You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Topic
February 6 2023 6.15am

ukip (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 275 of 311 < 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 >

Topic Locked

View matt_himself's Profile matt_himself Flag Matataland 29 Apr 15 6.19pm Send a Private Message to matt_himself Add matt_himself as a friend

Quote nickgusset at 29 Apr 2015 5.49pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 5.40pm

Quote nickgusset at 29 Apr 2015 5.29pm

Quote imbored at 29 Apr 2015 5.11pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 4.59pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 2.44pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.37pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 1.27pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 1.01pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 8.14am

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.04am

Quote Kermit8 at 28 Apr 2015 7.43pm

Matthew - what is actually wrong with saying 'n1gger' if it is in context? I saw '12 Years a Slave' recently and the term was used many, many times and it seemed appropriate given the subject matter.

You personally seem to have an issue with it being used at all no matter what.

We've had this conversation before but you never actually clarified your 100% anti-stance. Were the director of the film and the screenplay writers and the actors wrong to use the word in your opinion and if so 'why'?

Simple question - would you use the 'n' word?

You use 'bender'. Therefore one would assume that you would use other offensive words.

With regards to the cinematic usage of slurs, I am not for censorship. However, there does need to be a line drawn. Did you see Django Unchained? To me, Tarantino overused racial slurs in the film for reasons of his own knowing. Racial slurs were to me, used too frequently to be of any relevance to the story and were there to shock and create controversy to hype the film. There is therefore a glance between historical accuracy and overuse to be found.


Would I use the 'n' word? Within debate on slavery/racist ideology 'yes'. You'd have to, wouldn't you, to have a broad in-depth discussion? I have no other use for it.
No
Oh, and if you are going to try and equate the use of the 'n' word for nasty reasons and two online football fans using the word 'bender' in friendly banter and not for vicious homophobic purposes to so show some kind of perceived leftist hypocrisy.........well, off you go. Should be interesting.

Here we go again. The issue is that you and the rest of the lefty gang think it is a punishable crime for UKIP members to use words that could be construed as homophobic and yet you yourself use words that could be construed as homophobic but that's ok because of 'context' and its 'banter'.

It's hypocrisy Michael. Either you reject political correctness and use the words you have used freely & without shame, or you don't use them at all. No half measures. Your message is contradictory and nonsense.


Edited by matt_himself (29 Apr 2015 1.04pm)


That is, frankly, ridiculous. Why on earth do I have to use certain words in everyday speech down somewhere like Old Compton Street to strangers and, thus, by doing so be overtly obnoxious, threatening and nasty, just because I have used the same word in a totally benign and friendly context elsewhere?

It has to be more than just because 'you say so'.

A UKIP prospective MP, or any politician for that matter, whether they know it or not is addressing Joe Public everytime they open up their gob so can't complain if they are pulled up on any unsavoury verbals. And just because some civilian may have used the same words at another time is no kind of defence, is it? Though you seem to think it is. Strange.



You can't have it both ways and retain credibility.

If you are appalled by UKIP candidates using words you seem to be offensive to gays (you have taken great delight in pointing this out on here the UKIP 'sort') and then use similar words yourself, you are a hypocrite.

You understand this. You know this. But as you have been smoked out and have no defence, you have to keep going round in circles arguing the toss. It's sad really, Michael.


In that case , I'd better start using the words'fvck' 'cvnt' and 'sh1t' in front of my lovely old mum so I can't be accused of even more (false) hypocrisy.

Your argument is too weak to be taken seriously.

Edited by Kermit8 (29 Apr 2015 2.46pm)


Bollocks. If I called the Greens 'benders', you would be outraged.

However, it is ok for you to do so, apparently. Because it is in 'context'.

Why?

But much in the same way, you've used the word 'bender' countless times over the last couple of pages and think that's fine, but you're angry with someone else for the hypocritical context in which they use the term. Even though you deny that 'context' is a factor. Unless you're angry with yourself too?


Edited by imbored (29 Apr 2015 5.12pm)


If you called the greens benders, that's your prerogative, but you are not a campaigning prospective MP or a representative of a political party. If Natalie Bennett publicly called someone a bender it would matter as she is representing her party and under public scrutiny.

Deflection. You spineless rat.

You come across as having no scruples. Pathetic.

I pity you.


You have no grasp of this debating lark. And for that reason I'm out.
Thanks again for the pity, but it's not needed.


Second time in two days that you have ducked out early.

One can only assume that you cannot back up your flimsy 'ideology'.

 


"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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
View matt_himself's Profile matt_himself Flag Matataland 29 Apr 15 6.21pm Send a Private Message to matt_himself Add matt_himself as a friend

Quote imbored at 29 Apr 2015 5.11pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 4.59pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 2.44pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.37pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 1.27pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 1.01pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 8.14am

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.04am

Quote Kermit8 at 28 Apr 2015 7.43pm

Matthew - what is actually wrong with saying 'n1gger' if it is in context? I saw '12 Years a Slave' recently and the term was used many, many times and it seemed appropriate given the subject matter.

You personally seem to have an issue with it being used at all no matter what.

We've had this conversation before but you never actually clarified your 100% anti-stance. Were the director of the film and the screenplay writers and the actors wrong to use the word in your opinion and if so 'why'?

Simple question - would you use the 'n' word?

You use 'bender'. Therefore one would assume that you would use other offensive words.

With regards to the cinematic usage of slurs, I am not for censorship. However, there does need to be a line drawn. Did you see Django Unchained? To me, Tarantino overused racial slurs in the film for reasons of his own knowing. Racial slurs were to me, used too frequently to be of any relevance to the story and were there to shock and create controversy to hype the film. There is therefore a glance between historical accuracy and overuse to be found.


Would I use the 'n' word? Within debate on slavery/racist ideology 'yes'. You'd have to, wouldn't you, to have a broad in-depth discussion? I have no other use for it.
No
Oh, and if you are going to try and equate the use of the 'n' word for nasty reasons and two online football fans using the word 'bender' in friendly banter and not for vicious homophobic purposes to so show some kind of perceived leftist hypocrisy.........well, off you go. Should be interesting.

Here we go again. The issue is that you and the rest of the lefty gang think it is a punishable crime for UKIP members to use words that could be construed as homophobic and yet you yourself use words that could be construed as homophobic but that's ok because of 'context' and its 'banter'.

It's hypocrisy Michael. Either you reject political correctness and use the words you have used freely & without shame, or you don't use them at all. No half measures. Your message is contradictory and nonsense.


Edited by matt_himself (29 Apr 2015 1.04pm)


That is, frankly, ridiculous. Why on earth do I have to use certain words in everyday speech down somewhere like Old Compton Street to strangers and, thus, by doing so be overtly obnoxious, threatening and nasty, just because I have used the same word in a totally benign and friendly context elsewhere?

It has to be more than just because 'you say so'.

A UKIP prospective MP, or any politician for that matter, whether they know it or not is addressing Joe Public everytime they open up their gob so can't complain if they are pulled up on any unsavoury verbals. And just because some civilian may have used the same words at another time is no kind of defence, is it? Though you seem to think it is. Strange.



You can't have it both ways and retain credibility.

If you are appalled by UKIP candidates using words you seem to be offensive to gays (you have taken great delight in pointing this out on here the UKIP 'sort') and then use similar words yourself, you are a hypocrite.

You understand this. You know this. But as you have been smoked out and have no defence, you have to keep going round in circles arguing the toss. It's sad really, Michael.


In that case , I'd better start using the words'fvck' 'cvnt' and 'sh1t' in front of my lovely old mum so I can't be accused of even more (false) hypocrisy.

Your argument is too weak to be taken seriously.

Edited by Kermit8 (29 Apr 2015 2.46pm)


Bollocks. If I called the Greens 'benders', you would be outraged.

However, it is ok for you to do so, apparently. Because it is in 'context'.

Why?

But much in the same way, you've used the word 'bender' countless times over the last couple of pages and think that's fine, but you're angry with someone else for the hypocritical context in which they use the term. Even though you deny that 'context' is a factor. Unless you're angry with yourself too?


Edited by imbored (29 Apr 2015 5.12pm)


You are talking s***e.

You know this.

The above makes no sense.

Please, explain yourself in a cogent fashion or f*** off. I don't care which.

 


"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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 29 Apr 15 6.24pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 6.19pm

Quote nickgusset at 29 Apr 2015 5.49pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 5.40pm

Quote nickgusset at 29 Apr 2015 5.29pm

Quote imbored at 29 Apr 2015 5.11pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 4.59pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 2.44pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.37pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 1.27pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 1.01pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 8.14am

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.04am

Quote Kermit8 at 28 Apr 2015 7.43pm

Matthew - what is actually wrong with saying 'n1gger' if it is in context? I saw '12 Years a Slave' recently and the term was used many, many times and it seemed appropriate given the subject matter.

You personally seem to have an issue with it being used at all no matter what.

We've had this conversation before but you never actually clarified your 100% anti-stance. Were the director of the film and the screenplay writers and the actors wrong to use the word in your opinion and if so 'why'?

Simple question - would you use the 'n' word?

You use 'bender'. Therefore one would assume that you would use other offensive words.

With regards to the cinematic usage of slurs, I am not for censorship. However, there does need to be a line drawn. Did you see Django Unchained? To me, Tarantino overused racial slurs in the film for reasons of his own knowing. Racial slurs were to me, used too frequently to be of any relevance to the story and were there to shock and create controversy to hype the film. There is therefore a glance between historical accuracy and overuse to be found.


Would I use the 'n' word? Within debate on slavery/racist ideology 'yes'. You'd have to, wouldn't you, to have a broad in-depth discussion? I have no other use for it.
No
Oh, and if you are going to try and equate the use of the 'n' word for nasty reasons and two online football fans using the word 'bender' in friendly banter and not for vicious homophobic purposes to so show some kind of perceived leftist hypocrisy.........well, off you go. Should be interesting.

Here we go again. The issue is that you and the rest of the lefty gang think it is a punishable crime for UKIP members to use words that could be construed as homophobic and yet you yourself use words that could be construed as homophobic but that's ok because of 'context' and its 'banter'.

It's hypocrisy Michael. Either you reject political correctness and use the words you have used freely & without shame, or you don't use them at all. No half measures. Your message is contradictory and nonsense.


Edited by matt_himself (29 Apr 2015 1.04pm)


That is, frankly, ridiculous. Why on earth do I have to use certain words in everyday speech down somewhere like Old Compton Street to strangers and, thus, by doing so be overtly obnoxious, threatening and nasty, just because I have used the same word in a totally benign and friendly context elsewhere?

It has to be more than just because 'you say so'.

A UKIP prospective MP, or any politician for that matter, whether they know it or not is addressing Joe Public everytime they open up their gob so can't complain if they are pulled up on any unsavoury verbals. And just because some civilian may have used the same words at another time is no kind of defence, is it? Though you seem to think it is. Strange.



You can't have it both ways and retain credibility.

If you are appalled by UKIP candidates using words you seem to be offensive to gays (you have taken great delight in pointing this out on here the UKIP 'sort') and then use similar words yourself, you are a hypocrite.

You understand this. You know this. But as you have been smoked out and have no defence, you have to keep going round in circles arguing the toss. It's sad really, Michael.


In that case , I'd better start using the words'fvck' 'cvnt' and 'sh1t' in front of my lovely old mum so I can't be accused of even more (false) hypocrisy.

Your argument is too weak to be taken seriously.

Edited by Kermit8 (29 Apr 2015 2.46pm)


Bollocks. If I called the Greens 'benders', you would be outraged.

However, it is ok for you to do so, apparently. Because it is in 'context'.

Why?

But much in the same way, you've used the word 'bender' countless times over the last couple of pages and think that's fine, but you're angry with someone else for the hypocritical context in which they use the term. Even though you deny that 'context' is a factor. Unless you're angry with yourself too?


Edited by imbored (29 Apr 2015 5.12pm)


If you called the greens benders, that's your prerogative, but you are not a campaigning prospective MP or a representative of a political party. If Natalie Bennett publicly called someone a bender it would matter as she is representing her party and under public scrutiny.

Deflection. You spineless rat.

You come across as having no scruples. Pathetic.

I pity you.


You have no grasp of this debating lark. And for that reason I'm out.
Thanks again for the pity, but it's not needed.


Second time in two days that you have ducked out early.

One can only assume that you cannot back up your flimsy 'ideology'.


687474703a2f2f6d6164656972612e686363616e65742e6f72672f70726f6a656374322f6d696368656c735f70322f77656273697465253230706963732f62656e6465722e6a7067.jpg Attachment: 687474703a2f2f6d6164656972612e686363616e65742e6f72672f70726f6a656374322f6d696368656c735f70322f77656273697465253230706963732f62656e6465722e6a7067.jpg (26.74Kb)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
TheJudge Flag 29 Apr 15 6.27pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 4.41pm

Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 4.23pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 2.58pm

Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 2.09pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 12.38pm

Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 12.16pm

This really is a tiresome argument.
Not all Germans were Nazis, not all Catholics were IRA, not all coppers are......... you get it ?
The fact is that when a terrorist group or security threat is identified as coming from a particular group then it will inevitably cast suspicion, fairly or unfairly on that group. This is about the reality of life not fairy tales. No one and I mean no one thinks all Muslims are terrorists but suspicion, and at worst paranoia, will result.
It is no wonder then that many people are concerned with the number of Muslims entering this country especially as we have already seen radicalism and terrorism in this country.
I baffles me as to why some people cannot acknowledge this simple reality.
In WW2 Germans and Italians were interned. I'm sure that the vast majority, if not all, were no threat but hindsight is a wonderful thing and had the Germans invaded Britain, I wonder what side those immigrants would have taken then ?

So what you're saying, is that its ok, because people are too ignorant to actually acknowledge the facts or go looking for them. That rather than understanding a problem its better to just denigrate 4.4% of the UK population, and increasingly alienate them as a result.

I think it is you that doesn't understand reality.

Religion is a divisive mechanism and it will succeed in doing what it sets out to do. I do not put any faith in people of faith to do what is rational. If you can base your life around what you think God wants, then I cannot trust you be rational in the real world. Simple as that.


Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.09pm)

Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.10pm)

Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.10pm)

Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.11pm)

Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.12pm)

I don't generally think its rational to assume things about individuals, based on wildly distorted images in the media. As such I expect Muslims to be like the ones I've met and known, rather than the tabloid report.

I generally reject hyperbole, hysteria and sweeping generalisations, it would be irrational to do otherwise.

I also think most people who are religious, don't actually base their life around what 'god' wants anyhow, whether they're Christian or Muslim or Hindu (presumably more complex, if your god in question is a Monkey god).

Usually people justify what they want by using religion, rather than being devout.


I accept all of that but we are not talking about the majority who may well, as you say, interpret their faith in a way that suits them rather than the other way around, we are talking about a minority who use a version of their belief to essentially control others and another group who might actually be stupid enough to believe that rhetoric.
We already have plenty of examples of people who have been turned toward radicalism and many of those were the kind of people who neither their friends or family would have suspected were capable of such attitudes.
I like your attitude toward your fellow human being and if everyone had the same attitude then we would have endless peace. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I am concerned with those who wish us harm to fulfill their own self serving agendas.

Me too, and the best way of dealing with that is to focus on those who cause harm, rather than alienating whole swarths of a community. Same as we would do with any criminal or criminal network.

I'm not sure that the whole regarding all muslims as suspects doesn't end up alienating people within those communities, resulting in them becoming radicalised. Groups like the EDL do more damage by their actions, because it causes conflict between a radical group (white far right t***s) and the muslim community, ultimately such confrontations and aggression result in people wanting to get their own back, which invariably puts them into more 'radical circles'.



I don't wish to make this a who did what argument but even though the EDL, or which ever half witted organisation you choose, are perhaps antagonists, they have not as far as I am aware, bombed any buses, blown up any buildings, beheaded or shot anyone or declared a fatwa on any writers. Let's keep this in perspective please. There are many example of British Muslims being involved in terrorism in one way or another. They live in the Muslim community and ipso facto that community is under suspicion. This is an unfortunate reality.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
imbored Flag UK 29 Apr 15 6.52pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 6.21pm

Quote imbored at 29 Apr 2015 5.11pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 4.59pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 2.44pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.37pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 1.27pm

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 1.01pm

Quote Kermit8 at 29 Apr 2015 8.14am

Quote matt_himself at 29 Apr 2015 2.04am

Quote Kermit8 at 28 Apr 2015 7.43pm

Matthew - what is actually wrong with saying 'n1gger' if it is in context? I saw '12 Years a Slave' recently and the term was used many, many times and it seemed appropriate given the subject matter.

You personally seem to have an issue with it being used at all no matter what.

We've had this conversation before but you never actually clarified your 100% anti-stance. Were the director of the film and the screenplay writers and the actors wrong to use the word in your opinion and if so 'why'?

Simple question - would you use the 'n' word?

You use 'bender'. Therefore one would assume that you would use other offensive words.

With regards to the cinematic usage of slurs, I am not for censorship. However, there does need to be a line drawn. Did you see Django Unchained? To me, Tarantino overused racial slurs in the film for reasons of his own knowing. Racial slurs were to me, used too frequently to be of any relevance to the story and were there to shock and create controversy to hype the film. There is therefore a glance between historical accuracy and overuse to be found.


Would I use the 'n' word? Within debate on slavery/racist ideology 'yes'. You'd have to, wouldn't you, to have a broad in-depth discussion? I have no other use for it.
No
Oh, and if you are going to try and equate the use of the 'n' word for nasty reasons and two online football fans using the word 'bender' in friendly banter and not for vicious homophobic purposes to so show some kind of perceived leftist hypocrisy.........well, off you go. Should be interesting.

Here we go again. The issue is that you and the rest of the lefty gang think it is a punishable crime for UKIP members to use words that could be construed as homophobic and yet you yourself use words that could be construed as homophobic but that's ok because of 'context' and its 'banter'.

It's hypocrisy Michael. Either you reject political correctness and use the words you have used freely & without shame, or you don't use them at all. No half measures. Your message is contradictory and nonsense.


Edited by matt_himself (29 Apr 2015 1.04pm)


That is, frankly, ridiculous. Why on earth do I have to use certain words in everyday speech down somewhere like Old Compton Street to strangers and, thus, by doing so be overtly obnoxious, threatening and nasty, just because I have used the same word in a totally benign and friendly context elsewhere?

It has to be more than just because 'you say so'.

A UKIP prospective MP, or any politician for that matter, whether they know it or not is addressing Joe Public everytime they open up their gob so can't complain if they are pulled up on any unsavoury verbals. And just because some civilian may have used the same words at another time is no kind of defence, is it? Though you seem to think it is. Strange.



You can't have it both ways and retain credibility.

If you are appalled by UKIP candidates using words you seem to be offensive to gays (you have taken great delight in pointing this out on here the UKIP 'sort') and then use similar words yourself, you are a hypocrite.

You understand this. You know this. But as you have been smoked out and have no defence, you have to keep going round in circles arguing the toss. It's sad really, Michael.


In that case , I'd better start using the words'fvck' 'cvnt' and 'sh1t' in front of my lovely old mum so I can't be accused of even more (false) hypocrisy.

Your argument is too weak to be taken seriously.

Edited by Kermit8 (29 Apr 2015 2.46pm)


Bollocks. If I called the Greens 'benders', you would be outraged.

However, it is ok for you to do so, apparently. Because it is in 'context'.

Why?

But much in the same way, you've used the word 'bender' countless times over the last couple of pages and think that's fine, but you're angry with someone else for the hypocritical context in which they use the term. Even though you deny that 'context' is a factor. Unless you're angry with yourself too?


Edited by imbored (29 Apr 2015 5.12pm)


You are talking s***e.

You know this.

The above makes no sense.

Please, explain yourself in a cogent fashion or f*** off. I don't care which.


Nice way to talk to someone. "talking s***e" , "f*** off". No wonder you are so bothered with others standards of behaviour, you have no standard of your own to examine.


 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
derben Flag 29 Apr 15 6.56pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 4.41pm

Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 4.23pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 2.58pm

Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 2.09pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 12.38pm

Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 12.16pm

This really is a tiresome argument.
Not all Germans were Nazis, not all Catholics were IRA, not all coppers are......... you get it ?
The fact is that when a terrorist group or security threat is identified as coming from a particular group then it will inevitably cast suspicion, fairly or unfairly on that group. This is about the reality of life not fairy tales. No one and I mean no one thinks all Muslims are terrorists but suspicion, and at worst paranoia, will result.
It is no wonder then that many people are concerned with the number of Muslims entering this country especially as we have already seen radicalism and terrorism in this country.
I baffles me as to why some people cannot acknowledge this simple reality.
In WW2 Germans and Italians were interned. I'm sure that the vast majority, if not all, were no threat but hindsight is a wonderful thing and had the Germans invaded Britain, I wonder what side those immigrants would have taken then ?

So what you're saying, is that its ok, because people are too ignorant to actually acknowledge the facts or go looking for them. That rather than understanding a problem its better to just denigrate 4.4% of the UK population, and increasingly alienate them as a result.

I think it is you that doesn't understand reality.

Religion is a divisive mechanism and it will succeed in doing what it sets out to do. I do not put any faith in people of faith to do what is rational. If you can base your life around what you think God wants, then I cannot trust you be rational in the real world. Simple as that.


Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.09pm)

Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.10pm)

Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.10pm)

Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.11pm)

Edited by TheJudge (29 Apr 2015 2.12pm)

I don't generally think its rational to assume things about individuals, based on wildly distorted images in the media. As such I expect Muslims to be like the ones I've met and known, rather than the tabloid report.

I generally reject hyperbole, hysteria and sweeping generalisations, it would be irrational to do otherwise.

I also think most people who are religious, don't actually base their life around what 'god' wants anyhow, whether they're Christian or Muslim or Hindu (presumably more complex, if your god in question is a Monkey god).

Usually people justify what they want by using religion, rather than being devout.


I accept all of that but we are not talking about the majority who may well, as you say, interpret their faith in a way that suits them rather than the other way around, we are talking about a minority who use a version of their belief to essentially control others and another group who might actually be stupid enough to believe that rhetoric.
We already have plenty of examples of people who have been turned toward radicalism and many of those were the kind of people who neither their friends or family would have suspected were capable of such attitudes.
I like your attitude toward your fellow human being and if everyone had the same attitude then we would have endless peace. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I am concerned with those who wish us harm to fulfill their own self serving agendas.

Me too, and the best way of dealing with that is to focus on those who cause harm, rather than alienating whole swarths of a community. Same as we would do with any criminal or criminal network.

I'm not sure that the whole regarding all muslims as suspects doesn't end up alienating people within those communities, resulting in them becoming radicalised. Groups like the EDL do more damage by their actions, because it causes conflict between a radical group (white far right t***s) and the muslim community, ultimately such confrontations and aggression result in people wanting to get their own back, which invariably puts them into more 'radical circles'.

This is good news; all we have to do to stop terrorism associated with Islam is to ban organisations like the EDL. Why hasn't the government realised and acted on this before instead of trying to ban the terrorists?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
legaleagle Flag 29 Apr 15 7.47pm

Quote nickgusset at 29 Apr 2014 10.33pm

We need another argument type thread.

Edited by nickgusset (29 Apr 2014 10.42pm)


Well,no one could say,275 pages on, or even just based on today's quota,that the OP has not succeeded admirably!

ps. How's about an effort all round (including me) not to post stuff including numerous prior posts?As another poster (perhaps the OP,can't remember) put it on another thread a day or two ago,it almost begins to get near psychedelic at times...

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
legaleagle Flag 29 Apr 15 8.05pm

Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 9.34am

Quote legaleagle at 29 Apr 2015 12.02am

So you interpret my words in a way that suits your agenda and then construct a very biased argument in response.
Typical.

I never said Labour engineered immigration for electoral reasons but you were obviously very sensitive about that notion. I suppose you think that migration has no effect on the political or economic landscape as people on your side of the fence normally do. How is life in La La land. ?

Forgive me for misunderstanding you when you posted as below.As for the rest of the post,see your first paragraph above...pot,kettle...shoelace?

"The Judge at 28 Apr 2015 7.04pm

Labour were hoping that the endless stream of immigrants would mean that they would win the election for ever more"

Edited by legaleagle (29 Apr 2015 8.06pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
TheJudge Flag 29 Apr 15 8.11pm

Repeating what I said doesn't alter the meaning.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
legaleagle Flag 29 Apr 15 8.16pm

Quote TheJudge at 29 Apr 2015 8.11pm

Repeating what I said doesn't alter the meaning.


Indeed

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
View johnfirewall's Profile johnfirewall Flag 29 Apr 15 8.47pm Send a Private Message to johnfirewall Add johnfirewall as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 2.19pm

Quote johnfirewall at 29 Apr 2015 1.03pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Apr 2015 11.51am

The fact that most of those being murdered by groups like IS, Al-Queda and their affiliates are Muslims themselves seems to be lost on people, who just see it as an excuse to denigrate whole swarths of a population. In fact most of those who have actually been engaged against Islamist terror are other Muslims (Kurds for example are about 80% Muslim).

By comparison, the number of westerners killed by IS and their ilk is insignificant compared to the number of other Muslims who have been killed.

At the end of the day they're killing people because they're not the same as them. Not sure how I'm meant to take comfort from that or reevaluate their motives.

Usually by separating out the people who are responsible for the crimes and autrocity, from those who aren't.


I personally don't fancy it but they're finding it pretty easy to add to their ranks from the innocent Muslims of Britain.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
View gerry theagle's Profile gerry theagle Flag newbury 29 Apr 15 10.11pm Send a Private Message to gerry theagle Add gerry theagle as a friend

Yawn !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Haven't you lot got anything better to do.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post

Topic Locked

Page 275 of 311 < 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Topic