The Guardian: "This war on 'Islamism' only fuels hatred and violence" Watch

Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
deleted
0
reply
username1344042
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-cameron-toxic

What a truly bizarre piece commissioned by the Guardian.

I think the comments on the piece say a lot.
Everything in this article, besides denouncing Blair, is pathetic. I'm genuinely surprised the Guardian have gone this low; insinuating the Muslim Brotherhood are in some way victims to Britain, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, claiming that the Trojan Horse operation is a made up lie aided by Gove the 'Islamist witchfinder' and even using scare quotes when referring to Islamic extremism (in other words questioning its existence in Britain).

How this awful excuse for a newspaper could come up with this awful excuse for an article, with a topic that should be treat very seriously, is beyond me. I hope that this fuels more denunciation of the Guardian and that the far-Left aren't further convinced by the s**t it spews so intelligibly.
1
reply
Amphiprion
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
I don't know exactly about Blair's comments and I seem to be missing the context of that article as reading it left me feeling unclear about how exactly the author feels about religious extremism.

My initial impression from this whole Tony Blair thing is that he's trotted out a speech full of careless, lazy generalisations. Referring to terrorist organisations and plots as "Islamic" or "Islamist" is unfair and misleading but happens a lot in the media as it makes for a fine "Well it's not the whites doing it!" scape goat. There is a very large number of people either too stupid or ignorant to notice the difference between a Muslim and a Muslim terrorist, they become easily misled by such comments and this leads to tarring of the whole Islamic world with the same emotive and contravertial brush.

I also really hate journalists who whip out their trusty thesaurus to make their crappy columns/articles sound way more articulate and flashy than they are.
2
reply
caravaggio2
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Milne is no different from anyone I know on the left.
In the game of top trumps for their support, Islam out trumps homophobia, sexism and antisemitism. The two or three times I have asked friends to explain this stance,they talk around the subject without confronting it.
They regularly look the other way when Islamists attack gays, jews or women, all of which would practically be a cause celebre for them were it not islamists doing the attacking.
I am fast coming to the conclusion that Nick Cohen was right in a piece he wrote putting it all down to cowardace ( at least with reporters and comedians ).
Jews gays and women are far l ess likely to leave you in the street with a dagger in your chest if you upset them.
But it is one thing, when you are to scared to talk yourself, but it is cowardace plain and simple, to then speak out against anyone willing to confront the very thing you are too scared to confront youself.
1
reply
Marco1
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
The Guardian article is in denial of a very real problem, i.e. the rise of fundamentalist, Jihadist Islamism. It seems they would prefer to discredit the words of Blair by references to his blemished past, but the content of his speech is pertinent and should not be dismissed by The Guardian as the mere ravings of soulless political criminal. He speaks rationally about a very real problem in our world today. The newspaper's stance here seems hellbent on crying "Witch Hunt!" rather than to admit that the religious jihadists are a threat to global peace. Like a proverbial camel burying its head in the sand, the Guardian would rather make slanderous character remarks than comment on the speech topic. Personally I wouldn't expect much better from them but they are stooping very low indeed with that one. It takes guts and a certain objectivity to admit that there is an element within Islam that needs eradicating now more than ever and the problem like Blair says, is best faced up to and not ignored. We know Blair is no saint, but surely only a fool would then automatically disregard everything he says, without first assessing the weight of his argument.
2
reply
the mezzil
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
It's the Guardian. It is the lefts version on the Daily Mail.

People who read either newspapers are retards.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
KimKallstrom
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
The Guardian writing something incredibly retarded that proves, yet again, that their writers, editors and readers have absolutely no grasp on reality?

Well I never........
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by olmyster911)
Everything in this article, besides denouncing Blair, is pathetic. I'm genuinely surprised the Guardian have gone this low; insinuating the Muslim Brotherhood are in some way victims to Britain, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, claiming that the Trojan Horse operation is a made up lie aided by Gove the 'Islamist witchfinder' and even using scare quotes when referring to Islamic extremism (in other words questioning its existence in Britain).

How this awful excuse for a newspaper could come up with this awful excuse for an article, with a topic that should be treat very seriously, is beyond me. I hope that this fuels more denunciation of the Guardian and that the far-Left aren't further convinced by the s**t it spews so intelligibly.
Because this is an opinion piece. Sort of like a letter to the editor.
0
reply
username1344042
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by clh_hilary)
Because this is an opinion piece. Sort of like a letter to the editor.
Regardless, it was still published as an article, and the views were still pathetic. Only in The Guardian.
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by the mezzil)
It's the Guardian. It is the lefts version on the Daily Mail.

People who read either newspapers are retards.

Posted from TSR Mobile
In all fairness WHAT the daily mail say is usually correct, its HOW they say it which is usually a little sensationalist.
0
reply
WC2011
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
the guardian is not a proper newspaper, its jsut a rag for people with an agenda, like the daily mail at opposite end of spectrum. the justifcations it makes for wars inspiring islamists and recruiting new muslims and radicals is irrelevant, people with little or no direction in life will always be drawn to movements of any sort, especially youth-whether that be National Front, edl, black/jamaican inspired gangs, football firms or islam. if there is some sense of belonging they can obtain from it, purpose to life and an outlet for their frustrations anger etc, then they will be easy meat for recruiters.
0
reply
James222
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
The Guardian is right

Wtf is wrong with Tony Blair equating Islamism with Terrorism ?
Islamism has little difference with American Evangelicalism or the Republican Party platform from 30-40 years ago. America is only 50% christian, so clearly some muslim countries that are like 90% muslim will implement a far more religious agenda.

Democracy is about people voting for what they want, why does Tony Blair feel he has right to promote the use of western military force to attack and kill conservative muslims ?????

The most sick and twisted thing was Tony Blair advocating an alliance with russia as they crushing Ukraine and less than 10 years after they absolutely destroyed entire cities in Chechneya
1
reply
James222
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by the mezzil)
It's the Guardian. It is the lefts version on the Daily Mail.

People who read either newspapers are retards.

Posted from TSR Mobile
what a lazy comment, the guardian regularly has articles from conservatives and articles critical of muslims by feminist etc
0
reply
P357
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by the mezzil)
It's the Guardian. It is the lefts version on the Daily Mail.

People who read either newspapers are retards.

Posted from TSR Mobile
er..no.they are not.
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by olmyster911)
Regardless, it was still published as an article, and the views were still pathetic. Only in The Guardian.
But technically it indeed shouldn't have been censored, especially in the online paper.
0
reply
the mezzil
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by James222)
what a lazy comment, the guardian regularly has articles from conservatives and articles critical of muslims by feminist etc
The Daily Mail reguraly has left wing people writing in it, and also attacks the EDL/ BNP. That does not somehow excuse the amount of bs it writes.
(Original post by P357)
er..no.they are not.
Yes they are.
0
reply
P357
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by the mezzil)
The Daily Mail reguraly has left wing people writing in it, and also attacks the EDL/ BNP. That does not somehow excuse the amount of bs it writes.


Yes they are.
An example of why reading the paper makes you so "retarded" would be...?
0
reply
the mezzil
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by P357)
An example of why reading the paper makes you so "retarded" would be...?
They aren't newspapers, they are nothing more than propaganda mouth pieces and scaremongering nonsense. You are retarded if you read and believe everything that is written in those "newspapers".

Read a broadsheet if you wish to learn about the news. Like the Independent, The Times/ Financial Times, Telegraph.
0
reply
P357
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by the mezzil)
They aren't newspapers, they are nothing more than propaganda mouth pieces. You are retarded if you read and believe everything that is written in those "newspapers".

Read a broadsheet if you wish to learn about the news. Like the Independent, The Times/ Financial Times, Telegraph.
Very few people read the daily-mail on its own-that stuff is half-tabloid practically,so quite a bit of it is for entertainment purposes...

All those newspapers you listed have a bias-some more than others.

I'm fully aware of the DM's agenda or whatever you might want to call it-has it ever occurred to you that some people agree with it and that's why they read it?
0
reply
Wattsy
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by the mezzil)
They aren't newspapers, they are nothing more than propaganda mouth pieces. You are retarded if you read and believe everything that is written in those "newspapers".

Read a broadsheet if you wish to learn about the news. Like the Independent, The Times/ Financial Times, Telegraph.
The Telegraph isn't called the Torygraph for nothing! I read the Guardian because it seems happy to talk about us as young people in a respectable manner, No other newspaper I've read does that.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (370)
67.27%
No (180)
32.73%

Watched Threads

View All