Supports freedom of speech. Considers going Isis. 😂 https://t.co/EfWcLDQTj7
— Jamie Duck (@prankyDuck) October 12, 2015
@prankyDuck I am just making the point that one can be radicalised when one becomes convinced that one's government is evil, mad or silly.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
@prankyDuck While the government has made a point of defining British values, it has not defined what being radicalised means.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
@prankyDuck I would define radicalisation as "the process of becoming convinced that one's government is stubbornly mad/stupid/evil".
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
@prankyDuck There are many varieties of radicalisation, ranging from having given up on voting to committing an act of terrorism.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
@prankyDuck We could ask voters how radicalised they consider themselves from a scale of 0 to 10 perhaps.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
@prankyDuck Would the government describe Anders Breivik as having been radicalised or does this term only apply to Muslims? @SayeedaWarsi
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
@prankyDuck I would say that non-state sponsored terrorism is always the result of bad government policy, without exception.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
One then has to consider whether state-sponsored terrorism is always evil, if it is indeed the case that one man's terrorist is another man' freedom-fighter.
@prankyDuck 0 is not radicalised at all/still participating in politics by being a member of a party and voting in local/general elections.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
@prankyDuck 7 = considering terrorism. 8 = joining a terrorist group. 9 = preparing to commit terrorism. 10 = committing terrorism
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
@prankyDuck
1 = not voting.
2 = telling others not to vote.
3 = challenging the basis of the current government.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
@prankyDuck 4 = challenging the moral basis of democracy as a sustainable model of government
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
@prankyDuck 5 = challenging the sanity/morality/competence of MPs and government policy both domestic and foreign
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
@prankyDuck 6 = challenging the sanity /fitness for purpose/the aims of major institutions eg the media especially the BBC, the courts etc
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
@prankyDuck 7 = proposing radically different gvt/policies after becoming convinced that the only language gvt will understand is violence.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
@prankyDuck These are at draft stage at the moment, and I may have to rethink them.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
@prankyDuck You are confusing being radicalised with being a terrorist, you fool.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
@prankyDuck All terrorists have been radicalised, but not all who have been radicalised go on to become terrorists.
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
All rapists are men, but not all men are rapists.
All sluts are women, not not all women are sluts.
It is possible to be a man without being a rapist.
It is possible to be a woman without being a slut.
It is possible to be radicalised without going on to become a terrorist.
It is possible to be a terrorist without being Muslim.
Questions for MPs:
- Does radicalisation only apply to Muslims?
- Would you say that Anders Breivik was radicalised?
- If your answer is NO, is it because he is not Muslim?
- Have you considered changing UK foreign policy to deal with the problem of terrorism?
- Have you considered why Muslims might get upset, angry and violent if you bomb, invade and impose regime-change on Muslim countries for no good reason that they can see?
- Have you considered having an honest debate about UK foreign policy?
- Is the reason why you refuse to have a full and frank debate about UK foreign policy is because the UK does not have an independent foreign policy and/or that it is in fact indefensible?
- Is the reason why the UK does not have an independent foreign policy because it is a vassal state of the US?
- Have you considered whether now might be the time to leave NATO so as to break it up and make the Americans withdraw into isolationism, leaving the world a more peaceful place?
- Have you considered that the possibility that US foreign policy is actually insane?
- Have you made the link between destroying Muslim countries at the behest of Washington for no good reason and the migrant swarms heading your way?
- Have you heard of the Wolfowitz Doctrine?
- Have you considered that the victims of the Wolfowitz Doctrine ie Muslim countries toppled by the West might wish to object to it in the strongest possible terms and use terrorism to do so?
- If you are an MP and have not heard of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, should you be whipped by your party into voting to bomb Syria?
- If you are a Labour MP, are you grateful that Jeremy Corbyn is allowing you a free vote on whether to bomb Syria?
- If you are a Tory MP, dare you demand a free vote for Tory MPs over voting on whether to bomb Syria if Labour MPs are getting a free vote?
- If not, why not?
- Is it cos you are too scared or stupid to challenge UK foreign policy of "bomb first and wring our hands later"?
- Does UK foreign policy promote the British national interest?
- How would you define the national interest?
- What is the point of supporting a foreign policy that provokes terrorism that you cannot explain to your constituents?
- Does it make sense to support a foreign policy that provokes terrorism and responding to the terrorism you provoke with increasing restrictions on the liberties of your citizens?
- Do you know why so many citizens in NATO member states like, admire and support Putin, as Iain Dale said on the Sky Press Review?
- Do you know why non-establishment politicians like Nigel Farage and Donald Trump admire and like Putin?
@busybuk Did you hear @Iain_Dale on Press Review on @SkyNews make the point that most of his listeners trust Putin more than Cameron/Obama?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 2, 2015
@IainDale @zoesqwilliams @annabotting Interesting that so many people in the West like Putin so much. @realDonaldTrump @Nigel_Farage
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 2, 2015
@IainDale @zoesqwilliams @annabotting Interesting that so many people in the West like Putin so much. @realDonaldTrump @Nigel_Farage
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 2, 2015
Would't it be nice if @IainDale invited his listeners to call in to say why they admire @PutinRF_Eng so much? @Nigel_Farage @realDonaldTrump
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 2, 2015
Would @YouGov conduct a poll on how many people wouldn't mind their country being run by @PutinRF_Eng? @IainDale @zoesqwilliams @annabotting
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 2, 2015
Listen to Rebecca Morden saying that women have been *radicalised*. #driveroradicalisation @SayeedaWarsi https://t.co/OUHXnd6Aum
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2015
Because sane people can understand what Putin is doing, why he is doing it and seeing that what he is doing works while explaining current government policy both domestic and foreign is like trying to explain the motivations of an imbecile or a lunatic, that's why we like Putin so much.
Paul Craig Roberts explains the evil of US foreign policy.
Tweets by @PCraigRoberts
Paul Craig Roberts explains the evil of US foreign policy.
Tweets by @PCraigRoberts
No comments:
Post a Comment