britain first attacked in east london

Scroll to see replies

How is it provocative for them to hold a union jack when it is the nations flag? Everyone is conditioned into thinking that they (bf) are in the wrong as they are going into a 'muslim area' and should therefore 'respect' the Muslim people who are there. All that translates to is essentially that the area is no longer truly British and is now a no go area. Also their protest was legal whereas they were assaulted which was illegal.

Standing in front of a mosque (where suprisingly lots of Muslims will walk by), holding a cross and calling out agressive insults such as "Muslims worship a paedophile" seems pretty provactive to me. The true Christians imo will never react this way. So much for Jesus's "make peace with your enemies". I definitely don't condone the violence from the Muslims but this is obviously what BF wanted.

Reply 41

Howard

Original post by Frank Underwood

Yeah I mean Britain First is a highly tolerant, friendly bunch of people isn't it?

They weren't the aggressors in this video.

Reply 42

Frank Underwood

Original post by Howard

They weren't the aggressors in this video.

They caused the aggression by provoking them, so technically yes they were the aggressors. Without Britain First's presence, no violence would have occurred that day in that location.

Reply 43

Howard

Original post by Frank Underwood

So in your eyes, we should kill Muslims who protest violently, despite being provoked by a large mob of xenophobes and racists?

I hear North Korea has pretty good means for silencing the opposition, why don't you head there?

Are we watching the same video?

A large mob? I thought it was the Muslims that where trying to silence the opposition?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 44

Frank Underwood

Original post by Howard

Are we watching the same video?

Are you really defending a group of people who want to expel a large portion of British citizens solely based on their ethnicity / religion?

Reply 45

Dysprosium

Good, they deserve it.

Reply 46

Howard

Original post by Frank Underwood

They caused the aggression by provoking them, so technically yes they were the aggressors. Without Britain First's presence, no violence would have occurred that day in that location.

You know, people like you are truly unreal.

By your idiotic rationale someone voicing an opinion (who gets beaten up as a result) is the aggressor while the person that does the beating is the victim whose violence should be overlooked.

According to you BF, just by being there ("presence"), is enough to justify a violent reaction.

What topsy-turvey Alice in Wonderland world do you live in?

Reply 47

Frank Underwood

Original post by Howard

, is enough to justify a violent reaction.

What topsy-turvey Alice in Wonderland world do you live in?

Do you honestly think that Britain First wanted to achieve anything other than to provoke an aggressive response form Muslims at this protest?

It's one thing to voice an opinion, its another to provoke violence.

Reply 48

Howard

Original post by Frank Underwood

Are you really defending a group of people who want to expel a large portion of British citizens solely based on their ethnicity / religion?

Are you really defending a group that is so utterly lacking in self control that the sight of a flag, the presence of half a dozen people, or a word of criticism provokes such a violent reaction?

Reply 49

Frank Underwood

Original post by Howard

Are you really defending a group that is so utterly lacking in self control that the sight of a flag, the presence of half a dozen people, or a word of criticism provokes such a violent reaction?

Yes, deal with it. These people are British citizens and they don't deserve to be persecuted for their religion or ethnicity based on some ill-informed idea that Islam is taking over the UK. They reacted very badly, but if Britain First hadn't organised this - none of it would have happened.

There's a difference between voicing an opinion and inciting violence, Britain First came to this mosque with no other intent than to provoke a violent reaction, so that they can add momentum to their anti-Muslim cause.

Reply 50

Howard

Original post by Frank Underwood

I would suggest these people are provoked to violence a little bit easily wouldn't you?

Christians suffer negroid "art" called "Piss Christ". They suffer disgusting Jew-made movies like the "The Night Before". The put up with Muslims smashing statues of the Virgin Mary and pissing on the fragments (in Rome of all places)

It's probably a good job that Christians are able to handle these sorts of things. If they had the same the same hair trigger reactions that Muslims have there wouldn't be a Mosque or a Synagogue left standing.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 51

Howard

Original post by Frank Underwood

"Yes" That just about says it all.

The difference is purely one for your convenience.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 52

Frank Underwood

Original post by Howard

I would suggest these people are provoked to violence a little bit easily wouldn't you?Christians suffer negroid "art" called "Piss Christ". They suffer disgusting Jew-made movies like the "The Night Before". The put up with Muslims smashing statues of the Virgin Mary and pissing on the fragments (in Rome of all places)It's probably a good job that Christians are able to handle these sorts of things. If they had the same the same hair trigger reactions that Muslims have there wouldn't be a Mosque or a Synagogue left standing.

There is a contextual difference. Islam is not native to the UK, people came from the Middle East and other parts of the world here throughout the 20th century and are still doing that now. These people are suffering much greater persecution in Britain than Christians or Jews, who have resided here for much longer and are core to Britain First's and many other similar groups' tenets. And not to mention the vile Islamophobia (inb4 'its a stupid word' you know what I mean) which they are faced with in western countries because of the actions of terrorists who claim to preach true Islam. There aren't nearly as many Christian terrorists or Jewish terrorists, so they aren't being threatened by the average ignorant right-wing moron who is too uneducated on the matter to differentiate between terrorists and Muslims.

So you can say that they are provoked too easily, I'll say that they are facing greater discrimination than Christians and Jews in the west.

Original post by Howard

"Yes" That just about says it all.
The difference is purely one for your convenience.

Is this an attempt at being clever or something? What you said holds no response to what I said, if you're going to ignore my entire post and nitpick whatever you think suits your argument best, don't reply to me in the first place. I even answered your question with honesty, that I am defending some people who were violent, but you didn't even answer mine. So I'll ask it one more time, are you really defending this group of xenophobic racists who want to preserve hollow values which have long degraded by forcibly ejecting thousands of innocent people based solely on their ethnicity / religion?

Reply 53

Frank Underwood

Original post by G8D

is this a question about rape victims

I have literally no idea what you're talking about

Reply 54

username1148663

Original post by Frank Underwood

The very fact that Britain First came to this mosque willing to provoke violence suggests that your assumption up there is pretty wrong indeed.

We expect it from them because it's what they do

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 55

Frank Underwood

Original post by paul514

We expect it from them because it's what they do

Posted from TSR Mobile

Have you ever been to a predominantly Muslim country, and gone to the local shops, restaurants, etc?

Reply 56

Farm_Ecology

Original post by champ_mc99

He was a pedophile though.

Do you think it's wrong for example, for people to protest outside of the government buildings against particular members of Government? Or would this be provocative?

Original post by Frank Underwood

They reacted very badly, but if Britain First hadn't organised this - none of it would have happened..

Text book victim blaming.

Reply 57

Frank Underwood

Original post by Farm_Ecology

He was a pedophile though.

Do you think it's wrong for example, for people to protest outside of the government buildings against particular members of Government? Or would this be provocative?

Text book victim blaming.

Ah here we go, the extremists gather to attack me because I have a tolerant view of different cultures.

Reply 58

BaconandSauce

Original post by champ_mc99

Standing in front of a mosque (where suprisingly lots of Muslims will walk by), holding a cross and calling out agressive insults such as "Muslims worship a paedophile" seems pretty provactive to me.

No matter how provocative there's NO justification for violence

Why can't these Muslims respond in a peaceful way given we are told this is what the quran and islam teaches them?

Or are these muslims using violence (something we are told is wrong) not true muslims?