David Cameron called 'racist' after accusing Sadiq Khan over links to IS supporter
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Phillip88
White people must become more assertive.
Not look down on the pavement when they cross paths with a bearded creature like that.
Ask them what the **** they are doing. You're in England.
It's time white people don't look away anymore and rise up.
Because if you don't the enemy will.
Not look down on the pavement when they cross paths with a bearded creature like that.
Ask them what the **** they are doing. You're in England.
It's time white people don't look away anymore and rise up.
Because if you don't the enemy will.
Hear hear!
Original post by Bornblue
My parents are Jewish, I've been circumcised, had a bar mitzvah, went to a jewish school for 16 years, lived in israel, member of the local synagogue and have never denounced my religion.
My only point which has been incredibly misinterpreted, is that Judaism is not a race. That's all.
Posted from TSR Mobile
My only point which has been incredibly misinterpreted, is that Judaism is not a race. That's all.
Posted from TSR Mobile
OK.
But no one here states that Judaism is a race. Judaism is a religion. They only say that Jewishness is not defined only by religion. There are secular Jews who follow Jewish traditions. Many of them circumcise their children, make bar/bat mitzvah etc. They are secular but still they are Jews. They just keep their national identity.
Original post by Bornblue
I also noted you haven't replied to my response to you earlier...
Running scared like the coward you are.
Running scared like the coward you are.
Oh come on, you don't get to say things like this to other posters when you ran away from the same debate with me in this very same thread!
Original post by Observatory
Oh come on, you don't get to say things like this to other posters when you ran away from the same debate with me in this very same thread!
You seem to think someone being a human rights lawyer or criminal lawyer makes them an extremist or terrorist sympathiser.
You were clearly fishing.
Original post by Bornblue
You seem to think someone being a human rights lawyer or criminal lawyer makes them an extremist or terrorist sympathiser.
You were clearly fishing.
You were clearly fishing.
No, you bailed out of the debate on Jews being a racial group, and then simply started making the same claims to other posters.
Original post by Observatory
No, you bailed out of the debate on Jews being a racial group, and then simply started making the same claims to other posters.
No. Jews are not a racial group.
Jews are a mixture of all different races:
Original post by admonit
OK.
But no one here states that Judaism is a race. Judaism is a religion. They only say that Jewishness is not defined only by religion. There are secular Jews who follow Jewish traditions. Many of them circumcise their children, make bar/bat mitzvah etc. They are secular but still they are Jews. They just keep their national identity.
But no one here states that Judaism is a race. Judaism is a religion. They only say that Jewishness is not defined only by religion. There are secular Jews who follow Jewish traditions. Many of them circumcise their children, make bar/bat mitzvah etc. They are secular but still they are Jews. They just keep their national identity.
Fair enough. I'm a secular Jew who follows traditions but not the religion. But I only continue to be Jewish because I choose to be. If I were to denounce my Judaism I would no longer be.
In the same way that people can convert to it, they can convert from it.
Yt?
You're double standards are beyond a joke.
You are so quick to hammer anyone who so much as criticises Israel as being anti Semitic yet when you have the likes of goldsmith and Cameron dog whistling at Khan, calling him a radical and extremist and trying to tie a link between the fact he's Muslim and extremism you barely question it, you nod your head.
Goldsmiths campaign has been slammed by numerous Tories for its divisive rhetoric designed to whip up religious tensions and portray Khan as an extremist sympathiser.
Goldsmith is part Jewish right? Well we all know that if khans team had been making links between him and Israels actions, you'd be up in arms accusing him of anti semitism and you'd be right to.
But when It's a secular muslim, who's spent his life fighting and challenging extremism, you nod your head when he's accused of being an extremist, hugely playing on the fact he's a Muslim in doing so.
Khan is a brilliant candidate, a secular Muslim whose taken on the dirty, extremists in his community time and time again. He's a role model to young Muslims. Yet this dog whistling campaign of accusing him of being an extremist is disgusting and if anything turns young Muslims the other way.
You wouldn't stand for the same treatment of a Jewish candidate so I don't see why you stand for this. Well actually I do.
Despite what you think, you have no principle or standards. You exemplify selective outrage.
Original post by KimKallstrom
You tried this sly trick before and promptly got destroyed for it so I'm surprised you've tried it again. It's pathetic
You're double standards are beyond a joke.
You are so quick to hammer anyone who so much as criticises Israel as being anti Semitic yet when you have the likes of goldsmith and Cameron dog whistling at Khan, calling him a radical and extremist and trying to tie a link between the fact he's Muslim and extremism you barely question it, you nod your head.
Goldsmiths campaign has been slammed by numerous Tories for its divisive rhetoric designed to whip up religious tensions and portray Khan as an extremist sympathiser.
Goldsmith is part Jewish right? Well we all know that if khans team had been making links between him and Israels actions, you'd be up in arms accusing him of anti semitism and you'd be right to.
But when It's a secular muslim, who's spent his life fighting and challenging extremism, you nod your head when he's accused of being an extremist, hugely playing on the fact he's a Muslim in doing so.
Khan is a brilliant candidate, a secular Muslim whose taken on the dirty, extremists in his community time and time again. He's a role model to young Muslims. Yet this dog whistling campaign of accusing him of being an extremist is disgusting and if anything turns young Muslims the other way.
You wouldn't stand for the same treatment of a Jewish candidate so I don't see why you stand for this. Well actually I do.
Despite what you think, you have no principle or standards. You exemplify selective outrage.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
Fair enough. I'm a secular Jew who follows traditions but not the religion. But I only continue to be Jewish because I choose to be. If I were to denounce my Judaism I would no longer be.
In the same way that people can convert to it, they can convert from it.
In the same way that people can convert to it, they can convert from it.
Wrong.
There is no formal "exit" from Judaism or Jewishness. Very strange that you don't know it.
Original post by admonit
Wrong.
There is no formal "exit" from Judaism or Jewishness. Very strange that you don't know it.
There is no formal "exit" from Judaism or Jewishness. Very strange that you don't know it.
I disagree. If someone denounces their religion or converts away from Judaism they are no longer Jewish. We have the right to choose our religion.
Just like if someone wants to convert to Judaism they become Jewish.
I know the doctrine says that you will forever be Jewish if you are born, but that is based on a view that Judaism is something inherent, something objective and biologal/physical such as race.
If someone converts away from Judaism they are no longer Jewish, if they convert to Christianity then according to Christianity they would be Christian. I don't see why one religious doctrine gets to trump others.
Also worth noting that in Islam if the father is Muslim then so too is the child, so if a Muslim man and Jewish woman have a baby the baby could be said to be both Jewish and Muslim.
In that situation it's for the child to choose. If Judaism says a child is Jewish and Islam says its Muslim, there's no reason why one trumps another.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
I disagree. If someone denounces their religion or converts away from Judaism they are no longer Jewish. We have the right to choose our religion.
Just like if someone wants to convert to Judaism they become Jewish.
Just like if someone wants to convert to Judaism they become Jewish.
You still claim that being religious and being Jewish is the same. It's unbelievable.
Original post by admonit
You still claim that being religious and being Jewish is the same. It's unbelievable.
I do not. Not at all. I never have.
I know you can be non religious and Jewish. I am myself.
It's like an identity. I choose to identify as Jewish.
But people can choose to change how they identify themselves.
Are you saying you can be Jewish Muslim?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
I do not. Not at all. I never have.
Really?
Original post by Bornblue
If someone denounces their religion or converts away from Judaism they are no longer Jewish.
Back to the issue about Cameron and his accusations in the House.
Cameron's complaint in the House was that Sadiq Khan has appeared on platforms with Suliman Gani. "This man supports IS" is what Cameron said in the House.
Notice his careful use of "IS" so he could later cover himself. In January this year, Gani spoke out against ISIS at an event called "The Evils of ISIS". He has expressed his support for "an Islamic state" but this is not the terrorist group "Islamic State".
Remember Cameron was the one who said that in the House they should use the terminology "Daesh" so as not to tie terrorism in with the word "Islamic" but now it's convenient to him to make this disingenuous link he has done it. But later his spokesperson was weaseling out of this to the media by saying that Cameron never said Gani was a supporter of the terrorist group Islamic State but was just repeating a fact that he had called for an Islamic state.
So Cameron is just trying to put the phrase Islamic state and Sadiq Khan together and hope that people think that they are associated.
But the question for Cameron is what is he going to do about sorting out the Conservative party's links with Gani. He said in PMQs last week that "it's very important that we do not back these people [extremists] and do not appear on platforms with them".
However it then came out that various Conservatives have been sharing platforms with Gani: Jane Ellison and Justine Greening (who are both Ministers), Tania Mathias, Zac Goldsmith (oh the irony) and especially Dan Watkins who was the Conservative candidate in Sadiq Khan's seat.
Watkins invited Gani to speak at a "Conservative Muslim Forum" event to try and encourage more Muslims to become Conservative councillors. Gani provided canvassers for Watkins' campaign against Khan.
The question for Cameron is - what action will he be taking against people in the Conservative party to sort this out? He has been very keen to call for Corbyn to sort out anti-semitism in Labour, but if Gani is a genuine problem then why are the Conservatives cosying up to him?
http://news.sky.com/story/1682433/the-tale-of-the-pm-and-the-tory-backing-imam
Cameron's complaint in the House was that Sadiq Khan has appeared on platforms with Suliman Gani. "This man supports IS" is what Cameron said in the House.
Notice his careful use of "IS" so he could later cover himself. In January this year, Gani spoke out against ISIS at an event called "The Evils of ISIS". He has expressed his support for "an Islamic state" but this is not the terrorist group "Islamic State".
Remember Cameron was the one who said that in the House they should use the terminology "Daesh" so as not to tie terrorism in with the word "Islamic" but now it's convenient to him to make this disingenuous link he has done it. But later his spokesperson was weaseling out of this to the media by saying that Cameron never said Gani was a supporter of the terrorist group Islamic State but was just repeating a fact that he had called for an Islamic state.
So Cameron is just trying to put the phrase Islamic state and Sadiq Khan together and hope that people think that they are associated.
But the question for Cameron is what is he going to do about sorting out the Conservative party's links with Gani. He said in PMQs last week that "it's very important that we do not back these people [extremists] and do not appear on platforms with them".
However it then came out that various Conservatives have been sharing platforms with Gani: Jane Ellison and Justine Greening (who are both Ministers), Tania Mathias, Zac Goldsmith (oh the irony) and especially Dan Watkins who was the Conservative candidate in Sadiq Khan's seat.
Watkins invited Gani to speak at a "Conservative Muslim Forum" event to try and encourage more Muslims to become Conservative councillors. Gani provided canvassers for Watkins' campaign against Khan.
The question for Cameron is - what action will he be taking against people in the Conservative party to sort this out? He has been very keen to call for Corbyn to sort out anti-semitism in Labour, but if Gani is a genuine problem then why are the Conservatives cosying up to him?
http://news.sky.com/story/1682433/the-tale-of-the-pm-and-the-tory-backing-imam
Original post by Bornblue
No. Jews are not a racial group.
Jews are a mixture of all different races:
Jews are a mixture of all different races:
Does your internal monologue actually sound like a perpetually skipping record, or are you taking the piss?
Original post by MagicNMedicine
Back to the issue about Cameron and his accusations in the House.
Cameron's complaint in the House was that Sadiq Khan has appeared on platforms with Suliman Gani. "This man supports IS" is what Cameron said in the House.
Notice his careful use of "IS" so he could later cover himself. In January this year, Gani spoke out against ISIS at an event called "The Evils of ISIS". He has expressed his support for "an Islamic state" but this is not the terrorist group "Islamic State".
Cameron's complaint in the House was that Sadiq Khan has appeared on platforms with Suliman Gani. "This man supports IS" is what Cameron said in the House.
Notice his careful use of "IS" so he could later cover himself. In January this year, Gani spoke out against ISIS at an event called "The Evils of ISIS". He has expressed his support for "an Islamic state" but this is not the terrorist group "Islamic State".
Well that's totally different, the terrorist group Islamic State's actions not being in any way motivated by their desire to create the scriptural Islamic State.
Original post by Observatory
Well that's totally different, the terrorist group Islamic State's actions not being in any way motivated by their desire to create the scriptural Islamic State.
Are all Zionist Jews terrorists now?
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Are all Zionist Jews terrorists now?
If you consider Israel to be a terrorist organisation, there would seem to be a good case.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
Back to the issue about Cameron and his accusations in the House.
Cameron's complaint in the House was that Sadiq Khan has appeared on platforms with Suliman Gani. "This man supports IS" is what Cameron said in the House.
Notice his careful use of "IS" so he could later cover himself. In January this year, Gani spoke out against ISIS at an event called "The Evils of ISIS". He has expressed his support for "an Islamic state" but this is not the terrorist group "Islamic State".
Remember Cameron was the one who said that in the House they should use the terminology "Daesh" so as not to tie terrorism in with the word "Islamic" but now it's convenient to him to make this disingenuous link he has done it. But later his spokesperson was weaseling out of this to the media by saying that Cameron never said Gani was a supporter of the terrorist group Islamic State but was just repeating a fact that he had called for an Islamic state.
So Cameron is just trying to put the phrase Islamic state and Sadiq Khan together and hope that people think that they are associated.
But the question for Cameron is what is he going to do about sorting out the Conservative party's links with Gani. He said in PMQs last week that "it's very important that we do not back these people [extremists] and do not appear on platforms with them".
However it then came out that various Conservatives have been sharing platforms with Gani: Jane Ellison and Justine Greening (who are both Ministers), Tania Mathias, Zac Goldsmith (oh the irony) and especially Dan Watkins who was the Conservative candidate in Sadiq Khan's seat.
Watkins invited Gani to speak at a "Conservative Muslim Forum" event to try and encourage more Muslims to become Conservative councillors. Gani provided canvassers for Watkins' campaign against Khan.
The question for Cameron is - what action will he be taking against people in the Conservative party to sort this out? He has been very keen to call for Corbyn to sort out anti-semitism in Labour, but if Gani is a genuine problem then why are the Conservatives cosying up to him?
http://news.sky.com/story/1682433/the-tale-of-the-pm-and-the-tory-backing-imam
Cameron's complaint in the House was that Sadiq Khan has appeared on platforms with Suliman Gani. "This man supports IS" is what Cameron said in the House.
Notice his careful use of "IS" so he could later cover himself. In January this year, Gani spoke out against ISIS at an event called "The Evils of ISIS". He has expressed his support for "an Islamic state" but this is not the terrorist group "Islamic State".
Remember Cameron was the one who said that in the House they should use the terminology "Daesh" so as not to tie terrorism in with the word "Islamic" but now it's convenient to him to make this disingenuous link he has done it. But later his spokesperson was weaseling out of this to the media by saying that Cameron never said Gani was a supporter of the terrorist group Islamic State but was just repeating a fact that he had called for an Islamic state.
So Cameron is just trying to put the phrase Islamic state and Sadiq Khan together and hope that people think that they are associated.
But the question for Cameron is what is he going to do about sorting out the Conservative party's links with Gani. He said in PMQs last week that "it's very important that we do not back these people [extremists] and do not appear on platforms with them".
However it then came out that various Conservatives have been sharing platforms with Gani: Jane Ellison and Justine Greening (who are both Ministers), Tania Mathias, Zac Goldsmith (oh the irony) and especially Dan Watkins who was the Conservative candidate in Sadiq Khan's seat.
Watkins invited Gani to speak at a "Conservative Muslim Forum" event to try and encourage more Muslims to become Conservative councillors. Gani provided canvassers for Watkins' campaign against Khan.
The question for Cameron is - what action will he be taking against people in the Conservative party to sort this out? He has been very keen to call for Corbyn to sort out anti-semitism in Labour, but if Gani is a genuine problem then why are the Conservatives cosying up to him?
http://news.sky.com/story/1682433/the-tale-of-the-pm-and-the-tory-backing-imam
You almost couldn't make it up. The Tories trying to make out like khans an extremist synlathiser by pointing out he shared a platform with someone who campaigned and canvassed for the Tories.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/722850826784518144
Picture of Suliman Gani at Conservative Muslim Forum event "Be a councillor" to boost Muslim and BME representation.
Picture of Suliman Gani at Conservative Muslim Forum event "Be a councillor" to boost Muslim and BME representation.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Reshuffle: David Cameron is back and Braverman sacked
- GovPol Reading
- Cameron-comeback, opinions?
- Craig Foster apologises to Sam Kerr for saying her crime was sackable
- My review of BCU - Birmingham City University
- Do you wish Johnson to return?
- Kamala Harris is the Democrat VP pick
- Student Finance Eligibility issue !!
- I've found St Andrews to be a racist university
- Student Finance Application Support
- Newcastle Fine Art decision time
- Germany: Marches against the far right draw over 200,000
- not being supported by the practice assessor on my placement
- Parents Middle names
- OMG is this for real? TV in the 70s was sooo racist
- Is it time to rethink our criminal justice system and 'do things differently'?
- how horrible can a policeman be?
- Advice on medical school worth applying
- What famous person would you like to meet?
- BBC: Tory donor accused of racist remarks about Diane Abbott
Latest
Last reply 38 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 2 hours ago
Virgin/O2 Technology Placement - Virtual Assessment and embarrassing questionTrending
Last reply 13 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 16 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 19 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 13 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 16 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 19 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
