You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Is Islam, the new Nazi ?
November 11 2026 6.20am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Is Islam, the new Nazi ?


Page 6 of 25 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >
Stirlingsays Flag 17 Jun 14 5.12pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Jun 2014 3.44pm

Can you back this up Stirling?

The stats are quite well known.

[Link]

[Link]


 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
aceedi Flag 17 Jun 14 5.21pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Jun 2014 5.10pm

Quote aceedi at 17 Jun 2014 5.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Jun 2014 4.57pm

Quote aceedi at 17 Jun 2014 4.52pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Jun 2014 4.18pm

Quote matt_himself at 17 Jun 2014 4.06pm

Gusset - you are twisting again.

I believe that you are an extremist apologist because of the way you lightly brush off the threat by saying 'austerity is worse'. Nothing to do with whether you know or don't know Muslims.

I never saw a Tory politician behead anyone, unlike Lee Rigbys killers.


No, but their policies have resulted in deaths and suicides. Google ATOS for example.

How many deaths and suicides do you blame the government for and what criteria do you apply in blaming them?


Government statistics indicate that between January 2011 and November 2011, 10,600 sick and disabled people died within six weeks of their benefit claim ending. Such was the furore about this figure, the DWP has stopped using Atos data to count the number of deaths.
From
[Link]

So you are seriously suggesting that 10,600 people died as a result changes in their benefits. That is so unsubstantiated it is absurd - even for you.

For someone who has only been registered a couple of weeks you do seem to have a familiar posting style.

I'm only going by what was reported in the big issue, but if you look on tinterweb, (which you won't because it just many prove you wrong) the figure is used a lot.


Edited by nickgusset (17 Jun 2014 5.14pm)

Have you got any figures on how many sick and disabled people died in the six weeks before benefit changes? Do you think it remotely possible that the sick and disabled people died of their illnesses and disabilities rather than dropping dead when their benefits changed?

 
ghosteagle Flag 17 Jun 14 5.22pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 17 Jun 2014 5.12pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Jun 2014 3.44pm

Can you back this up Stirling?

The stats are quite well known.

[Link]

[Link]


That's your evidence!??! Apart from the fact that opinions polls are notoriously unreliable and open to manipulation they are also from 2006 & 2009. I ain't taking a side but that's poor, very poor.

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 17 Jun 14 5.27pm

Quote aceedi at 17 Jun 2014 5.21pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Jun 2014 5.10pm

Quote aceedi at 17 Jun 2014 5.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Jun 2014 4.57pm

Quote aceedi at 17 Jun 2014 4.52pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Jun 2014 4.18pm

Quote matt_himself at 17 Jun 2014 4.06pm

Gusset - you are twisting again.

I believe that you are an extremist apologist because of the way you lightly brush off the threat by saying 'austerity is worse'. Nothing to do with whether you know or don't know Muslims.

I never saw a Tory politician behead anyone, unlike Lee Rigbys killers.


No, but their policies have resulted in deaths and suicides. Google ATOS for example.

How many deaths and suicides do you blame the government for and what criteria do you apply in blaming them?


Government statistics indicate that between January 2011 and November 2011, 10,600 sick and disabled people died within six weeks of their benefit claim ending. Such was the furore about this figure, the DWP has stopped using Atos data to count the number of deaths.
From
[Link]

So you are seriously suggesting that 10,600 people died as a result changes in their benefits. That is so unsubstantiated it is absurd - even for you.

For someone who has only been registered a couple of weeks you do seem to have a familiar posting style.

I'm only going by what was reported in the big issue, but if you look on tinterweb, (which you won't because it just many prove you wrong) the figure is used a lot.


Edited by nickgusset (17 Jun 2014 5.14pm)

Have you got any figures on how many sick and disabled people died in the six weeks before benefit changes? Do you think it remotely possible that the sick and disabled people died of their illnesses and disabilities rather than dropping dead when their benefits changed?


Not the point. The point is that these people were deemed fit enough to have their sickness benefits stopped, when quite blatantly they weren't fit. If they were, they wouldn't have died would they?

 
aceedi Flag 17 Jun 14 5.33pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Jun 2014 5.27pm

Quote aceedi at 17 Jun 2014 5.21pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Jun 2014 5.10pm

Quote aceedi at 17 Jun 2014 5.08pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Jun 2014 4.57pm

Quote aceedi at 17 Jun 2014 4.52pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Jun 2014 4.18pm

Quote matt_himself at 17 Jun 2014 4.06pm

Gusset - you are twisting again.

I believe that you are an extremist apologist because of the way you lightly brush off the threat by saying 'austerity is worse'. Nothing to do with whether you know or don't know Muslims.

I never saw a Tory politician behead anyone, unlike Lee Rigbys killers.


No, but their policies have resulted in deaths and suicides. Google ATOS for example.

How many deaths and suicides do you blame the government for and what criteria do you apply in blaming them?


Government statistics indicate that between January 2011 and November 2011, 10,600 sick and disabled people died within six weeks of their benefit claim ending. Such was the furore about this figure, the DWP has stopped using Atos data to count the number of deaths.
From
[Link]

So you are seriously suggesting that 10,600 people died as a result changes in their benefits. That is so unsubstantiated it is absurd - even for you.

For someone who has only been registered a couple of weeks you do seem to have a familiar posting style.

I'm only going by what was reported in the big issue, but if you look on tinterweb, (which you won't because it just many prove you wrong) the figure is used a lot.


Edited by nickgusset (17 Jun 2014 5.14pm)

Have you got any figures on how many sick and disabled people died in the six weeks before benefit changes? Do you think it remotely possible that the sick and disabled people died of their illnesses and disabilities rather than dropping dead when their benefits changed?


Not the point. The point is that these people were deemed fit enough to have their sickness benefits stopped, when quite blatantly they weren't fit. If they were, they wouldn't have died would they?

It is entirely the point. You are saying they died because their benefits changed, you are saying that the cause of death on the death certificates should read 'due to change in benefits'.

 
davenotamonkey Flag 17 Jun 14 5.34pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Jun 2014 3.44pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 17 Jun 2014 3.37pm

Quote Kermit8 at 17 Jun 2014 12.32pm

I was thinking of people who were not around London in the mid 70's due to not even being born yet who shudder at the mere mention of the word 'muslim' today.

How would they have coped knowing there really were IRA cells walking the same streets armed and dangerous for many years and carrying out attacks all over The Smoke when they can't even buy a mango today without eyeballing Mr Abdul Ali the grocery shop owner with suspicion?

Edited by Kermit8 (17 Jun 2014 12.37pm)

People hate murderers pretty much independent of where they come from or what they believe......The IRA were considered scum....Many don't think much better of them now.

Wasn't that 7/7 bomber a teaching assisant who everyone thought well of?

Sure the actual number of Muslims who carry out attacks is tiny....Even when we include the number of foiled attacks.....Still, the number of Muslims who support anti western ideas isn't......That's a significant number.

The left bury their heads into the sand....They end up giving us the Birmingham schools nonsense because they so obsessed with not upsetting minorities.

Why shouldn't people be suspicous? To trust someone you need to share things in common.

I treat as I find but trust is something earned, not given out easily.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jun 2014 3.39pm)


Can you back this up Stirling?

[Link]

Watch it. Don't worry - it's not got stonings, or beheadings or other executions in it. It's a lot scarier. You can start at ~2:20 if you don't have the attention span for the whole thing (the rabid Guardian comments section can have that affect... don't worry).

 
Stirlingsays Flag 17 Jun 14 5.37pm

Quote ghosteagle at 17 Jun 2014 5.22pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 17 Jun 2014 5.12pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Jun 2014 3.44pm

Can you back this up Stirling?

The stats are quite well known.

[Link]

[Link]


That's your evidence!??! Apart from the fact that opinions polls are notoriously unreliable and open to manipulation they are also from 2006 & 2009. I ain't taking a side but that's poor, very poor.

How is it poor?

Opinion polls are the only way we have of finding out.....guess what....Opinions. What other method do you suggest?

You have a problem with the dates? We have elections every five years....How often do you think we should be carrying out surveys like this.

How long do you want me to spend? Tell you what I spend ten minutes looking for evidence that I was asked for.....You find evidence to the contrary if you don't like it.

Very poor indeed.

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
ghosteagle Flag 17 Jun 14 5.42pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 17 Jun 2014 5.37pm

Quote ghosteagle at 17 Jun 2014 5.22pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 17 Jun 2014 5.12pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Jun 2014 3.44pm

Can you back this up Stirling?

The stats are quite well known.

[Link]

[Link]


That's your evidence!??! Apart from the fact that opinions polls are notoriously unreliable and open to manipulation they are also from 2006 & 2009. I ain't taking a side but that's poor, very poor.

How is it poor?

Opinion polls are the only way we have of finding out.....guess what....Opinions. What other method do you suggest?

You have a problem with the dates? We have elections every five years....How often do you think we should be carrying out surveys like this.

How long do you want me to spend? Tell you what I spend ten minutes looking for evidence that I was asked for.....You find evidence to the contrary if you don't like it.

Very poor indeed.

So you're argument is that that's the best evidence that you could find in ten minutes so i have to accept it!?!? You've gone from poor to bizarre. Please try harder.

 
Kermit8 Flag Hevon 17 Jun 14 5.44pm

Quote matt_himself at 17 Jun 2014 1.03pm

Quote Kermit8 at 17 Jun 2014 11.48am

I don't know how some of you lot would have coped in the 70's with IRA bombs going off in London every other month for years.

Muslim extremism is a hundred times the danger to other muslims in their own country than it is to us lot in Blighty.

pakistan, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan - pity those poor tens of millions of souls wanting a peaceful family life not conflict and stop wetting yer pants about something that is not going to happen to you.

Top 10 terrorists groups worldwide in 2012.

6 were Islamic fundamentalist types

4 were not (FARC,PKK, Indian Maoist, FLNC)


Edited by Kermit8 (17 Jun 2014 11.56am)

Do you remember your rant about UKIP where you said the problem would be in ten years time when millions of racists will be unleashed into the political hierarchy as a result of voting for Nigel Farage?

Do you not apply the same logic to Muslim extremism or does that not count for some reason?

How can I apply logic to that illogical paradigm?

When we have a muslim party threatening the political status quo then your post/question will have some weight. As it stands it is just inconsequential fluff.

UKIP, as I said, imo will have no option than to lurch further to the right the more power it gets. That, obviously, will attract BNP types.

Edited by Kermit8 (17 Jun 2014 5.53pm)

 

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]
aceedi Flag 17 Jun 14 5.47pm

Quote davenotamonkey at 17 Jun 2014 5.34pm

Quote nickgusset at 17 Jun 2014 3.44pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 17 Jun 2014 3.37pm

Quote Kermit8 at 17 Jun 2014 12.32pm

I was thinking of people who were not around London in the mid 70's due to not even being born yet who shudder at the mere mention of the word 'muslim' today.

How would they have coped knowing there really were IRA cells walking the same streets armed and dangerous for many years and carrying out attacks all over The Smoke when they can't even buy a mango today without eyeballing Mr Abdul Ali the grocery shop owner with suspicion?

Edited by Kermit8 (17 Jun 2014 12.37pm)

People hate murderers pretty much independent of where they come from or what they believe......The IRA were considered scum....Many don't think much better of them now.

Wasn't that 7/7 bomber a teaching assisant who everyone thought well of?

Sure the actual number of Muslims who carry out attacks is tiny....Even when we include the number of foiled attacks.....Still, the number of Muslims who support anti western ideas isn't......That's a significant number.

The left bury their heads into the sand....They end up giving us the Birmingham schools nonsense because they so obsessed with not upsetting minorities.

Why shouldn't people be suspicous? To trust someone you need to share things in common.

I treat as I find but trust is something earned, not given out easily.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jun 2014 3.39pm)


Can you back this up Stirling?

[Link]

Watch it. Don't worry - it's not got stonings, or beheadings or other executions in it. It's a lot scarier. You can start at ~2:20 if you don't have the attention span for the whole thing (the rabid Guardian comments section can have that affect... don't worry).

Thanks for the link Dave - very telling.

 
Stirlingsays Flag 17 Jun 14 5.49pm

Quote ghosteagle at 17 Jun 2014 5.42pm

So you're argument is that that's the best evidence that you could find in ten minutes so i have to accept it!?!? You've gone from poor to bizarre. Please try harder.


Ten minutes more than you mate.

It wasn't hard finding evidence. You have a problem with it so you find evidence to the contrary.

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
ghosteagle Flag 17 Jun 14 5.54pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 17 Jun 2014 5.49pm

Quote ghosteagle at 17 Jun 2014 5.42pm

So you're argument is that that's the best evidence that you could find in ten minutes so i have to accept it!?!? You've gone from poor to bizarre. Please try harder.


Ten minutes more than you mate.

It wasn't hard finding evidence. You have a problem with it so you find evidence to the contrary.

!?!? So let me see if i can follow this.......Your idea of the value of evidence is based on how much time you have spent looking for it? Your logic is laughable. As i said, i haven't taken up a side with regards to the argument but your understanding of what constitutes evidence is a joke and isn't going to convince anyone of anything.


 
aceedi Flag 17 Jun 14 5.56pm

Quote ghosteagle at 17 Jun 2014 5.54pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 17 Jun 2014 5.49pm

Quote ghosteagle at 17 Jun 2014 5.42pm

So you're argument is that that's the best evidence that you could find in ten minutes so i have to accept it!?!? You've gone from poor to bizarre. Please try harder.


Ten minutes more than you mate.

It wasn't hard finding evidence. You have a problem with it so you find evidence to the contrary.

!?!? So let me see if i can follow this.......Your idea of the value of evidence is based on how much time you have spent looking for it? Your logic is laughable. As i said, i haven't taken up a side with regards to the argument but your understanding of what constitutes evidence is a joke and isn't going to convince anyone of anything.


I wonder what your postings would be like if you did take sides?

 
ghosteagle Flag 17 Jun 14 6.01pm

Quote aceedi at 17 Jun 2014 5.56pm

Quote ghosteagle at 17 Jun 2014 5.54pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 17 Jun 2014 5.49pm

Quote ghosteagle at 17 Jun 2014 5.42pm

So you're argument is that that's the best evidence that you could find in ten minutes so i have to accept it!?!? You've gone from poor to bizarre. Please try harder.


Ten minutes more than you mate.

It wasn't hard finding evidence. You have a problem with it so you find evidence to the contrary.

!?!? So let me see if i can follow this.......Your idea of the value of evidence is based on how much time you have spent looking for it? Your logic is laughable. As i said, i haven't taken up a side with regards to the argument but your understanding of what constitutes evidence is a joke and isn't going to convince anyone of anything.


I wonder what your postings would be like if you did take sides?

Wittier.

 
Stirlingsays Flag 17 Jun 14 6.11pm

Quote ghosteagle at 17 Jun 2014 5.54pm

!?!? So let me see if i can follow this.......Your idea of the value of evidence is based on how much time you have spent looking for it? Your logic is laughable. As i said, i haven't taken up a side with regards to the argument but your understanding of what constitutes evidence is a joke and isn't going to convince anyone of anything.


You attacked the evidence I found using arguments that hold no water.

Apparently you stated that opinion polls are unreliable and can be manipulated.....Well, this is true for most things. However, to knock the evidence isn't balanced unless you have evidence that the particular opinion poll had been interferred with.

Regardless you attacked that evidence. You attack the length of time I spent on it.
The value of evidence has nothing to do with how long it takes to find. Besides this is an internet forum, not my job. How long do you think I should spend? Regardless I looked and spent time in response to a request.. I have done some work on this, you haven't....Or perhaps you have but can't find any.

You also attacked the evidence based upon its age. The older of these polls is eight years old, the earliest five years old. Both of the polls don't show any significant change in attitude. Are you suggesting that there has been a radical change in Islamic opinion in the country....If so, evidence pleased.

As for as convincing anyone. Well, I was asked a question and I responded. They are plenty of people who share my opinion....I think you sound rather desperate.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jun 2014 6.20pm)

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
ghosteagle Flag 17 Jun 14 6.22pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 17 Jun 2014 6.11pm

Quote ghosteagle at 17 Jun 2014 5.54pm

!?!? So let me see if i can follow this.......Your idea of the value of evidence is based on how much time you have spent looking for it? Your logic is laughable. As i said, i haven't taken up a side with regards to the argument but your understanding of what constitutes evidence is a joke and isn't going to convince anyone of anything.


You attacked the evidence I found using arguments that hold no water.

Apparently you stated that opinion polls are unreliable and can be manipulated.....Well, this is true for most things. However, to knock the evidence isn't balanced unless you have evidence that the particular opinion poll had been interferred with.

Regardless you attacked that evidence. You attack the length of time I spent on it.
The value of evidence has nothing to do with how long it takes to find. Besides this is an internet forum, not my job. How long do you think I should spend? Regardless I looked and spent time in response to a request.. I have done some work on this, you haven't....Or perhaps you have but can't find any.

You also attacked the evidence based upon its age. The older of these polls is eight years old, the earliest five years old. Both of the polls don't show any significant change in attitude. Are you suggesting that their has been a radical change in Islamic opinion in the country....If so, evidence pleased.

As for as convincing anyone. Well, I was asked a question and I responded. They are plenty of people who share my opinion....I think you sound rather desperate.

Streth, do you have a split-personality or something?! You bang on about how much time you spent looking for the evidence and then spin round to try and accuse me of going on about it!?!? You accuse me of not being able to 'find any' evidence but don't want let me into the secret of what i'm supposed to be arguing on the side of?!?! Even though i keep saying i'm not arguing either side!?!? Are you sure you haven't fried your logic circuits???

 
Stirlingsays Flag 17 Jun 14 6.27pm

Quote ghosteagle at 17 Jun 2014 6.22pm

Streth, do you have a split-personality or something?! You bang on about how much time you spent looking for the evidence and then spin round to try and accuse me of going on about it!?!? You accuse me of not being able to 'find any' evidence but don't want let me into the secret of what i'm supposed to be arguing on the side of?!?! Even though i keep saying i'm not arguing either side!?!? Are you sure you haven't fried your logic circuits???

You don't have to argue on any side. You attacked the polls.

What evidence do you have against these polls being accurate?

To attack something without any evidence makes no sense unless you're biased against what is shown.

However you say you're not.....So where's the evidence?

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
ghosteagle Flag 17 Jun 14 6.29pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 17 Jun 2014 6.27pm

Quote ghosteagle at 17 Jun 2014 6.22pm

Streth, do you have a split-personality or something?! You bang on about how much time you spent looking for the evidence and then spin round to try and accuse me of going on about it!?!? You accuse me of not being able to 'find any' evidence but don't want let me into the secret of what i'm supposed to be arguing on the side of?!?! Even though i keep saying i'm not arguing either side!?!? Are you sure you haven't fried your logic circuits???

You don't have to argue on any side. You attacked the polls.

What evidence do you have against these polls being accurate?

To attack something without any evidence makes no sense unless you're biased against what is shown.

However you say you're not.....So where's the evidence?

Luckily i get to leave work now. I will try again with you when i'm next in. Bye bye troll.


Edited by ghosteagle (17 Jun 2014 6.31pm)

 
Stirlingsays Flag 17 Jun 14 6.34pm

Quote ghosteagle at 17 Jun 2014 6.29pm


Luckily i get to leave work now. I will try again with you when i'm next in. Bye bye troll.


Edited by ghosteagle (17 Jun 2014 6.31pm)

Yeah how convenient, try harder to answer questions next time.


Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jun 2014 6.35pm)

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
matt_himself Flag Matataland 17 Jun 14 8.42pm

Quote Kermit8 at 17 Jun 2014 5.44pm

Quote matt_himself at 17 Jun 2014 1.03pm

Quote Kermit8 at 17 Jun 2014 11.48am

I don't know how some of you lot would have coped in the 70's with IRA bombs going off in London every other month for years.

Muslim extremism is a hundred times the danger to other muslims in their own country than it is to us lot in Blighty.

pakistan, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan - pity those poor tens of millions of souls wanting a peaceful family life not conflict and stop wetting yer pants about something that is not going to happen to you.

Top 10 terrorists groups worldwide in 2012.

6 were Islamic fundamentalist types

4 were not (FARC,PKK, Indian Maoist, FLNC)


Edited by Kermit8 (17 Jun 2014 11.56am)

Do you remember your rant about UKIP where you said the problem would be in ten years time when millions of racists will be unleashed into the political hierarchy as a result of voting for Nigel Farage?

Do you not apply the same logic to Muslim extremism or does that not count for some reason?

How can I apply logic to that illogical paradigm?

When we have a muslim party threatening the political status quo then your post/question will have some weight. As it stands it is just inconsequential fluff.

UKIP, as I said, imo will have no option than to lurch further to the right the more power it gets. That, obviously, will attract BNP types.

Edited by Kermit8 (17 Jun 2014 5.53pm)


It is not about a party, it is about ideology. Surely, using your logic, should there be fanatical Muslims that young Muslims look up to, within ten years we could have 250,000 suicide bombers on our hands. Same as your prediction that we will be swamped with Nazis should we vote UKIP.

Or does 'Kermits Law' only work for political groupings he opposes?

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Page 6 of 25 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Is Islam, the new Nazi ?