Noun

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” (Hitchens) My views are mine. Blocked by Liam Cunningham 😆

[Noun @anaspeptic]

🤔

They’re not being ‘sentenced for terrorism’.

So, a jury convicted them of criminal damage (£1m+ to an arms factory) and one for GBH (fractured a cop’s spine).

I believe they rammed a van through the gate and went in with sledgehammers. So the judge is applying a statutory aggravating factor for terrorist connection (I.e. political motive to influence policy via serious damage).

That’s not the same as a terrorism conviction.

Law’s been clear on this since 2020/2021

It seems that direct action does indeed have consequences.

[Noun @anaspeptic]

Oh Shola,

Arson is vile and criminal and I, as well as many others, condemn the firebombing of the Muslim Green Party member’s car, whoever did it and for whatever reason.

No one should have their property or safety targeted like that. However, I also unequivocally condemned the antisemitic arson attack that destroyed four Hatzolah ambulances in Golders Green, an attack investigated as a hate crime, with political condemnation and proper media coverage.

The difference?

You didn’t.

You downplayed the Jewish ambulances as “4 empty ’Jewish ambulances’”, mocked the Jewish community as “whiny overprivileged White Zionist oppressors” masquerading as victims, questioned the media attention, and redirected to Israel/Palestine instead of showing basic solidarity.

Now you’re demanding “where’s the outrage?” and claiming selective care for Jews while ignoring your own glaring double standard.

This isn’t principled anti-hate activism, it’s selective outrage that only cares about victims who fit your narrative.

Arson against anyone is reprehensible.

Maybe, just a thought, but try applying that consistently instead of weaponising one incident to attack Jews and “Zionism” while excusing or minimising the other.

[Noun @anaspeptic]

Some of these are indeed strawmen or exaggerations.

Muhammad didn’t write the Quran (he was ummi/illiterate per the text itself), didn’t claim to be God, and Muslims don’t worship him, those are easy.

Jihad isn’t literally “terrorism,” and 7th-century norms differed from today, but others aren’t “lies,” they’re directly from your own primary sources (Sahih Bukhari/Muslim Hadith, Ibn Ishaq’s Sirah):
• Aisha’s age: Narrated by Aisha herself in Sahih Bukhari 5134 (and multiples): Married at 6, consummated at 9. Classical scholars accepted this for centuries. Modern revisions (18-19) exist but are minority reinterpretations, often to address modern ethics.

• Killings for insults: Ibn Ishaq records orders for poets like Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf (satirized after Badr, incited enemies), Asma bint Marwan, etc. Framed as wartime treason, not random, but it set precedents for blasphemy rules.

• Sword & conversions: Meccan phase was preaching under persecution. Medinan: wars, conquests, treaties. Rapid expansion under Rashidun followed. No mass forced conversions for People of the Book (jizya/dhimmi status instead), but military dominance accelerated spread. Apostasy = death in classical fiqh. “By the sword” is simplistic; ignoring the sword is too.

• Innocents & jihad: Quran 5:32 is cited often, but context + other verses + Hadith allow fighting, hudud, and expansionary jihad (classical jurists). “Innocent” excludes combatants/apostates in traditional view.

• Power/luxury: Unified Arabia via revelation, alliances, and battles. Multiple wives (political too). Sources show modest personal life (mat, patched clothes), not Byzantine luxury, but clear power consolidation.

Hate is easy.

So is defensive apologetics that dismisses well-attested reports from Bukhari, Muslim, and Sirah as “lies” while claiming “study the sources.”

The sources paint a complex 7th-century Arab leader/preacher/warrior in a tribal world of raids and blood feuds.

Projecting 21st-century standards distorts; ignoring the record does too.

Best approach: Read them yourself (https://t.co/mduLId2jLt for Hadith, Ibn Ishaq translation).

What specific source do you recommend that contradicts these narrations?

[Noun @anaspeptic]

Harry, your heart might be in the right place with the “take a gay for a cuppa” line, but sorry, this is peak naive liberalism that ignores reality.

The 5Pillars guide isn’t some ignorant fringe rant, it’s mainstream orthodox Islam: Quran (story of Lut), Hadith, and consensus across Sunni madhhabs condemn same-sex acts as haram.

Feelings aren’t sinful, but actions and affirmation are off-limits. “Compassion without compromise.”

That’s not going to melt away over Earl Grey.

Polls show the gap isn’t just “ignorance”:
• Henry Jackson Society 2024: Only 28% of British Muslims say it would be undesirable to outlaw homosexuality (vs 62% of the general public). Only 27% undesirable to outlaw gay marriage (vs 60%). 
• ICM/Channel 4 2016: 52% of British Muslims disagreed homosexuality should even be legal (vs ~5% public). 
Personal kindness between individuals is fine and happens daily. But doctrinal incompatibility at scale — reinforced by family, mosque, community, and imported cultural norms — doesn’t dissolve with chats. Many Muslims already know gay people as neighbours/colleagues yet hold these views.

The real irony?

You decry “Islamophobia” right as an influential Muslim outlet publicly affirms rejection of core liberal progress on LGBTQ+ issues.

Critiquing ideology, texts, polling, or integration outcomes isn’t bigotry against people, it’s necessary realism.

We rightly critique similar traditional views in Christianity/Judaism without the “phobia” shield. Why the special exemption?

Liberal society works via secular law: private beliefs protected, consensual adult rights protected, open critique of ideas allowed. Asymmetrical tolerance, demanding the host culture accommodate illiberal doctrines while pathologising pushback, erodes that.

“Bridges not fences” sounds lovely, but bridges need shared foundations.

Demographics, clustering, and slow assimilation on sexuality (and other issues) test social cohesion.

You’re not stupid or evil for wanting harmony, but good intentions without pattern recognition lead to denial.

Britain needs clear-eyed integration expectations, not tea-party wishful thinking.

Call out the incompatibility honestly, it serves everyone better long-term.

[Noun @anaspeptic]

The photo you posted and then deleted is completely unrelated to the video in question.

That video is still two stitched clips. The beach half shows three separate explosion points, no incoming projectile visible in any frame, and figures in the water showing no reaction to the blast.

This is not authentic military footage of soldier;
“filming themselves bombing children for fun.”

If you have the original unedited source for that specific video, post it.

Otherwise, sit down…

[Noun @anaspeptic]

I used the word “tragedy” because that’s what civilian deaths are, tragic.

I’m not denying civilian suffering. I’m pointing out that the specific video posted by @Jvnior is stitched together from unrelated clips shows three separate explosion points with no incoming projectile, and has figures in the water who appear completely unaffected.

Calling me a “vile denier” doesn’t make the video authentic.

If you have the original unedited source for that beach footage, post it. Otherwise, this particular claim doesn’t hold up so, sit down!

[Noun @anaspeptic]

Of course it matters if the video is stitched, because the original post presented it as direct evidence of soldiers “filming themselves bombing children for fun.”

If the evidence is manipulated, it doesn’t prove the claim. That’s not pedantry, that’s how evidence works.

You’re welcome to argue the broader point about civilian casualties with actual verifiable sources, but this specific video doesn’t support the accusation being made.

[Noun @anaspeptic]

The sniper image is completely unrelated to this beach video.

Fact is, the video from the OP is stitched footage: Ukrainian launcher in the first half. Second half shows three distinct explosion points, no visible projectile, and figures in the water unaffected.

This is not authentic military ‘filming themselves’ material.

If you have the original unedited clip, post it. Otherwise, the claim from @Jvnior falls apart.

No one is denying real civilian tragedies happened in the past, but this specific video is manipulated and your response is off-topic.

[Noun @anaspeptic]

So, Nazir, yes there are some valid points:
- Henry was killed by a civilian, not police, and the killer got life with 21 years minimum, judge threw out the kirpan excuse. Sarah Everard is a much better UK comparison for cop power abuse.

But there are flaws too.

Saying Floyd’s “actions celebrated by some on the Right” is a stretch, most condemned the excessive force, the row was about the narrative, riots and fallout.

And then you’re dodging the real issue in this case: bodycam shows police believed the killer’s lie at first, handcuffed a dying kid saying “I can’t breathe”. That deserves proper scrutiny, not just calling it Farage spin.

Facts over tribes Nazir.

Family wants justice and knife crime action, not more division.

[Noun @anaspeptic]

The Bible doesn’t actually state the ages you’re implying.

- Isaac & Rebekah: Genesis 25:20 says Isaac was 40 when he married Rebekah. Her age is never given in the Bible. The “she was 3 years old” claim comes from later medieval Jewish midrashic calculations (e.g., linking her birth to Sarah’s death), not the biblical text itself. It also contradicts the story in Genesis 24, Rebekah is described as a young woman who goes to the well, draws water for ten camels, and speaks like an adult. Serious biblical scholars reject the toddler claim.

- Joseph & Mary: The Bible is completely silent on both their ages. First-century Jewish cultural norms suggest girls were often betrothed around puberty (roughly 12–16), so Mary was likely a teenager. Joseph was probably a young adult or slightly older. Some much later apocryphal legends exaggerate Joseph as very old (even 90), but that’s not in Scripture.
Ancient societies across the Near East, including Jewish, Roman, and others, had younger marriage ages than we accept today, driven by shorter lifespans, economics, and alliances.

That’s historical context, not a gotcha.

The key difference: Christianity treats these as descriptive stories from a specific time and place. Islam treats Muhammad’s life (including his marriage to Aisha) as the perfect, timeless example (uswa hasana) for all Muslims.

Traditional hadiths (Bukhari, Muslim) report Aisha as 6 at betrothal and 9 at consummation.

There is modern scholarly debate questioning those reports and suggesting she may have been older (some calculations put her in her late teens), but the mainstream traditional sources are explicit.

Pointing to ancient customs doesn’t make child marriage (by modern standards) good or bad, it just shows it wasn’t unique.

Most Muslim-majority countries have now set minimum marriage ages for the same reason everyone else has.

Facts are always going to be greater than insults. The “you’re stupid and ignorant” approach doesn’t land when the claim itself overreaches what the sources actually say.

[Noun @anaspeptic]

The chant is crude and vulgar, no argument there, but calling “right wing media and supporters” dumb for it, while claiming it “disrespects Jesus Christ himself and God almighty,” is selective theology.

Yes, Islam is Abrahamic and Muslims revere Ibrahim/Abraham as a prophet; that’s factual, but that shared origin doesn’t mean Christians and Muslims understand God or Jesus the same way.

Christianity holds Jesus as divine (part of the Trinity), crucified for sins, and risen. Islam teaches Jesus (Isa) was a human prophet, not divine, not crucified, and that the Bible was corrupted.

These aren’t minor differences; they’re core theological differences!

So when people mock “Allah” in frustration over real issues (grooming scandals, terror attacks, integration failures, demands for Sharia), many Christians don’t see it as attacking their God or Jesus. They see it as rejecting a different theological package.

The chant is ugly, but pretending it’s just “dumb right-wingers” disrespecting Jesus ignores why the anger exists and why the doctrinal gap matters to believers.

If the point is “we all worship the same God,” explain how the Trinity denial and Jesus-as-merely-prophet fits that.

We want evidence, not memes, propaganda or slogans.

[Noun @anaspeptic]

Let’s scrutinise this list of partial truth, recycled conspiracy nonsense and where facts have been mixed with wild speculation:

• USS Liberty (1967): Yep, Israel attacked a US ship, killed 34 Americans. Tragic incident worth real debate. Fair point.

• NPT: Correct, Israel never signed. But Iran did sign and has repeatedly violated IAEA safeguards with secret enrichment.

• Nuclear material (NUMEC 1960s): Real suspicions of diversion to Israel. Unresolved case, partial credit.

The rest?

• Israel killed JFK: Zero credible evidence. Warren Commission & HSCA pointed to Oswald. Fringe theory with no proof after 60+ years.

• Israel did 9/11: Debunked antisemitic trope. al-Qaeda did it. “Dancing Israelis” claims investigated and disproven.

• Dragged West into Iraq: Oversimplification. AIPAC lobbied but Bush admin decided post-9/11 on flawed WMD intel.

• Bought off 95% of Congress: Hyperbole. Powerful lobbying exists on all sides, but support for Israel also comes from strategy & shared interests.

• Orchestrates constant false flags against Jews: Classic antisemitic blood libel with no serious evidence.

Your “exhaustive” list seems to ignore Iran’s record: funding Hezbollah/Hamas (terror groups), nuclear deception, threats to wipe Israel off the map, attacks on shipping & US forces.

Challenge to you, Jonny: Post specific, verifiable evidence (declassified docs, named sources, not memes) for the big claims like JFK, 9/11, and false flags and I’ll read them.

[Noun @anaspeptic]

Zarah Sultana: Selective Outrage Queen Who Defends Hamas Supporters But Ignores Right-Wing Bans:

Spare us the performative hypocrisy.

You claim the UK barred Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur purely “over their criticism of Israel,” while rolling out the red carpet for “war criminal” Isaac Herzog.

This is activist spin, not reality.

Piker isn’t a mild critic, he’s the one who boasted he’d vote for Hamas over Israel “every single time,” praised Hezbollah and the Houthis, said America “deserved” 9/11, and called for murdering landlords and capitalists so the streets could “soak in their fucking red capitalist blood.” That’s glorifying designated terrorist groups and inciting violence, exactly the kind of rhetoric that makes someone’s presence “not conducive to the public good.”

Sovereign countries control their borders.

Entry is a privilege, not a human right for foreign agitators who sanitise terrorism.

Framing this as simple pro-Palestine speech is deliberately dishonest.

And your Herzog smear? Pathetic.

He’s Israel’s elected President, a ceremonial role, with zero criminal convictions.

The ICJ’s provisional remarks in a contested genocide case (which Israel vigorously disputes, citing Hamas’s 7 October massacre, human shields, and hostages) don’t make him a “war criminal.”

That’s just your side’s slogan to delegitimise an entire country while ignoring actual terrorists.

Where was this outrage when the same rules applied to others? Silent or supportive when the government barred Eva Vlaardingerbroek, Joey Mannarino, Valentina Gomez and others ahead of Tommy Robinson events for “far-right” anti-mass-migration views.

No letters demanding reversals then.

No tears for Dr. David Wood or other Islam critics facing barriers.

Your “free speech” and “alarming pattern” only activate when it’s your ideological allies getting excluded.

This is two-tier activism from a former Labour MP: defend terrorist sympathisers, smear Israel, ignore consistency.

Britain doesn’t need more imported extremism or MPs who prioritise foreign causes over their own constituents.

Apply the same standards to everyone, or drop the pretence of principled concern.

Your selective fury exposes the game.

#ResignNow #OutOfParliament

[Noun @anaspeptic]

Wrong.

‘Islamophobia’ is mostly a rhetorical shield, an attempt to equate criticism of an ideology (Islamic doctrine, sharia, jihad concepts, apostasy penalties, treatment of women/gays/minorities) with racism.

Remember, Islam isn’t a race.

Ex-Muslims, secular Arabs, Europeans dealing with integration failures, and others routinely get smeared this way.

You don’t need to be ‘pro-Israel’ or ‘pro-genocide’ to notice polling on sharia support or patterns in terrorism/grooming gangs.

This binary tribalism kills honest dialogue.

[Noun @anaspeptic]

@sahota_pel32397 @Fx1Jonny 🤔
.
.
.
.
🤣

[Noun @anaspeptic]

@Fx1Jonny Watch the actual footage: adults head to the windows on a far-off thud, no explosion damage, no collapse.

Then read the claim of deliberate school targeting and a media blackout.

Gullibility in action

[Noun @anaspeptic]

Let’s expose your conspiracy for the antisemitic drivel it is.

You’re raging that Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker (vocal Israel critics) had their ETAs revoked.

You immediately declare that Israel itself is the “WHO,” the real enemy pulling the strings.

Yet the UK has also blocked plenty of right-wing, pro-Israel, and anti-Islam voices:
• Dr. David Wood (Christian apologist and Islam critic)
• Joey Mannarino
• Valentina Gomez
• Eva Vlaardingerbroek
• And multiple others ahead of Tommy Robinson events. All denied entry under the same “not conducive to the public good” rule.

You were silent on those, no outrage, no conspiracy threads, no tears for “free speech.” Why? Because they don’t fit your narrative that Israel is the shadowy puppet master oppressing the world.

This is what you are: a race-baiting bigot and professional antisemite.

You lecture everyone about “white privilege” and “accountability,” platform celebrities doing racial guilt sessions, then pivot straight into classic “Jews/Israel control everything” conspiracy territory the moment it suits your grievances.

You don’t care about consistency.
You don’t care about actual British victims like Henry Nowak when they don’t fit the script.

You only care about having a permanent villain, and you’ve chosen the oldest one in history.

You’re not an anti-racist activist.

You’re a divider and a grifter profiting from hate, selective outrage, and toxic identity politics.

Time to take that mask completely off.

Disgusting human being!!

[Noun @anaspeptic]

Oh dear Jonny…

A masterclass in selective history, half-truths, and moral inversion.

Let see how the evidence stacks up:

• “Islam is a religion of peace”

- The Quran has verses on peace and jihad/war. Muhammad led military campaigns, raids, and battles. Islam spread from Arabia across three continents mostly through conquest in its early centuries. “Peace” usually came after submission.

• “Prophet Muhammad wasn’t a paedophile in 6th century Arabia”

- The most authentic Islamic sources (Sahih al-Bukhari) say he married Aisha at 6 and consummated at 9. Even accounting for 7th-century norms, that fits the definition of child marriage/pedophilia by today’s standards. Claims she was older contradict the primary hadiths.

• “Jews have historically been protected by Muslims”

- Jews (and Christians) were dhimmis, second-class citizens paying the jizya tax with restrictions and humiliations for “protection.”
There were better periods, but also massacres like the 1066 Granada slaughter (thousands of Jews killed), Fez pogroms, Safed, and others. Life under Muslim rule was often precarious.

• “Christians historically slaughtered Jews”

- Yes, there were real medieval pogroms, expulsions, and Inquisition episodes. But that ignores similar (and often worse) violence under Muslim rule, plus the Holocaust — the worst slaughter of Jews — carried out by secular Nazis, not Christians.

• “The British Empire is a stain on humanity”

- It was complex and brutal, like every empire, but Britain also abolished the transatlantic slave trade (and spent heavily enforcing it worldwide), spread rule of law, parliaments, medicine, infrastructure, and ended practices like sati and thuggee in India. Many ex-colonies kept British systems for a reason. Pure-evil framing is ahistorical.

• “Immigrants are not responsible for all your problems”

- Obviously not all. But large-scale immigration from certain areas has created real issues in the UK and Europe: grooming gangs (Rotherham etc.), higher crime rates in some demographics per official stats, parallel societies, no-go zones in places like France/Sweden, and big welfare costs. Denying the patterns is just denial.

• “Diversity does work”

- It can, when people actually assimilate to shared liberal values. When groups import incompatible ideologies (supremacist Islam strains, rejection of secular law), it tanks social trust and creates friction. Research like Robert Putnam’s shows diversity can erode community cohesion short-term. Europe’s outcomes are clear.

• “Israel is a terrorist state”

- Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East with real courts, free press, and Arab citizens who vote. It faces groups whose charters call for destroying Jews. Israel targets fighters; Hamas targets civilians on purpose. Equating them is disgusting.

• “Zionism is a cancer on humanity”

- Zionism is just the Jewish people’s national liberation movement after 1,900+ years of exile, pogroms, and genocide, returning to their ancestral land. Post-Holocaust and after repeated Arab wars to wipe out the Jewish state, calling Jewish self-determination a “cancer” is straight antisemitic rhetoric.

Nodding along to this cherry-picked list doesn’t make someone a “legend who hasn’t lost their soul.” It usually means buying one narrative while ignoring context, sources, and data that don’t fit.

History is ugly on all sides, it doesn’t reduce to simple oppressor/oppressed slogans.

Facts over feelings Jonny…