me otherwise.
Of course, the BBC present no sense of the incompatibility of Islam with western society, preferring the ‘We are dumbfounded – how could someone who believes that all non-Muslims should be killed go away to war to kill non-Muslims?’.
It seems to me that Beeboids, and their fellow Leftie travellers, glorify some wars but not others. I think they are genuinely dumbfounded. The real world just does not conform to their simplistic , perverted, ideology.
Mohammed was a slave trader, thief, encouraged the taking and trading of sex slaves as war booty, tortured many victims and summarily executed many more. He believed that Muslims are the ‘best of peoples’ and non-Muslims are the ‘worst of creatures’.
In fairness, you could substitute Christian Crusaders for Mohammed and it would still make sense. Africans were called savages in my youth, 1500 years later than Mohammed’s time. The difference is, Christianity has moved on somewhat from the eye for an eye dogma. Particularly since the laws of evolution have overtaken religious mumbo jumbo.
Muslim fundamentalists are still in the Middle Ages. When I see young Muslims walking around my city and wanting the trappings of our free capitalism, I wonder how long the elders can keep it up.
You will have noticed, just after the Muslim piece, that they asked us what had gone up in price since Brexit. How about being asked to pay £145.50 pa to use i-Player even if you don’t have a TV.
In fairness, you could substitute Christian Crusaders for Mohammed and it would still make sense.
Fair point, though there are many fundamental differences between these crusaders and the founder of Islam which I think are worth pointing out.
Firstly, of course, Mohammed claimed to be uniquely the last person who God ever was ever going to use as a prophet. Crusaders made no such claim.
Secondly, I doubt there are many Christians alive now who would agree that these crusaders were acting in a Christian manner. Muslims of course, can’t use this defence as the actions of Mohammed are – by definition – the perfect actions of a Muslim, for now and for ever.
The evidence suggests that the use of torture by crusaders was quite limited, though there were some atrocities. Islam, however, legitimises torture as a weapon for the spread of itself.
The equivalent Christian ‘prophet’ Jesus, did not – as far as I can recall – rape any women or children, trade them as sex slaves or torture anyone to death. I’m not much of a Christian scholar so I accept I might have missed these bits from the New Testament.
The crusades were a set of limited excursions designed to free previously Christian lands from Muslim oppression, for the most part with minimal success. Islam, on the other hand, is a war like ideology that entreats it’s followers to spread Islam around the world until the whole world is ruled by Islam.
So I’d suggest the limited actions of a few hundred or few thousand crusaders separated by centuries are not really comparable to an ideology that declares its intention to force the entire world to submit to Islam.
tomoAug 17, 17:30 Weekend 16th August 2025 Loosing two family members prematurely to medical incompetence and a third one evading the best efforts of a locum theatre…
Fedup2Aug 17, 17:18 Weekend 16th August 2025 Up2 Imagine the conversation – 47 to TTK how many troops can you put on the ground by thr Ukrainian…
tomoAug 17, 17:16 Weekend 16th August 2025 He has a camper van? https://twitter.com/Basil_TGMD/status/1957081303280505025
Fedup2Aug 17, 17:15 Weekend 16th August 2025 Tomo – I have such a jaurndiced view of the medical mafia that my view is that it’s very unusual…
tomoAug 17, 17:09 Weekend 16th August 2025 BBC selective vehemence is no substitute for veracity – the hinterland of the happenings that I’ve read about where Letby…
Up2snuffAug 17, 17:04 Weekend 16th August 2025 TWoTWee Watch #1 – Jonny ‘Dalek’ Dymond presenting A relief not to have any anti-Israel/pro-Hamas messages from the BBC. Most…
pugnaziousAug 17, 16:47 Weekend 16th August 2025 It has been quite apparent that the BBC has not been doing ‘journalism’ in regard to the Lucy Letby case…it…
ScrobleneAug 17, 16:28 Weekend 16th August 2025 Sounds a bit like Pressdram v Arkell from a real government, in charge of its own country’s interests! Pathetic non-use…
ScrobleneAug 17, 16:23 Weekend 16th August 2025 Having been involved in several big development and construction projects in The Isle of Dogs in the early eighties, about…
Eh-up where is the Start The Week thread ?
Wednesday. Blame Brexit.
Speaking of blows to jobs, the new precedent of shaming those you don’t approve of progress apace.
Just had link from Greenpeace.
Be interesting how the BBC handle this, given the party supported by said Flippa Killa.
Oh Lordy! Tony Blair AND Barack Obama ranged against us!
5Live you have to love them. ‘We’re going to talk about canibis…’
I raise my head from my phone look across the car park and think to myself back to work or listen with Clegg?
Within seconds ‘… a LibDem policy championed by the former Deputy PM Nick Clegg….’. Back to work wins.
From America, “Since the vote the protesters have been constantly vomiting over themselves. They need to wipe their chins and get on with it because it’s getting tiresome.”
Could so apply to the UK.
Usual BBC Islam clap-trap on News at 1pm R4. Interview with female Muslim convert who’s son went away to fight for the Islamic State and was subsequently killed.
The piece was introduced incredulously as “despite bringing their son up to respect his religion and the country in which he was born he became increasingly radicalised”.
Well I think I can see the problem right there!
How can anyone respect Islam and respect any western society? This makes no sense but was narrated in passing by the BBC announcer as if this was the most natural thing in the world.
To respect Islam you must believe that Mohammed was the final prophet of Allah and every action he took was that of a ‘perfect man’. Mohammed married a six year old infant (I won’t say child) and raped her when she was nine years old. Is that the actions of a perfect man everyone should emulate? Mohammed was a slave trader, thief, encouraged the taking and trading of sex slaves as war booty, tortured many victims and summarily executed many more. He believed that Muslims are the ‘best of peoples’ and non-Muslims are the ‘worst of creatures’.
Needless to say, this is the merest scratch into the sort of person Mohammed was (if he even existed).
How can anyone respect that and respect western democracy? It makes no sense to me and I’d be grateful if someone could persuade me otherwise.
Of course, the BBC present no sense of the incompatibility of Islam with western society, preferring the ‘We are dumbfounded – how could someone who believes that all non-Muslims should be killed go away to war to kill non-Muslims?’.
Beats me.
manchester,
It seems to me that Beeboids, and their fellow Leftie travellers, glorify some wars but not others. I think they are genuinely dumbfounded. The real world just does not conform to their simplistic , perverted, ideology.
Mohammed was a slave trader, thief, encouraged the taking and trading of sex slaves as war booty, tortured many victims and summarily executed many more. He believed that Muslims are the ‘best of peoples’ and non-Muslims are the ‘worst of creatures’.
In fairness, you could substitute Christian Crusaders for Mohammed and it would still make sense. Africans were called savages in my youth, 1500 years later than Mohammed’s time. The difference is, Christianity has moved on somewhat from the eye for an eye dogma. Particularly since the laws of evolution have overtaken religious mumbo jumbo.
Muslim fundamentalists are still in the Middle Ages. When I see young Muslims walking around my city and wanting the trappings of our free capitalism, I wonder how long the elders can keep it up.
You will have noticed, just after the Muslim piece, that they asked us what had gone up in price since Brexit. How about being asked to pay £145.50 pa to use i-Player even if you don’t have a TV.
Fair point, though there are many fundamental differences between these crusaders and the founder of Islam which I think are worth pointing out.
Firstly, of course, Mohammed claimed to be uniquely the last person who God ever was ever going to use as a prophet. Crusaders made no such claim.
Secondly, I doubt there are many Christians alive now who would agree that these crusaders were acting in a Christian manner. Muslims of course, can’t use this defence as the actions of Mohammed are – by definition – the perfect actions of a Muslim, for now and for ever.
The evidence suggests that the use of torture by crusaders was quite limited, though there were some atrocities. Islam, however, legitimises torture as a weapon for the spread of itself.
The equivalent Christian ‘prophet’ Jesus, did not – as far as I can recall – rape any women or children, trade them as sex slaves or torture anyone to death. I’m not much of a Christian scholar so I accept I might have missed these bits from the New Testament.
The crusades were a set of limited excursions designed to free previously Christian lands from Muslim oppression, for the most part with minimal success. Islam, on the other hand, is a war like ideology that entreats it’s followers to spread Islam around the world until the whole world is ruled by Islam.
So I’d suggest the limited actions of a few hundred or few thousand crusaders separated by centuries are not really comparable to an ideology that declares its intention to force the entire world to submit to Islam.