Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Johnoco

Anjem Choudray

66 posts in this topic

Everyones favourite 'protestor' is at it again. This time threatening shop keepers in Brick lane with 40 lashes if they sell alcohol.

Seriously, what a ####

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is all those former top faces like Cass Pennant etc who bring out book on glorifying Soccer violence in the 1980's with well up for it firms like the ICF etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is all those former top faces like Cass Pennant etc who bring out book on glorifying Soccer violence in the 1980's with well up for it firms like the ICF etc.

I'd like to think that, now they're ability to organise a public 'ruck' has been curtailed by police number and intelligence, Pennant and those of his ilk spend a lot of time punching themselves in the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to think that, now they're ability to organise a public 'ruck' has been curtailed by police number and intelligence, Pennant and those of his ilk spend a lot of time punching themselves in the face.

Maybe they should take up one of the Rugby codes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Choudary appeared on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning talking about the verdict in the Lee Rigby trial.

 

Naturally he refused to condemn the killers, and the presenter John Humphrys proved incapable of exposing Choudary's cant and hypocrisy.

 

It's difficult to know why the BBC keep giving him publicity, treating him as some sort of Muslim spokesman, when clearly he isn't, apart from for a minority of perverted individuals such as the two murderers in this case.

 

As Mehdi Hasan has commented about him: "Is Choudary an Islamic scholar whose views merit attention or consideration? No. Has he studied under leading Islamic scholars? Nope. Does he have any Islamic qualifications or credentials? None whatsoever. So what gives him the right to pontificate on Islam, British Muslims or 'the hellfire'? Or proclaim himself a 'sharia judge'?"

 

That having been said, Choudary was trained as a lawyer and dealt with Humphrys quite impressively. It would be easy to imagine young hotheaded Muslims listening to that interview and siding with him, and joining his so-called jihadi organisation. On the other hand, I can't imagine how I would have felt if I had been a relative of Lee Rigby.

 

For reaction to the interview see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10529802/BBC-criticised-for-giving-extremist-preacher-Anjem-Choudary-airtime.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Choudary appeared on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning talking about the verdict in the Lee Rigby trial.

 

Naturally he refused to condemn the killers, and the presenter John Humphrys proved incapable of exposing Choudary's cant and hypocrisy.

 

It's difficult to know why the BBC keep giving him publicity, treating him as some sort of Muslim spokesman, when clearly he isn't, apart from for a minority of perverted individuals such as the two murderers in this case.

 

As Mehdi Hasan has commented about him: "Is Choudary an Islamic scholar whose views merit attention or consideration? No. Has he studied under leading Islamic scholars? Nope. Does he have any Islamic qualifications or credentials? None whatsoever. So what gives him the right to pontificate on Islam, British Muslims or 'the hellfire'? Or proclaim himself a 'sharia judge'?"

 

That having been said, Choudary was trained as a lawyer and dealt with Humphrys quite impressively. It would be easy to imagine young hotheaded Muslims listening to that interview and siding with him, and joining his so-called jihadi organisation. On the other hand, I can't imagine how I would have felt if I had been a relative of Lee Rigby.

 

For reaction to the interview see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10529802/BBC-criticised-for-giving-extremist-preacher-Anjem-Choudary-airtime.html

Tell you the truth after what happened to Lee Rigby I thought there be mass riot's from the EDL and the more BNP type's but instead was shocked to see student's/UAF type's alongside Muslim youths confronting the 2 groups when they when the EDL were laying wreath's, but you never see the UAF/muslim youths confront Choudary ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Choudary appeared on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning talking about the verdict in the Lee Rigby trial.

 

Naturally he refused to condemn the killers, and the presenter John Humphrys proved incapable of exposing Choudary's cant and hypocrisy.

 

It's difficult to know why the BBC keep giving him publicity, treating him as some sort of Muslim spokesman, when clearly he isn't, apart from for a minority of perverted individuals such as the two murderers in this case.

 

As Mehdi Hasan has commented about him: "Is Choudary an Islamic scholar whose views merit attention or consideration? No. Has he studied under leading Islamic scholars? Nope. Does he have any Islamic qualifications or credentials? None whatsoever. So what gives him the right to pontificate on Islam, British Muslims or 'the hellfire'? Or proclaim himself a 'sharia judge'?"

 

That having been said, Choudary was trained as a lawyer and dealt with Humphrys quite impressively. It would be easy to imagine young hotheaded Muslims listening to that interview and siding with him, and joining his so-called jihadi organisation. On the other hand, I can't imagine how I would have felt if I had been a relative of Lee Rigby.

 

For reaction to the interview see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10529802/BBC-criticised-for-giving-extremist-preacher-Anjem-Choudary-airtime.html

 

I disagree with a lot of what Medhi Hasan but he's on the money here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Choudray trained as a lawyer? That's impressive because he is possibly the only person I have seen torn to pieces by GMTV 'shoes and handbags' presenter Kate Garraway. Seriously.

He's thick. Very thick. Not to mention a hypocritical retard. He is also of limited intelligence - hence his racist views. I aren't entirely sure why this qualifies him to be taken seriously but clearly the BBC do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I aren't entirely sure why this qualifies him to be taken seriously but clearly the BBC do.

They use him to present the opposite viewpoint.  Every subject is given false balance by giving 2 points of view, regardless of how stupid the argument is.  It's why they reel out Steve Green to voice the Christian viewpoint or Dellingpole on Climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They use him to present the opposite viewpoint. Every subject is given false balance by giving 2 points of view, regardless of how stupid the argument is. It's why they reel out Steve Green to voice the Christian viewpoint or Dellingpole on Climate.

They could easily find someone to argue a different viewpoint, however unpalatable it may seem. Not the shock jocks they seem to wheel out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the same BBC that insisted on referring to the perpetrators of the recent Kenyan Mall masacre as 'militants' and never 'terrorists'.

 

Why they have to wheel out Choudray to provide an alternative viewpoint on such a disgusting crime as the Lee Rigby murder is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I think about it, why exactly do the BBC need to hear from someone with an alternative viewpoint on this?

I'm struggling to think when we heard from someone arguing the other side of paedophiles or rapists. ..and I bet they could find someone willing to defend those if they tried.

Why do we need to hear from swipes like Choudary? It can only be poor/titillating journalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we need to hear from swipes like Choudary? It can only be poor/titillating journalism.

Own question answered I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I think about it, why exactly do the BBC need to hear from someone with an alternative viewpoint on this?

I'm struggling to think when we heard from someone arguing the other side of paedophiles or rapists. ..and I bet they could find someone willing to defend those if they tried.

Why do we need to hear from swipes like Choudary? It can only be poor/titillating journalism.

I have read he is a false act for M15 etc but really I am surprised some hard east end nutter has not taken out the sad windbag. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Own question answered I think.

[Lou and Andy] Yeah I know [/Lou and Andy]

But can't they at least wait a while until it isn't so raw for his relatives? I don't expect such poor standards from R4.

These 2 murdering freaks did not do what they did because they have a great knowledge of injustice in the world but because they have been whipped into a frenzy by people like Choudary. It's exactly the same sort of thing that all racist and fascist organisations use, get the cannon fodder doing the dirty work.

I think it was an incredibly bad call by the BBC. Now they have set this precedent, I imagine we will get all sorts of knobs arguing alternative viewpoints.

nb perhaps there is a place for debating why this occurred but not with idiots like him and at a better time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing surprises me anymore in this crazy, mixed up world. The murders were truly ghastly enacted out in full public view, and as an ex serviceman myself who has encountered hatred in the Middle East, I feel deeply for Lee Rigby's relatives, comrades and friends. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst there is no point on putting him on, the BBC are in an awkward position.

 

There are many on here who seem to think science is politically biased and would think it ludicrous that only people who know what they are talking about get to argue about science.  They should have handled the vaccine debate by saying it was a corrupt doctor will to see kids die to boost his profits, and papers willing to see kids die to sell more papers.  Imagine the BBC then arguing they were not biased.

 

This is the flip side of that coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst there is no point on putting him on, the BBC are in an awkward position.

There are many on here who seem to think science is politically biased and would think it ludicrous that only people who know what they are talking about get to argue about science. They should have handled the vaccine debate by saying it was a corrupt doctor will to see kids die to boost his profits, and papers willing to see kids die to sell more papers. Imagine the BBC then arguing they were not biased.

This is the flip side of that coin.

Well science could be politically biased but that is not the argument here. Its more about taste and discretion IMO.

Of course, a comparison could be made in global warming terms if perhaps there was a climate disaster ie hurricane or tsunami and they had someone on saying 'well it serves the idiots right for living there'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Choudray trained as a lawyer? That's impressive because he is possibly the only person I have seen torn to pieces by GMTV 'shoes and handbags' presenter Kate Garraway. Seriously.

He's thick. Very thick. Not to mention a hypocritical retard. He is also of limited intelligence - hence his racist views. I aren't entirely sure why this qualifies him to be taken seriously but clearly the BBC do.

I wouldn't describe him as thick.

 

I would view him as an opportunist, a narcissist and a self-publicist who understands how to draw in inadequate young men to an ideology that provides them with a simplistic but toxic view of the world.

 

But the reason the BBC should ignore him isn't because of that, but because, as Mehdi Hasan says, he doesn't actually represent any genuine Muslim groups.

 

I would put him in the same boat as David Icke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They use him to present the opposite viewpoint.  Every subject is given false balance by giving 2 points of view, regardless of how stupid the argument is.  It's why they reel out Steve Green to voice the Christian viewpoint or Dellingpole on Climate.

That's a false analogy, although I don't know who Steve Green is, so I'm not sure how often he is reeled out.

 

Most issues have two or more competing perspectives, or they wouldn't be issues.

 

And I have no problem with Choudary's views and his ideology being subject to a stringent examination by the BBC, which in fact rarely seems to happen. He deserves ridicule but rarely seems to get it.

 

I just think it's wrong and deeply insensitive to have this attention-seeker on a mainstream programme commenting on the trial of Lee Rigby's killers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst there is no point on putting him on, the BBC are in an awkward position.

 

There are many on here who seem to think science is politically biased and would think it ludicrous that only people who know what they are talking about get to argue about science.  They should have handled the vaccine debate by saying it was a corrupt doctor will to see kids die to boost his profits, and papers willing to see kids die to sell more papers.  Imagine the BBC then arguing they were not biased.

 

This is the flip side of that coin.

, the BBC are in an awkward position.

 

Not sure I agree with that. I think in News and Current Affairs they live in their own somewhat arrogant  bubble.   Their motto is "We are the BBC - we are never wrong"..anyone who has ever raised a formal complaint and anyone who has watched Newswatch  or Feedback will confirm that. They brook no criticism at all. ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017