If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
Are you suggesting that Qaradawi should not be allowed a platform because of his views on homosexuality?
If so, then no doubt you will agree that Jonathon Sacks, who campaigned against repealing S28 should be denied a platform on the same basis.
No, don't bother. I'm sure you're not really objective at all
Anyways, the Israeli Ambassador has had his response to Livingstone's article published. As I post this the Guardian website is playing up, so in the meantime, heres a comment on the article:
Source
What a surprise eh!!!!
:yuck:
the difference is that neither Jewish nor Christian leaders then go on to muse over the application of the death penalty. Unlike his Christian and Jewish counterparts, he still cites the death penalty as a legitimate "punishment" for the "crime" of being gay.
Source
Quote me a Sacks (or Rowan Williams, why not?) passage defending the death penalty for homosexuality.
Dont just parrot straight from Livingstones mouth. And try not to fall for his duck'n'weave tactic, deflecting attention away from his own behaviour by attacking Israel...oops too late!
:wave:
However hard I look at the whole quote, I can't see Qaradawi defending the death penalty:
Basically, it amounts to a summing up other peoples positions.......
He does give the Sacks line about homosexuality being incompatible with a society based on the subjugation of women though.
Mind you, I, like many Londoners cannot see that Livingstone's remark to Finegold was anti-semitic either - and apparently you can.
:nervous:
Ok, for those who need lessons in understanding what Qaradawi means when he says:
He then defends that view (capital punishment for homosexual practices) by adding:
He does not condemn the view – he excuses it! The death penalty only seems cruel, he argues, until we understand that it is actually necessary “to keep [Islamic society] clean of perverted elements”.
As to this statement:
Where is my quote on this? :rolleyes:
You really do make it up as you go along, dontcha?
:wave:
It's the old "if you don't condemn, you condone" game.....
duvdevan has to keep taking that bit out of context in order to make it appear that it is Qaradawi's thoughts, rather than Qaradawi summing up the position of other people.
Now, what behaviour EXACTLY is Livingstone trying to deflect attention away from I wonder. Not the words he said to Finegold, cos he hasn't been shy about admitting and embellishing those .............
So, over to you duvdevan - WHAT BEHAVIOUR IS KEN TRYING TO DEFLECT?
Using Livingstones tactics is not a pretty sight. Duck'n'weave. :rolleyes:
No, no, no. First things first.
Where is my quote on this? Or are you just making it up? SOURCE!
This is the second time of asking you, freethepeeps.
It's ok for you to admit you were wrong, just apologise for making things up and we can move on.
:wave:
Well, lets see:
Its called a non-discussion.
:wave:
SOURCE? I am hoping for 3rd time lucky.
Many Londoners also think that what Livingstone said was not anti-semitic, but he still shouldn't have said it. It's not really behaviour befitting a high-profile mayor of a major city like london, eh? It's boorish and pretty uncomplimentary.
As he is on tape saying what he said, denying it would've been very silly, dontcha fink?
Anyway, it's clear to all that your are "smoking the livingstone dope" on this and Qaradawi. If you wanna defend homophobic, racist, misogynistic bigots like Qaradawi, go ahead. :yuck: :yuck: :yuck:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Anybody who reads what I write is going to be absolutely clear that my mission in life is to defend misogyny, homophobia and bigotry.
Its a non-discussion.
Yes, but it isn't over yet, is it? The letter from the Israeli ambassador was in yesterday's Guardian.
Fortunately, the thread isn't compulsory. Meanwhile, for some of us, watching it all unfold is enlightening entertainment.
:eek:
In the terms that you make up claims in order to heat up the discussion?
Hello ................ what claims would they be then?
I am not going to discuss this, but since you asked...
Whatever ....... the impression given by his claim that Ken needed to "deflect" from his own behaviour is that Ken had done something wrong. I asked him to clarify and he claimed that I supported homophobia, misogyny and bigotry.
And that was the end of the discussion.
Ftp, bubbeleh, your "smoking the Livingstone dope" not only goes to spewing his spin, but mirroring his tactics, specifically missing out or confusing steps.
Ken criticised Israel.
People called him an anti-semite.
When in fact exactly the reverse is true!
freethepeeps asks for clarification of a statement made by duvdevan
duvdevan asks for the source of a statement made by freethepeeps
When in fact exactly the reverse is true!
I don't know if you are homophobic, misogynistic, racist or a bigot, ftp. I just said you defended Qaradawi, who is those things. Why would you defend him?
freethepeeps is trying to deflect attention from his own SNAFU i.e. ascribing opinions to people without proof! I have offered the chance for him to stop digging himself deeper and deeper, but like the true performer that he is, the show must go on!
Someone can say and do something wrong without it being anti-semitic! Your knee-jerk defence of any criticism of Livingstone is so bungled, confused and slapstick it has rendered me paralytic with laughter on many occasions.
Non-discussion! Petulance worthy of Livingstone himself! :thumb: You want the discussion to end, so it does? :no:
As it goes, I wouldn't. Nor would I feel any need to defend Livingstone, who I think is an abhorrent toerag.
You said that Qaradawi condoned the killing of gays.
I said that you were misinterpreting what he wrote.
That doesn't amount to defending Qaradawi, or defending what he says.
You and I have the ability to read the same text and see completely different things.
I am just not interested enough in you to have the kind of conversation that arises from such dimaetrically opposed literacy skills.
But as you said yourself yesterday, when I more or less wrote the same thing, only one can be right. And in this case it's duvdevan.
Yes - of course recounting someone elses views and saying that you are recounting views is the same as holding them yourself........
If you want to see Qaradawi condoning something - heres an example which makes it clear that he supports a view:
Source
On homosexuality, when asked his own views, he replied thus:
Source
So, I think that duvdevans efforts (mirrored on countless zionist sites) to prove that summing up other peoples ideas is the same as personally condoning a position is actually, not right. In fact, it's wrong.
You however have made it clear that your approach is completely subjective, so you will support the duvdevans of this world because they appear to be on your side - the side of brutal military force, disinformation and colonialism.
Just as you support terrorism and suicide bombing?
Either way, the name says it all. Dudevan vs Madgnoon? The choice isn't hard.
Yes, yes, theres nothing that makes me happier than the thought of bodies being dismembered in public places.
Just remind me why you keep bringing Madge Noon into this - other than the probability that duvdevan is also Madge Noon - their MO being remarkably similar .........
Are we throwing our toys out of the pram at the nasty man or something?
:eek2:
I mean, I could go on a tantrum about you being ageist if that sounds familiar?
Go for it
At least you were actually being a petulant toddler when it was directed at you.
I do, at the end of the day, believe that you are capable of breaking out of the cycle of disinformation and choosing humanity over a racist ideology.
:wave:
Wtf'? Lay off the drugs on weekdays. For your own sake.
Or are you just implying that you're really really really old?
I am on that route already
Thanks for the concern.
What they do have a problem with, is this:
Source
It pissed them off big time. Unfortunately they didn't respond with a list of ways of how a civilian population might go about confronting an all powerful occupation army. Anyone got any ideas?
When Al-Qaradawi came to London, Ken became involved, as he was identified as the host. Anybody who hosts Al-Qaradawi in the future can expect a whole load of pressure as well.
I don't like Livingstone. I have no respect for a man who chose to rejoin a party at war with extremely dubious justification. I don't like the way that he has attacked the anti-capitalist movement - in particular his remarks urging people to stay away from Mayday. I don't like the way he took over the organisation of the ESF, and then sicced his cops onto the fringe events.
But that doesn't stop me seeing that he has been subjected to a sustained campaign to get him. And the excuse is the few words that he said, after coming out of a party and being hassled by a fully grown male journalist who felt justified in following him down the road, barking questions at him. And his employer had run a sustained campaign against Ken at times in the past.
But, on the basis of those remarks, the Board of Deputies is demanding that Ken be barred from office for 5 years.
Remember what happened to the wife of the British Prime Minister when she said this? :
But Ken is different to Cherie, he will stand up for himself, he will not apologise because he does not believe he has done anything wrong, and most of all, he will keep talking about the real issue - the daily hell of Palestinian existence.
Theres shedloads of nonsense going on in American Universities, with a sustained campaign against pro-Palestinian professors. The BBC has just agreed to work within the confines of Israeli censorship.
Taking Ken on could well backfire ........... he's going to get front page coverage of every anti-occupation sentiment that he utters.
:eek:
What about the academic ‘boycott’ against Israel? Many anti-Israel extremists have called for a boycott of all Israeli academics – Israeli scientists, Israeli lecturers, etc. The extremists ‘boycott’ against Israelis also appears to be against all Israelis, so no political distinction is made. Israelis are boycotted purely because of their nationality. Chilling.
And what about the sustained campaign against Israel at SOAS? (And the disgusting events there seem to be against anyone who isn't an anti-Israel fanatic let alone pro-Israeli...)