EDL watch

[belboid]

treelover doesn't - to the best of my knowledge - have mates who go about bombing people or chopping their heads off while claiming a religious motivation.

non sequitur.

 

[andysays]

who cares about them? It's the people they might influence that I care about, the ones they might influence. You dont think that if they were thrown off they would be using out of context video links to 'prove' that all whiteys hate all muslims?

So, you tolerate them because otherwise they'd say nasty things about you, things which you are apparently not able to refute.

Political cowardice writ large...

 

[Pickman's model]

who cares about them? It's the people they might influence that I care about, the ones they might influence. You dont think that if they were thrown off they would be using out of context video links to 'prove' that all whiteys hate all muslims?

there's always a good reason for you to do nothing, isn't there

 

[Pickman's model]

non sequitur.

you know what's a fucking non sequitur? it's your fuckwitted claim that treelover is equivalent to a load of people with an anti-working class religious ideology

 

[belboid]

So, you tolerate them because otherwise they'd say nasty things about you, things which you are apparently not able to refute.

Political cowardice writ large...

no, its about not being a moralist. Its about trying to have an effective action rather than just one that makes you feel better about yourself.

 

[Pickman's model]

no, its about not being a moralist. Its about trying to have an effective action rather than just one that makes you feel better about yourself.

which begs the question, if you want an effective action what the fuck are you doing with the uaf in the first place?

 

[belboid]

you know what's a fucking non sequitur? it's your fuckwitted claim that treelover is equivalent to a load of people with an anti-working class religious ideology

Fortunately, there was no such claim. i just pointed out how your attempt at an argument made no sense. your argument that showed your simplistic morality based politics - "you DO like jihadis, or you wouldn't accept them on your demonstration."

'Liking' or not liking people, or even ideologies, is not the point.

 

[cesare]

EDL against all Muslims but particularly Islamists. UAF seemingly for all Muslims and also Islamists. That's the message being conveyed by not ejecting Islamists.

 

[belboid]

which begs the question, if you want an effective action what the fuck are you doing with the uaf in the first place?

Well, last saturday, UAf just happened to be i the right spot. Everyone was 'with' them in that sense (and not particularly with them, at the same time - just i the same space at the same moment). Saturday just gone, I'd have ignored their demo and gone to Barkers Pool again. Not sure what your point is.

 

[Pickman's model]

Fortunately, there was no such claim. i just pointed out how your attempt at an argument made no sense. your argument that showed your simplistic morality based politics - "you DO like jihadis, or you wouldn't accept them on your demonstration."

'Liking' or not liking people, or even ideologies, is not the point.

the problem you face when denying what you've said is that on a message board like this one your posts remain in black and white for people to read. you equated treelover and jihadis. you can't deny it, it's up there in your post 13165

 

[Pickman's model]

Well, last saturday, UAf just happened to be i the right spot. Everyone was 'with' them in that sense (and not particularly with them, at the same time - just i the same space at the same moment). Saturday just gone, I'd have ignored their demo and gone to Barkers Pool again. Not sure what your point is.

by 'the right spot' i suppose you mean 'behind a line of plod listening to bob marley on whitehall while the business was being done down the road'.

 

[andysays]

no, its about not being a moralist. Its about trying to have an effective action rather than just one that makes you feel better about yourself.

You seem to quite like that word, don't you? It must be one you've got from your Big Book of Mindless Trot Retorts (2013 edition)

I'm not pulling you up on political cowardice because it's morally bad, but because it's strategically counter-productive. Hence my earlier post which you seem to have overlooked:

Whereas allowing/encouraging them to be involved/associated is what, strategically?

 

[belboid]

EDL against all Muslims but particularly Islamists. UAF seemingly for all Muslims and also Islamists. That's the message being conveyed by not ejecting Islamists.

So you'd be for the physical ejection of 'islamists' Always? How about if they arent waving big flags about, but have a dodgy looking badge? Should they be ejected? I'm really not at all sure how this can work out in practise. Which is my point,

All looney bombers were condemned by speaker after speaker. It was made clear that no one considered Lee Rigby a 'legitimate target.' 'jihadism' was fairly clearly verbally opposed.

 

[Citizen66]

which begs the question, if you want an effective action what the fuck are you doing with the uaf in the first place?

 

[cesare]

So you'd be for the physical ejection of 'islamists' Always? How about if they arent waving big flags about, but have a dodgy looking badge? Should they be ejected? I'm really not at all sure how this can work out in practise. Which is my point,

All looney bombers were condemned by speaker after speaker. It was made clear that no one considered Lee Rigby a 'legitimate target.' 'jihadism' was fairly clearly verbally opposed.

If I saw someone with (for example) a black standard near me, I'd suggest they pissed off - yes.

 

[belboid]

the problem you face when denying what you've said is that on a message board like this one your posts remain in black and white for people to read. you equated treelover and jihadis. you can't deny it, it's up there in your post 13165

oh dear, you really dont get logic do you? You argued that I liked Group A because I let them do Thing B. The explicit nature of A and B are both wholly irrelevant to your claim. Thus I was not comparing treelover and jihadi's, except in their ability to attend demonstrations. 'Jihadis breathe oxygen.' 'treelover breathes oxygen' - according to your 'argument' that means that treelover is a jihadi. It doesnt.

by 'the right spot' i suppose you mean 'behind a line of plod listening to bob marley on whitehall while the business was being done down the road'.

no. For one thing, there isnt a whitehall in Sheffield. For another, if you'd actually read the thread you'd know that they actually happened to be in the right pace at the right time for once. An accident I'm sure, but they happen from time to time.

 

[butchersapron]

Opposing things because you don't like them is actually quite a good thing to do - and it doesn't preclude taking on boards tactical or strategic considerations - in fact it demands that you do so if you wish to make your opposition meaningful. Daft argument.

 

[belboid]

You seem to quite like that word, don't you? It must be one you've got from your Big Book of Mindless Trot Retorts (2013 edition)

I'm not pulling you up on political cowardice because it's morally bad, but because it's strategically counter-productive. Hence my earlier post which you seem to have overlooked:

sorry, missed that before. I call a lot of this opposition moralist, because it simply is moralist. Its about what an individual does or doesnt like. And I'll probably agree with that dislike, but I dont put my own personal opinions above all else. If only people I politically approved of were allowed on a demo, it'd be a fucking small demo.

As to the latter, I answered that in 13164 - a massive demo of mainly white folk defending muslims is a far better way of undermining jihadists than throwing them off a demo would be.

 

[treelover]

That would appear to be an acknowledgement that you don't want them removed.

In which case, any guff about

Oh, we didn't know who they were​

or

There was no effective way of removing them without disrupting and splitting the demo​

is just hot air...

Which is it?

This, and he had the cheek to call me a liar, then again for Marxists like Belboid, the end justifies the means so accusing someone of potential racism,etc is just a tactic to be used or discarded, this lack of morality or denial of it is why I have kept way from such ideology.

 

[Pickman's model]

oh dear, you really dont get logic do you? You argued that I liked Group A because I let them do Thing B. The explicit nature of A and B are both wholly irrelevant to your claim. Thus I was not comparing treelover and jihadi's, except in their ability to attend demonstrations. 'Jihadis breathe oxygen.' 'treelover breathes oxygen' - according to your 'argument' that means that treelover is a jihadi. It doesnt.

no. For one thing, there isnt a whitehall in Sheffield. For another, if you'd actually read the thread you'd know that they actually happened to be in the right pace at the right time for once. An accident I'm sure, but they happen from time to time.

1) pedantry alive and well i see

2) as you may recall the other saturday there was a little to-do in london to which 'central london edl' said on twitter they were turning up. it was to that i was referring

 

[Pickman's model]

sorry, missed that before. I call a lot of this opposition moralist, because it simply is moralist. Its about what an individual does or doesnt like. And I'll probably agree with that dislike, but I dont put my own personal opinions above all else. If only people I politically approved of were allowed on a demo, it'd be a fucking small demo.

As to the latter, I answered that in 13164 - a massive demo of mainly white folk defending muslims is a far better way of undermining jihadists than throwing them off a demo would be.

it's certainly a much better way of defending jihadists, which is objectively what you were doing.

 

[belboid]

Opposing things because you don't like them is actually quite a good thing to do - and it doesn't preclude taking on boards tactical or strategic considerations - in fact it demands that you do so if you wish to make your opposition meaningful. Daft argument.

well, you dont oppose things because you do like them. But the 'liking' is not the point, its about what will make a difference. Thus I'll work alongside trots, anarchos, reformists and liberals on different campaigns, as the occasion demands.

 

[Pickman's model]

So you'd be for the physical ejection of 'islamists' Always? How about if they arent waving big flags about, but have a dodgy looking badge? Should they be ejected? I'm really not at all sure how this can work out in practise. Which is my point,

All looney bombers were condemned by speaker after speaker. It was made clear that no one considered Lee Rigby a 'legitimate target.' 'jihadism' was fairly clearly verbally opposed.

looney bombers? are they bombers because they're mentally ill or because they're adherents of a certain form of islamism?

 

[belboid]

1) pedantry alive and well i see

pot fucking kettle!

And, its logic dear, not pedantry. Your argument was fallacious

 

[Pickman's model]

pot fucking kettle!

And, its logic dear, not pedantry. Your argument was fallacious

your argument is phallacious, in that it shows you to be something of a prick.

 

[treelover]

I said I haven't seen it, and I haven't. What else can I say? We got one claim earlier in the thread that it has happened, it clearly isnt commonplace or we'd have had lots more claims. We havent.


I don't think they can effectively be stopped. You haven't come up with any way of doing so. I'd much rather they werent there, but I don't think we can stop them any more than we can stop the wet moralist christian liberals (who are probably a bigger threat to the british working class than thew jihadists) with their flags.

Why are you in LU then?, you really are exposing yourself now...

 

[belboid]

Why are you in LU then?, you really are exposing yourself now...

eh? i havent noticed any wet christian liberals in LU. You're making even less sense than normal

 

[protesticals]

But the point is that they're not unwelcome, or at least that no one from the UAF has had the political courage to tell them they're unwelcome.

The rest is disingenuous bollocks

I think it is clearly the former. They are all perfectly welcome at UAF functions because the SWP thinks that gay rights are '' a shibboleth'' and are prepared to ignore any actions by Islamists due to their absurd second campism.

 

[J Ed]

BBC giving TR another platform... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22852764

 

[butchersapron]

well, you dont oppose things because you do like them. But the 'liking' is not the point, its about what will make a difference. Thus I'll work alongside trots, anarchos, reformists and liberals on different campaigns, as the occasion demands.

Well surely you should then make the argument(s) on grounds of effectiveness or on what potential scenarios are possible etc, not on dismissing opposition because it's based on moralism. Every person who was there was there out of some sense of moralism - and as said, that doesn't preclude thinking and acting strategically, rather it demands it.

UAF have severely limited their possible range of strategic or tactical action in regards to fundies being on their demos and being very visible by narrowing down their focus and repeated blind-eyeism - and even if they hadn't they would be unable to productively carry through any other activity. Which mean opposition is going to have to come from outside of their ranks and from hard work to isolate the idiots before the demos. The jihadis are going to say what you suggest whatever happens - if they're removed it's a victory for them if they aren't it's a victory for them, so their strategic interests should not the #1 priority.