It's hard to believe that some people are unaware of this in light of the massive press coverage given to the BNP electoral gains and the race riots in Oldham, so I know where you're coming from. But as those who weren't aware of the BNP's progeny seem to now be making clear, their questioning was purely from ignorance on their part, not (as I too first assumed) an attempt to defend the BNP scum. One thing it shows is that Nick Griffin has done a good job over the last few years of distancing the party from its extreme image and making it seem reasonable and acceptable. It's quite obvious that the Nazi salutes, thuggery and white supremacism are all still there, they have just decided to keep it behind closed doors. It's pretty frightening that otherwise reasonable people are being taken in by this.
No I didn't. I attacked you for not bothering to do some simple research before challenging the statement that the BNP were racist thugs. That's why we call it 'propaganda'. Perhaps if you'd phrased the question in a slightly less challenging way you'd have received a friendlier response. You're still missing the point. I have no objection to your lack of education in this area. What I object to is your challenging my education in the area without doing a little research first. You will note from showmet's comments that I was not the only person to assume from your question that you were attempting to defend the BNP. As I said, if you'd taken the time to phrase it a little better, then we could have avoided a misunderstanding.
Doktor, you said: And I said: I'd hardly call that challenging you. I just asked you how you knew they were racist.
White's only membership? It says that on their website. Even if ethnic minorities were born in this country they still can't join. That doesn't seem to be very British Nationalist, rather White Supremacist....
Whoa! I just looked at the BNP's website and there's no doubt that they're a Nazi organisation. They admit to it themselves on their own website! http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/appeal_swastika.htm Quite disturbing stuff! Their attitude seems to be "since the govenrment (almost all white people) are so nice to non-white people, we must hate non-white people". It doesn't take a great brain to see the flaw in that argument. On the contrary, anyone with what you or I would describe as a brain would have no interest in joining such a party in the first place, and, as such, would have no need to justify their racism with bogus political arguments. This one mentions a "moslem invasion" of our country: http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/hatecrime_thoughtcrime.htm Those bastard moslems, invading our country!!! This one made me laugh: http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/2002_oct/news_oct012.htm These people are so dumb it beggars belief! I almost feel guilty for designing this website recently, because it bears the union jack so prominently: http://www.ukvehiclecontracts.co.uk/frames.asp
And if you'd bothered to do that in the first place, then we wouldn't have had a problem. Of course it's challenging me. There's an implicit suggestion that there's nothing to back up what I've said, or you wouldn't be asking me to validate my earlier statement. And making a brusque comment like that is in itself challenging. It doesn't come across as a request for information, it comes across as a demand that I justify my previous statement. Ask your questions tactfully if you expect others to be tactful in return. There's a simple way to resolve this. You say "I'm sorry, I didn't realise I'd come across that way". Then I say "No problem dude. Sorry I got shitty with you, but I thought you were defending the BNP". See? Compromise and reconciliation. Good stuff!
Doktor, I am sorry that you misunderstood me. I would be happy to apologise for wording my question in an ambiguous manner, but I still don't think I did. I'm not normally reluctant to apologise, but you were the one who jumped down my throat in the first place, my only 'crime' was being misunderstood. I made it very clear that I hated the BNP in the post right before you said they were racist, so you knew we were on the same side. I don't see any way you could read what I said as confrontational. Your statements didn't contain any actual facts about the BNP, just the assertion that they were racist. Surely you didn't expect anyone to just accept those assertions at face value without asking you to back them up with facts? If I said "There is a God and I know it. Atheists are wrong." I would naturally expect people to ask me why I think that, since I gave no reasons. Two people can't have an argue over opinions, only over facts. I know, why don't you say: "Well, looking at wht you wrote again, I've realised that you are entirely right and there was nothing confrontational about what you said, and I just miunderstood you, which means my abuse was uncalled for". To which I would say: "Wow, I can't believe you said all that word for word. No problem!".
You have to realise that the written word is not always the best means of communication. Often, extra effort is required if you want to make sure that you're understood correctly. This is especially true if you're going to enter into a heated thread such as one relating to the BNP. I didn't say you were at fault, I said that a little more discretion might have been a good idea. As you'll note from showmet's post, I was not the only one to interpret your words that way. No, but I expect you to make the effort to a do a modicum of research before requiring me to back up such a statement with facts. Yes, but if I was to say "I think that Playboy is pornographic", I would expect that to be a reasonable statement that most people would accept at face value. Remember, we're talking here about a party that's openly racist - it's not like you have to check the small print! Clearly compromise and reconciliation are not your strong points, so it's probably just best if we agree to differ.
apparently "britain is under threat from muslim extremists that will lay down their lives for a cause they believe in"...some wanker went on about how the Qu'ran says that you should kill anyone who doesn't believe in your ideas and show them "how furious you can be"...he then went on to say, fair enough...the bible says similar things...but the bible has changed over the years...when clearly it hasn't...the bible has stayed exactly the same otherwise it would't be the true word of god...and the bible says just as many harsh things about smiting heretics and so on...but people just chose to ignore it...so couldn't the same be said equally of people who read and believe in the Qu'ran? is britain under threat yes it is personally I dont see following a racist party as the answer but there is a threat apparently and I didnt see the bnp tv thing, but they read out sections from the koran and this was blocked out from much of the country so all people saw was a person talking and no sound . from your account they got the theology wrong in regards christianity the bible hasnt been changed but the smiting stuff is mainly in the old testament there are some nasty things in the new testament to but mainly the new testament is the love your neighbour turn the other cheek stuff. most christians try to follow the new testament believing that the earlier stuff as been abrogated (Superseded) no where in the koran or in the haddith or any mainstream islamic scripture is there "love your neighbour "or "turn the other cheek" these concepts are not in islamic theology but there are passages that have a sort of co-existence these were from the period when mohammed started out they are meccan sura they make up the majority of the koran thats not to say the majority of even the meccan sura are nice but some are but the problem is islamic theology believe they were superseded by the later medina sura the medina sura are very nasty ,rather like the nasty bits in the old testament and pretty much go along with what the bnp bloke was saying about them its the main problem with islamic theology there are tiny groups like sufis that try to get around this to an extent but these groups are seen as introducing deviation and really dont have that much effect on mainstream islamic theology most muslims dont follow the koran and haddith pretty much like most christians dont practice non violence and for example sell everything they own and give it to the poor but some do and when people try to follow the fundermantals of the religion thats when you get real trouble the other thing is that even though most people dont follow the religion they may feel that they should so people like osama will get a lot of respect because hes doing what a lot of muslims think should be done but dont have the guts to do themselves also most muslims that arnt following the military jihad path think that they will get to control the world by non military means and gradually increasing the number of muslims reading a tafseer this will tell you when a sura was revealed to mohammed