Your literal response to a simple satire makes me want to cry.
That is undoubtedly my daily experience.
That must be why Trump said he’d make an exception to his Muslim rule and allow Khan to visit the States.
oh dear.
I spend too much time arguing with people who say such things in all seriousness. Poe’s Law is a bitch.
As for Churchill and Derek, well…I’m not going to argue that religious extremism isn’t a retrograde force, nor that there isn’t a particularly virulent form of Muslim extremism spreading at the moment. Wahhabism is certainly a cancer on the world. But the whole Muslim religion, in all its sects and forms, taken over the entirety of its history? I’m not convinced Islam is any worse than Christianity (something which Churchill would have happily glossed over) or Hinduism or any other religion with enough force behind it to wage war on the “other”. I realize that “Christianity has killed lots of people too” has become a virtual cliche of a response, but perhaps there’s a good reason for that.
More relevantly, this idea that the best way to deal with Muslims is to treat all of them as if they all adhere to the most radical and regressive views of the religion has been shown time and time again - with various religions - to be counterproductive and indeed to drive moderates denied the opportunity to be part of the mainstream into the arms of the radical fringe. It accomplishes nothing - it doesn’t quash those views, it doesn’t make anyone safer, it doesn’t mitigate one iota of the risk posed by those who would harm us, while at the same time placing unreasonable and unjust burdens on those who seek only to live their lives in peace.
And the fact that DerekMichaels00 has met many Muslims who were “great people” and yet puts so much effort into political views that, if implemented, would harm those “great people” is truly reprehensible. Today in the UK Muslims are far more likely to be the victims of sectarian violence than the perpetrators, violence fed by the view that Muslims are all “savages” and therefore it’s okay to “get them before they get us”. In reacting out of fear and anger, we not only make ourselves less secure but we harm those who could be our best allies in the fight against irrational hatred.
It wasn’t that long ago that the bombs London had to worry about were being placed by Catholics. Tomorrow the villains may be someone else. Security is largely illusory, but those who would spread terror can only do so with our permission. Let’s try not to become the people we fear.
Sure in 1899, as a25-year old headbanging imperialist.
We all made perfect sense in our mid 20s. Lets swap quotes.
You’d expect quite a lot better that this stuff at a high school debating society.
Churchill is a hero of western civilization, PERIOD. And he was also very pro-Zionism. He is a moral compass, for the most part.
He was 25. Get over it.
Sweet lord, the claims you make.
The Tonypandy riots? The liverpool riots? The deployment of tanks in Glasgow? Deploying the black and tans in Ireland with a direct mandate to break heads? The use of poison gas against the Kurds, and his statement that “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes…[it] would spread a lively terror.”? The Boer war, where he stated his “irritation that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men”?
Of course that’s all small beer, compared to his actions in India. His belief that “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” made it very easy for him to keep exporting rice from the country when it was gripped by a famine. He over-rode pleas from his own officials to stop the exports of rice, claiming their starvation was their own fault for “breeding like rabbits”. 3 million died in that famine, and when the corpses in the streets lead to an outbreak of disease, he said it was “merrily” reducing the population.
It’s telling you find him to be a moral compass.
The British people threw him out in a landslide election, two months after VE Day.
My point is, as I said before, that labour doesn’t have an anti-semitism problem as a party. You’ll certainly find some anti-semites. There’s 390,000 members of the party, so statistically there’s got to be some. You’ll occasionally hear people saying daft things too, like Livingstone trying to defend his colleague by mentioning Hitler initially supported moving Jews to the region. You will certainly hear criticism of Israel’s policies towards Palestine, which is good because they’re vile policies that should be criticised. But accusing it of having a party culture of anti-semitism is bullshit.
Clear enough?
…and brought in Attlee, who remains highly regarded due to his creation of the welfare state and in particular the creation of the NHS (now under assault yet again by the Tories). A far better “moral compass” as Prime Ministers go. But we digress.
Umm Churchill helped save Western Civ and the rest of the world from evil Nazism. Therefore, Churchill is a hero. The end. (and don’t give me the BS communist line “Stalin did most of the work” because the USSR only lost so many lives since Stalin purged his army, killed those who warned of the German attack, and he took American lend-lease the whole time they fought Germany)
Far-left types and Islamist sympathists need to stop trying to rewrite history.
Thank you, Steven Spielberg.
…says the man rewriting history.
Yes, he is a hero. You’re completely disregarding that he had a career in British politics that extended for half a century before WWII and for a decade after, and that many of his views and actions were not and are not universally loved.
We’re allowed to view him as a heroic icon for WWII, and as somewhat less than a heroic icon for many of his other aspects. Read up on WWI lately?
FDR is considered one of America’s greatest presidents for steering it through the Great Depression and WWII, and no one would argue he didn’t have plenty of items in the negative column either (one of the biggest ones being the internment of Japanese-Americans).
A strict Manichean worldview is generally unhelpful, I find, and particularly so in the realm of politics.
Why should anyone bother to re-write history, when you’ve no intention of ever studying it?
are you implying something about Schindler’s List? Got a problem with that Spielberg movie?