That is because you are suggesting somehow that there is a similar threat level today as from fascists then. How facile. You don't see today's Jews throwing stones at fascists. Nor for that matter do you see Jews retaliating for attacks on synagogues and cemeteries. You are conveniently ruling out that the riots' organisers have an interest in the degradation of British society as per jihadis, or that there is a malaise among the youth reflected in cynical gansta rap with violent and selfish themes, the onslaught of jihadi and anarchist literature, the conspiracy theories and the general self-assured, delusional paranoia that these destructive forces provoke. Upstanding Jews took a stand against fascism because it was an argument for the murder of Jewish people. Young thugs took a stand on the streets of Bradford because they are all pride and no self-respect. They are right to stand up to the BNP, but name me a Jewish riot.

"100man" wrote:

That is because you are suggesting somehow that there is a similar threat level today as from fascists then.

So is a large portion of the world of journalism.

Quote:

Upstanding Jews took a stand against fascism because it was an argument for the murder of Jewish people.

What are you basing that on?

Could you give me examples from "the world of journalism" or even make your own point, and specify what part you need me to back up, please?

"100man" wrote:

Could you give me examples from "the world of journalism" or even make your own point, and specify what part you need me to back up, please?

Well I mean Neo-liberal types like Nick Cohen, Hitchens etc.

In terms of the other issue fascism never advocated the murder of any people.

That is unless you are exercising the leftist deviation of calling all right-wing groups (or indeed anyone they don't like) fascists.

Hi,

I think that the comparison between the "Jewish" riots of the thirties and
the riots in Bradford is a pretty weak one in terms of the cause(s) and strength and depth of the reaction.

The Jewish people had a direct threat to their safety, instigated by a complete lunatic in Germany. The right to defend themselves from the Neo-Fascists in this country was all too apparent. But that need was the result of a comparitively short lived direct threat. I do appreciate that some Jewish people are victimised in this country, but not to the extent that Asian people, not just Muslim people, are and have been since the early sixties.

The people of Bradford had the same right to protect themselves from morons as the Jewish people did and do. For the last four decades or so Asians, particularly Pakistani in my opinion, have been the "quiet" victims of Racial abuse, the older generation either couldn't or wouldn't "fight back".

Not only were the Bradford riots about defense and protection, but were also about retaliation and frustration. The sentences do seem excessive when rapists and child abusers are given similar sentences.

"100man" wrote:

That is because you are suggesting somehow that there is a similar threat level today as from fascists then. How facile. You don't see today's Jews throwing stones at fascists. Nor for that matter do you see Jews retaliating for attacks on synagogues and cemeteries. You are conveniently ruling out that the riots' organisers have an interest in the degradation of British society as per jihadis, or that there is a malaise among the youth reflected in cynical gansta rap with violent and selfish themes, the onslaught of jihadi and anarchist literature, the conspiracy theories and the general self-assured, delusional paranoia that these destructive forces provoke. Upstanding Jews took a stand against fascism because it was an argument for the murder of Jewish people. Young thugs took a stand on the streets of Bradford because they are all pride and no self-respect. They are right to stand up to the BNP, but name me a Jewish riot.

Young men took to the street because of the provocation of racists. Bradford is no different to Southall or Brixton, Toxteth, Belfast, Derry or Cable street in the Jewish East end the 1930s. It’s a reaction from a minority when they feel under siege, provoked and with little trust in the authorities to protect their families and communities. The principle is exactly the same. Muslims are being demonised by racists groups just as other minorities have been in the past.

The idea that the Bradford rioters are “jihadis” who have listened to one too many Jay-Z albums and fancied a riot is nonsense. As silly as suggesting that the recent French riots were Al Qaeda’s “Ramadan campaign”.

5 years for throwing a brick? How many Millwall football fans get the same sentence?

"Confo" wrote:

The Jewish people had a direct threat to their safety, instigated by a complete lunatic in Germany. The right to defend themselves from the Neo-Fascists in this country was all too apparent.

Firstly that is not valid as diferent countries. Secondly Muslims could use the same argument, use one of many bogeymen.

So that argument is just for the sake of arguing. It would only defend the reactions in Germany.

To be honest I have no idea what happened in the uk in the 30s so I will not even try to attack or justify it.

I see this more an argument about sentencing than right to crime.

"latifah" wrote:

The idea that the Bradford rioters are “jihadis” who have listened to one too many Jay-Z albums and fancied a riot is nonsense. As silly as suggesting that the recent French riots were Al Qaeda’s “Ramadan campaign”.

5 years for throwing a brick? How many Millwall football fans get the same sentence?

Nothing wrong with Jay-Z, the Ramadan riots seems a plausible notation, and I don't know what happens to Millwall fans, please tell me.

Latifah, Bradford is no Belfast, that is quite cocky.

Hi,

Admin.

You've taken that quote well out of context.

Either I didn't write that very well or you misunderstood. The Nazi movement wasn't confined to Germany I was merely pointing out the connection between Nazism in Germany and that same movement here in Britain in the thirties and belief in the same values. Predominantly the need to "exterminate" the Jews and the consequent right of the Jews to protect themselves from that "ideal" and from direct attack.

And to me its not about using a "bogeyman" its about have justifiable cause to defend yourself not finding an excuse but having a reason.

The point overall is that if people are oppressed and humiliated continually on such a wide scale the point of retaliation gets closer and closer until the proverbial lid comes off.

"Confo" wrote:

The Nazi movement wasn't confined to Germany I was merely pointing out the connection between Nazism in Germany and that same movement here in Britain in the thirties and belief in the same values.

It was confined to Germany or Germanic areas more specifically.

It is highly unlikely that any other groups outside of Germany had the exact same beliefs as the Nazis. For example there's much talk today about the rise of neo-nazi groups in Russia but what point is there in calling them Nazis when Hitler's ideology was (some would say primarily) anti-Slavic?

I find it misleading to group all right-wing or left wing groups under the same name.

Otherwise you end up with this idiocy

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2004/041018nazis_americas.html

Even the terms left and right are unhelpful at times.

"100man" wrote:

If I throw a stone at someone I get five years. I have no issue with that.

what an insensitive, hostile and provocative statement regarding the bradford riots :evil:

the people wear defending themselves from the NFs who were radomly attacking muslims in bradford and the police were not doing much about it, instaed the police were charging at the muslim community who obviously felt threathened , frustrated and scared and as a result lashed out with stones, however many innocent bystanders where attacked by the police with batons , how many police were charge for assault :?:

yep they deserved some punishment , but 5 years :shock: , i mean for a first offence of a young guy with a bright future to get 5 yrs aswell as the instenous circumstances involving the stone throwing , 5 yrs was horrendous, it wasnt like the police wear jus walking down the rd and the guy came and jus hit him with a stone for no reason :? even then 5 yrs sounds harsh

considering rapists and pedophiles for a first offence get less than 5 yrs and GBH , assault and affray will also get you less than 5 yrs in many circumstances , i have no doubt there were prejudices involved in their sentencing

"nAS786" wrote:

"100man" wrote:

If I throw a stone at someone I get five years. I have no issue with that.

what an insensitive, hostile and provocative statement regarding the bradford riots :evil:

Hi,

Salaf,

If you research the europe wide "nazi" movement both pre and post ww2 you will quite clearly see that the nazi movement at the time was not confined to Germany or even Germanic areas.

The nazi movement in Britain back then had clear and well documented links with the "Socialist" party in Germany. They had plans to provide information, support, safe houses and so on to the Germans as part of the invasion of Britain. I really don't think that you can confine an ideal to a particular country or region.

You will always get sympathisers for movements like that and the sympathisers in this country whole hearted believed that Hitler and his minnions were right and justified.