A Bit Late, Mr. Cameron !

[spindrift]

Why was it stupid and infalmmatory?

 

 

2003, millions of people marched against the war. Cameron ignored them, supported an illegal war that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

 

2011, a handful of extremist muslims cause Cameron to make panicky, recklessly irresponsible speeches about muslims that hysterically inflate the terror threat and claims, utterly dishonestly, that moderate muslims remain quiet. It's depressing that the EDL have praised Cameron's speech and say he is "coming round to our way of thinking".

 

We are all far more likely to be killed by a car than a terrorist, so wealthy toff Cameron and his lickspittle acolytes inflame paranoia and hatred in order to divert attention from his disastrous policies.

 

Cameron is the cause of extremism.

 

As leader of the Opposition, he ignored the million people, from all walks of life, who were protesting against the war.

 

He supported the government, instead of opposing it.

 

We did not have any extremism before. But once it was then clear, if it had not been before, that democracy does not exist in this country, some immature lads decide to take violent action.

 

Politicians need terrorists, if they didn't exist they'd invent them, it's a huge diversionary tactic and a cynical exploitation of the racist sub-class who need validation for their hatred and suspicion.

 

Guardian editorial makes the same point about joined-up thinking:

 

But the prime minister cannot seriously believe that big government is the main cause of social division, still less that his cuts agenda solves the problem. He says, for example, that he wants to make sure more immigrants learn English. Who will teach them? The courses are all run by further education colleges whose budgets are being annihilated.

 

 

Everybody knows that Cameron's stupidity will inflame the situation and create further unrest and mutual suspicion. When it happens, Cameron will have blood on his hands.

[andyofborg]

Of course I do they blow up London Tube trains, London Busses and attack Glasgow airport.

 

so, are you asserting that all muslims are extremists?

 

also, do you believe that all extremists are muslim?

[Closet Guy.]

 

Cameron is the cause of extremism.

 

 

I dont like cameron for lots of reasons but you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off the mark with this.

Totaly untrue and ignorant suggestion to make.

[Closet Guy.]

so, are you asserting that all muslims are extremists?

 

also, do you believe that all extremists are muslim?

 

Hahahahahahahaha.

Ahhh, bless.

Look at you, trying to play aggitator.

[andyofborg]

Hahahahahahahaha.

Ahhh, bless.

Look at you, trying to play aggitator.

 

not at all, i'm interested to know and maybe others are too.

 

my answer would be no to both questions.

[Closet Guy.]

not at all, i'm interested to know and maybe others are too.

 

my answer would be no to both questions.

 

I think your fibbing. But anyways my answer would be as follows.

All? No!

Most? Yes!

[spindrift]

WHAT MUSLIM LEADERS ARE SAYING ABOUT THE SPEECH:

 

• Inayat Bunglawala, chair of the anti-extremist group Muslims4Uk: "Mr Cameron's remarks are ill-judged and deeply patronising. The overwhelming majority of UK Muslims are proud to be British and are appalled by the antics of a tiny group of extremists and so will hardly be pleased with his lecture on integration.

 

• Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim youth group: "British Muslims abhor terrorism and extremism and we have worked hard to eradicate this evil from our country... To suggest that we do not sign up to the values of tolerance, respect and freedom is deeply offensive and incorrect."

 

• Dr Faisal Hanjra, assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain: "We were hoping that with a new government, with a new coalition, that there'd be a change in emphasis in terms of counter-terrorism and dealing with the problem at hand. Again it just seems the Muslim community is very much in the spotlight, being treated as part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution."

 

• Ajmal Masroor, of the Islamic Society of Britain: "I think he's confusing a couple of issues: national identity and multiculturalism along with extremism are not connected. Extremism comes about as a result of several other factors."

 

 

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/74692,news-comment,news-politics,muslim-leaders-hit-back-at-david-cameron-on-extremism-and-multiculturalism#ixzz1DAvl94B4

 

 

It simply beggars belief that a Prime Minister who presides over a foreign policy which supports the oppression of the vast majority of the known Arab word and which has failed to do anything of consequence to loosen the death-grasp of the Mubarak regime can lecture anybody in such a high-minded manner about ‘British values’.

 

It is this double-standard, this hypocrisy that fuels extremism. People aren’t stupid – they see the contradiction between what politicians like Cameron say and what they do and they don’t believe him. On the streets of Egypt it is hardly surprising people see the West as being their enemy and when demagogues like the Muslim Brotherhood provide an explanation that fits its hardly surprising people listen. When it comes to the Wahhabi fundamentalism of the House of Saud, the West has bankrolled this for years as it has Osama Bin Laden himself before he spectacularly decided to bite the hand that fed him.

 

If he is looking for an explanation for ‘Islamic extremism’ then Mr Cameron would be advised to look much closer to home. Furthermore, on a day the English Defence League marches it beggars belief that Cameron has the temerity to lecture the Muslim community for its ‘silent tolerance of extremism’. Many Muslims will rightly ignore the Prime Minister and dismiss his outrageous remarks for the rubbish they are. Despite him using the same speech to ‘support’ the Egyptian Revolution one cannot avoid the suspicion his remarks are a covert attempt to undermine that movement.

 

http://momentsofc.wordpress.com/

 

Mr Cameron says:

 

“We need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism.”

 

You mean we need to be more ‘muscular’ than when we barged into Iraq and killed 100,000s of thousands of innocents in a failed experiment in ‘regime change’? Clearly, Mr Cameron’s tenuous grasp of reality has led him to some, frankly barking, conclusions. Democratic deficits do exist in the multicultural project as practised by the state – positive discrimination, for example, is the wrong solution to real problems because it tackles one source of of disadvantage and leaves those deeply rooted ones created by capitalist social relations untouched.

 

However, democratic integration from below is more than possible while respecting the multicultural ethic of tolerance of difference. In Egypt, Christians and Muslims have respected and protected each others right to pray and practise religion differently but still they have come together, united by their common cause and within the pro-democracy movement. This is a model of what is possible – we do not have to choose between a multicultural society where differences and the right to be different is protected and an integrated one where society comes together; united in common cause and purpose.

 

It is only disgraceful charlatans like David Cameron that insist we do. Consistent democrats and socialist however say different and provide a brave model of a society where it is the likes of David Cameron and his EDL friends who are on the margins.

[andyofborg]

I think your fibbing. But anyways my answer would be as follows.

All? No!

Most? Yes!

 

why do you think i'm fibbing?

 

and is "most? yes!" the answer to both questions?

[spindrift]

Murdoch and his brood are a dangerous to our democracy and to a free press. If you have ever watched Berlusconi's Italian television, you will have a good idea of the damage that someone like Murdoch could do if he had the power. And Cameron, like The Sun, is owned by Murdoch.

 

First of all the core of any democracy is a fair and balanced media. Rupert Murdoch and his media have always tried to destroy that in every country in which he operates. ANY political party who claim to believe in a democracy should have already declared war on Rupert Murdoch and his dubious business practices. He should not be welcome in our country. Take a look at Fox news in the US if you want to see an example of what awful, biased and extreme right wing reporting Murdoch wants to give us.

 

Murdoch is a right wing extremist. The Tories love him. He is their friend who takes them out to dinner and wines and dines them. He gives VAST amounts of money at election time and his media companies are constantly promoting the Tories and attacking everyone else.

Murdoch and his empire are the reason we had Thatcher in power for so long. There is no way the Tories are going to bite the hand that feeds.

 

The UK will be destroyed if Murdoch is allowed to dominate our media any further. We will no longer be a democracy. We should not be giving him any more power in our media - to protect democracy we should have been taking away what power he already has.

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/12/vince_cable_comments_your_reac.html

 

Cameron is Murdoch's handmaid, the News International empire spews out inflammatory vomit and Cameron desperately doffs his cap to them and has cosy Christmas dinners with Murdoch's acolytes.

[Closet Guy.]

why do you think i'm fibbing?

 

and is "most? yes!" the answer to both questions?

 

Im not sure why i think your fibbing. Maybe your post history helped me decide. But if im wrong and you mean it then ill take it back an appologise.

Yes, my answer to both is Most.