Football Lads Alliance

[fishbiscuits]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The question which surely should be asked is

> what's the point of the march? Protesting against

> terrorists, well they're sure to listen. It's not

> as if the government isn't taking steps to try to

> prevent terrorism. So at best it's a sort of

> pointless virtue signalling (how nice to be able

> to level that accusation at the right for once!),

> "Oh, we really care about terrorist attacks and

> want them to stop" - nobody else does, of course -

> and at worst it's a cover for anti-immigrant

> sentiment (which is what one suspects). At best,

> misguided, at worst, sinister.

Well yes, pretty much my point. Protesting against terrorism is pointless - stupid, even. It is inevitably just a veneer.

[JohnL]

fishbiscuits Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The question which surely should be asked is

> > what's the point of the march? Protesting

> against

> > terrorists, well they're sure to listen. It's

> not

> > as if the government isn't taking steps to try

> to

> > prevent terrorism. So at best it's a sort of

> > pointless virtue signalling (how nice to be

> able

> > to level that accusation at the right for

> once!),

> > "Oh, we really care about terrorist attacks and

> > want them to stop" - nobody else does, of course

> -

> > and at worst it's a cover for anti-immigrant

> > sentiment (which is what one suspects). At

> best,

> > misguided, at worst, sinister.

>

> Well yes, pretty much my point. Protesting against

> terrorism is pointless - stupid, even. It is

> inevitably just a veneer.

Although I agree in this case - leavers would say the same about Brexit "We're leaving get over it"

But I feel compelled to protest.

[red devil]

People in Northern Ireland protested against terrorism. Was that pointless?...

[rendelharris]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People in Northern Ireland protested against

> terrorism. Was that pointless?...

Good point but two different instances I think: in NI the terrorists were part of the community and were, as has been fortunately proven, susceptible to making deals. I very much doubt some insane loon who wants to kill himself and as many others as possible with a bomb is going to say oh, a bunch of people are protesting against me, I've lost the support of the community, perhaps I should start talking.

[robbin]

Interesting - as a point of principle (not related to these marchers about which I know almost nothing and care just as much) am I right in thinking the prevailing EDF view on protest marches is:

student grants = march away - the more the better. mass murder of civilians by terrorists = pointless, stupid even?

Interesting value system, but then it is the EDF I suppose. Or is this analysis (based on comments of just a few of the usual suspects) off the mark?

[rendelharris]

Oh come on robbin, you're far too clever actually to miss the difference. Protesting against student grants - possible (though admittedly slim) chance of changing public opinion and/or government policy. Protesting against murder of civilians by terrorists - zero chance of changing the terrorists' minds, so what's it for? To change the opinion of those millions of people who think terrorist murder is actually a good thing?

[JohnL]

I notice Katie Hopkins is now claiming the Police were lying about the car crash outside the natural history museum and she's claiming it was terrorism. People are believing her (her audience in central London was apparently quite substantial) - so fake news with the police and media colluding is now seen by many as a thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/09/katie-hopkins-natural-history-museum-tweets

"Speaking at a Media Society event on Monday with the Guardian journalist Decca Aitkenhead, the Mail Online writer repeatedly argued that ?there is no such thing as truth any more?

and why is the Guardian of all newspapers suddenly showing an interest in right wing conspiracy.

[red devil]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> red devil Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > People in Northern Ireland protested against

> > terrorism. Was that pointless?...

>

> Good point but two different instances I think: in

> NI the terrorists were part of the community and

> were, as has been fortunately proven, susceptible

> to making deals. I very much doubt some insane

> loon who wants to kill himself and as many others

> as possible with a bomb is going to say oh, a

> bunch of people are protesting against me, I've

> lost the support of the community, perhaps I

> should start talking.

I doubt at the time of those marches that the protesters had any inkling 'a deal could be done'. It was out of desperation if anything, that the status quo simply wasn't working.

I'd also guess that the majority of perpetrators of UK terrorist incidents have been 'home grown' and therefore are very much part of the community too.

You say it's pointless that the FLA marchers were trying to change the minds of terrorists who blow themselves up. But from what I can gather, that wasn't the purpose of the march, they were protesting against all forms of extremism, and their message was supposedly aimed at the Gov. Now you and I may doubt that, but as Loz has been saying, until it's proven otherwise, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. That's the payback of living in a democracy...

[fishbiscuits]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Am I right in thinking the prevailing EDF view on protest marches is:

>

> student grants = march away - the more the better.

> mass murder of civilians by terrorists = pointless, stupid even?

You're right. Great bunch of lads, marching for a tolerant and inclusive society. My bad!

[uncleglen]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh come on robbin, you're far too clever actually

> to miss the difference. Protesting against

> student grants - possible (though admittedly slim)

> chance of changing public opinion and/or

> government policy. Protesting against murder of

> civilians by terrorists - zero chance of changing

> the terrorists' minds, so what's it for? To

> change the opinion of those millions of people who

> think terrorist murder is actually a good thing?

you answered the first bit about changing public opinion or government policy as the aim of marching for student grants....how do YOU know that is not the aim of the FLA march against extremism?

[rendelharris]

red devil Wrote:

> I doubt at the time of those marches that the

> protesters had any inkling 'a deal could be done'.

> It was out of desperation if anything, that the

> status quo simply wasn't working.

> I'd also guess that the majority of perpetrators

> of UK terrorist incidents have been 'home grown'

> and therefore are very much part of the community

> too.

There's still a very significant difference between the two situations: terrorists on both sides in Northern Ireland relied on their communities to support and shelter them; when mass demonstrations began they could see their support base and cover starting to slip and that helped nudge them towards negotiation. Islamic terrorists now are despised by 99.9999% of the community, including their own. They don't want to change the community, they want to destroy it, and will not be influenced by anybody's opinions, particularly not those of white non-Muslims.

Of course they have a democratic right to march - and we have a democratic right to say they look like a dodgy front for the far right.

[red devil]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> when mass demonstrations began they could see their support

> base and cover starting to slip and that helped

> nudge them towards negotiation.

You reckon?... http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/troubles_peace

> Islamic terrorists now are despised by 99.9999% of the

> community, including their own. They don't want

> to change the community, they want to destroy it,

> and will not be influenced by anybody's opinions,

> particularly not those of white non-Muslims.

Again, the alleged purpose of the FLA march wasn't to change the mindset of Islamic terrorists...

[JoeLeg]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Oh come on robbin, you're far too clever

> actually

> > to miss the difference. Protesting against

> > student grants - possible (though admittedly

> slim)

> > chance of changing public opinion and/or

> > government policy. Protesting against murder

> of

> > civilians by terrorists - zero chance of

> changing

> > the terrorists' minds, so what's it for? To

> > change the opinion of those millions of people

> who

> > think terrorist murder is actually a good

> thing?

>

> you answered the first bit about changing public

> opinion or government policy as the aim of

> marching for student grants....how do YOU know

> that is not the aim of the FLA march against

> extremism?

And you're a teacher? I really hope you never teach my kids, you seem awfully willing to believe the narrative of anyone who will confirm your bigotry.

[JoeLeg]

I take what Loz and others are saying, and I think it's an excellent point about this being the payback of a democracy. I certainly agree that earns them the right to demonstrate and publically voice their beliefs.

But I don't have to give them the benefit of the doubt. They seem pretty white, male and angry. They fit the image of certain groups very clearly, and frankly if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, I'm inclined to call it a duck.

For a group who claim to be against "all forms of extremism", they do a very poor job of putting clear water between themselves and white extremists. I'd go so far as to say they seem focused on a few specific forms of extremism.

[red devil]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But I don't have to give them the benefit of the

> doubt. They seem pretty white, male and angry.

> They fit the image of certain groups very clearly,

> and frankly if it walks like a duck and talks like

> a duck, I'm inclined to call it a duck.

That's a form of prejudice joe. We're all guilty of it though...

> For a group who claim to be against "all forms of

> extremism", they do a very poor job of putting

> clear water between themselves and white

> extremists. I'd go so far as to say they seem

> focused on a few specific forms of extremism.

That's a fair point, and why I said yesterday they need to get their backsides in gear if they are serious about what they say they stand for...

[JoeLeg]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JoeLeg Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > But I don't have to give them the benefit of

> the

> > doubt. They seem pretty white, male and angry.

> > They fit the image of certain groups very

> clearly,

> > and frankly if it walks like a duck and talks

> like

> > a duck, I'm inclined to call it a duck.

>

> That's a form of prejudice joe. We're all guilty

> of it though...

>

>

You speak an uncomfortable truth. The only thing I would say in my defence is that I've watched that video posted earlier on this thread and some others (and needed a shower afterwards) and have read the FLA's Facebook page plus others that are supportive of them, and I feel pretty sure of my assessment. They ain't pleasant.

[JohnL]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> red devil Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > JoeLeg Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> >

> > > But I don't have to give them the benefit of

> > the

> > > doubt. They seem pretty white, male and

> angry.

> > > They fit the image of certain groups very

> > clearly,

> > > and frankly if it walks like a duck and talks

> > like

> > > a duck, I'm inclined to call it a duck.

> >

> > That's a form of prejudice joe. We're all

> guilty

> > of it though...

> >

> >

>

> You speak an uncomfortable truth. The only thing I

> would say in my defence is that I've watched that

> video posted earlier on this thread and some

> others (and needed a shower afterwards) and have

> read the FLA's Facebook page plus others that are

> supportive of them, and I feel pretty sure of my

> assessment. They ain't pleasant.

It's the leaders though - the followers (most of the 10K)

are just your 1980s casuals - that's why they're all older

men.

[red devil]

Agree John, I think a lot of them miss 'the good old days' now that football grounds are all-seater and CCTV'd up to the eyeballs. Casuals weren't that political, it was more about fashion and a dust-up. Where do Casuals go to die?...FLA marches

[Seabag]

Purely on the amount of Stone Island worn I say they're a dodgy bunch.

Much fake stuff too.

And UG's case of invoking the extreme left, isn't that a Trump tactic?

[Loz]

You can tell that's a very old Guardian ad. They've narrowed their view of the world a lot since then.