CLOSED

12728303233164

Comments

  • edited June 2017 Posts: 4,615
    See below from the Guardian and the reference to apes matches perfectly my previous post/video concerning Muslim faith schools.When you see 98% of the society you live in believing in Darwin and yet you KNOW that to be untrue (and have done since you were a child), how angry and frustrating must that be?

    The anti-extremism organisation the Quilliam Foundation has said it reported the London Bridge attacker Khuram Butt to counter-terrorism authorities almost a year ago.

    Butt was involved in a “violent scuffle” with the foundation’s Dr Usama Hasan at a July 2016 event to mark Eid, the end of Ramadan. The organisation said that after reporting Butt they were “informed that Butt was already known to intelligence”.

    Butt, who attended the event with his wife and young son, approached Hasan, who was with his family, and accused him of being an apostate who took “government money to spy on Muslims”.

    He also attacked him for supporting gay marriage and the idea that “we come from apes”.

    A scuffle broke out and Butt lunged twice at Hassan, said the organisation.



  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    After having been 'slammed' (as an aside is 'slamming' really the action of one who advocates non violence?), I stand suitably chastened.

    I think the word 'liberal' has become a dirty word and it's meaning has become confused somewhat. I take it to mean, and it's a definition that I would apply to my own philosophy in life, that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want if it makes them happy as long as it doesn't hurt or impact on others.

    Confusion might have arisen on here by using the word 'liberal' as a catch all to describe the proponents of the multiculturalist agenda that we are all been forced to live by. There's nothing wrong with being liberal but what is wrong and needs someone to say 'enough is enough' (and sorry Teresa, it needs to be someone with a bit more clout than you before I believe anything is about to change) is the notion that multicultural equality and inclusivity etc etc takes precendence over the law of the land.

    Children having their clitoris mutilated yet no one has ever been brought to prosecution.

    Sex rings of underage teenage girls allowed to continue for years before somebody finally intervened.

    And now finally, the most sickening, fundamentalist subscriber to the PC dogma of all - TfL - employing a known jihadist and allowing him access to critical national infrastructure without the slightest of background checks (i.e. watching f**king Netflix) thereby recklessly jeapoardising the travelling public and their own staff.

    All of the above could only happen in a society, and with a government, where not offending a minority (and please note there is crucial difference between not offending and not discriminating against) is more important than protecting your citizen's wellbeing and enforcing the law.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with PC in principal but the tail has been wagging the dog for some time now and look where we are.

    Getafix wrote: »
    [quote="
    Firstly ISIS is simply not the existential threat you make it out to be. I agree we are in a long term conflict - or war - call it whatever you want. But right now ISIS are on the back foot. They're lashing out at the west because their 'caliphate' is crumbling. These attacks, no matter how horrific, aren't about to bring down the west. Look at your history books. The Germans and the IRA tried to bomb and terrorise the British into submission before and it never works. Think what we've witnessed over the last few months is horrendous? Imagine living through the Blitz or the long years of the US-backed IRA campaign in mainland Britain. The Germans had a proper army and airforce - ISIS has an Irish chef with a bread knife. All these sickos have achieved is actually to increase Britain's determination to defeat them. But don't give them the ego boost they want by making out Britain's facing it's biggest threat since 1939.

    Agree entirely with every word of that. To say these clowns are amateurs is being overly generous. The latest one attacked an armed policeman with a hammer FFS. But at the start the Nazis were a rabble and people dismissed them. Not saying that they have a chance of achieving the success of the Nazis but I think most doctors would tell you that to keep ignoring that mole on your back is not a prudent course of action because it might just mestatasise before you know it.

    How long are we going to continue sleepwalking and allow this cancer to spread unchecked?
  • Posts: 4,615
    Not to over state the threat but one of the themes that comes across is how amateur these guys are. They make little effort at going under cover and have been so open about their beleifs and convictions (national documentary, for goodness sake). If they can have this impact, imagine how bad things could be if they became profesional in their approach.

    PS in latest press conference, May has admitted that she did not watch the channel 4 documentary. A stunning thing to admit IMHO, perhaps if she had found 50 mins in her busy schedule to have a coffee and watch the programme, then we may have heard "enough is enough" earlier and these guys would have been "rounded up"
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    After having been 'slammed' (as an aside is 'slamming' really the action of one who advocates non violence?), I stand suitably chastened.

    I think the word 'liberal' has become a dirty word and it's meaning has become confused somewhat. I take it to mean, and it's a definition that I would apply to my own philosophy in life, that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want if it makes them happy as long as it doesn't hurt or impact on others.

    Confusion might have arisen on here by using the word 'liberal' as a catch all to describe the proponents of the multiculturalist agenda that we are all been forced to live by. There's nothing wrong with being liberal but what is wrong and needs someone to say 'enough is enough' (and sorry Teresa, it needs to be someone with a bit more clout than you before I believe anything is about to change) is the notion that multicultural equality and inclusivity etc etc takes precendence over the law of the land.

    Children having their clitoris mutilated yet no one has ever been brought to prosecution.

    Sex rings of underage teenage girls allowed to continue for years before somebody finally intervened.

    And now finally, the most sickening, fundamentalist subscriber to the PC dogma of all - TfL - employing a known jihadist and allowing him access to critical national infrastructure without the slightest of background checks (i.e. watching f**king Netflix) thereby recklessly jeapoardising the travelling public and their own staff.

    All of the above could only happen in a society, and with a government, where not offending a minority (and please note there is crucial difference between not offending and not discriminating against) is more important than protecting your citizen's wellbeing and enforcing the law.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with PC in principal but the tail has been wagging the dog for some time now and look where we are.

    Getafix wrote: »
    [quote="
    Firstly ISIS is simply not the existential threat you make it out to be. I agree we are in a long term conflict - or war - call it whatever you want. But right now ISIS are on the back foot. They're lashing out at the west because their 'caliphate' is crumbling. These attacks, no matter how horrific, aren't about to bring down the west. Look at your history books. The Germans and the IRA tried to bomb and terrorise the British into submission before and it never works. Think what we've witnessed over the last few months is horrendous? Imagine living through the Blitz or the long years of the US-backed IRA campaign in mainland Britain. The Germans had a proper army and airforce - ISIS has an Irish chef with a bread knife. All these sickos have achieved is actually to increase Britain's determination to defeat them. But don't give them the ego boost they want by making out Britain's facing it's biggest threat since 1939.

    Agree entirely with every word of that. To say these clowns are amateurs is being overly generous. The latest one attacked an armed policeman with a hammer FFS. But at the start the Nazis were a rabble and people dismissed them. Not saying that they have a chance of achieving the success of the Nazis but I think most doctors would tell you that to keep ignoring that mole on your back is not a prudent course of action because it might just mestatasise before you know it.

    How long are we going to continue sleepwalking and allow this cancer to spread unchecked?

    Agreed. When I speak about liberals, I am not talking about Timmy time Farron and his cronies, so much as what has been described above.

    The Nazis started out as an underground movement, largely comprised of disaffected ex WW1 veterans. Aside from a few cursory prison sentences, the activists therein were allowed to fester and grow. Despite misgivings from those then in power, nothing was done to stop them until it was too late to do anything about it.

    As I said, we are marginalising our own people in our efforts to protect the rights of those who seek to do us harm. You can only pull on a piece of elastic so far before it snaps. Look what happened in France, the FN making it to the winners podiuom. Why did this happen? Was is because all French people who voted are racist? Or is it because they are sick to the back teeth of being ignored and having their concerns swept aside and felt so backed into a corner that they had no other alternative? It is always better for the liberals to ignore such things, after all the great unwashed can never understand the intricacies of the great social and political experiments, can they?.

    I want to ask everyone in this discussion if they have been engaged in any interaction with the British general public in relation to their thoughts about how events are playing themselves out.

    I also wish to make it clear that an amateur can kill you just as well as a professional - ask the victims of Westminster/Manchester/London Bridge. The attackers there were all amateurs. Foolish to continue with this particular line.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    edited June 2017 Posts: 1,053
    patb wrote: »
    Not to over state the threat but one of the themes that comes across is how amateur these guys are. They make little effort at going under cover and have been so open about their beliefs and convictions (national documentary, for goodness sake). If they can have this impact, imagine how bad things could be if they became professional in their approach.

    PS in latest press conference, May has admitted that she did not watch the channel 4 documentary. A stunning thing to admit IMHO, perhaps if she had found 50 mins in her busy schedule to have a coffee and watch the programme, then we may have heard "enough is enough" earlier and these guys would have been "rounded up"

    They can do this not because they are stupid or amateurish, but simply because they are allowed to do so with little fear of action from the authorities. They hold all the cards in such instances and can and do play the system, not like amateurs but consummate professionals.
    Someone asked in an earlier post, why wasn't one of the PoS responsible for the latest attack arrested. I'm not even going to bother explaining why.
  • Posts: 19,339
    stag wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Not to over state the threat but one of the themes that comes across is how amateur these guys are. They make little effort at going under cover and have been so open about their beliefs and convictions (national documentary, for goodness sake). If they can have this impact, imagine how bad things could be if they became professional in their approach.

    PS in latest press conference, May has admitted that she did not watch the channel 4 documentary. A stunning thing to admit IMHO, perhaps if she had found 50 mins in her busy schedule to have a coffee and watch the programme, then we may have heard "enough is enough" earlier and these guys would have been "rounded up"

    They can do this not because they are stupid or amateurish, but simply because they are allowed to do so with little fear of action from the authorities. They hold all the cards in such instances and can and do play the system, not like amateurs but consummate professionals.
    Someone asked in an earlier post, why wasn't one of the PoS responsible for the latest attack arrested. I'm not even going to bother explaining why.

    A good example is the cowards last weekend on Saturday...they did all that shit to people,armed police kill them and make sure due to the 'fake suicide vests',and those brave brave policemen are investigated and EVERY bullet checked,to be told that they fired 49 or 50 shots and were excessive !!!!!!

    Why the fuck do we do this every time ? they were heroes ,for God's sake support and congratulate and THANK them .
  • Posts: 4,615
    "to be told that they fired 49 or 50 shots and were excessive !!!!!!"

    who said this?
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    barryt007 wrote: »
    stag wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Not to over state the threat but one of the themes that comes across is how amateur these guys are. They make little effort at going under cover and have been so open about their beliefs and convictions (national documentary, for goodness sake). If they can have this impact, imagine how bad things could be if they became professional in their approach.

    PS in latest press conference, May has admitted that she did not watch the channel 4 documentary. A stunning thing to admit IMHO, perhaps if she had found 50 mins in her busy schedule to have a coffee and watch the programme, then we may have heard "enough is enough" earlier and these guys would have been "rounded up"

    They can do this not because they are stupid or amateurish, but simply because they are allowed to do so with little fear of action from the authorities. They hold all the cards in such instances and can and do play the system, not like amateurs but consummate professionals.
    Someone asked in an earlier post, why wasn't one of the PoS responsible for the latest attack arrested. I'm not even going to bother explaining why.

    A good example is the cowards last weekend on Saturday...they did all that shit to people,armed police kill them and make sure due to the 'fake suicide vests',and those brave brave policemen are investigated and EVERY bullet checked,to be told that they fired 49 or 50 shots and were excessive !!!!!!

    Why the fuck do we do this every time ? they were heroes ,for God's sake support and congratulate and THANK them .

    Hold on a minute. You are out of order. You simply cannot thank the police. In the eyes of some people to do so would be tantamount to condoning this 'excessive' response. The police should have moved in unarmed to attempt to reason with these poor misguided souls, after all they had their reasons for mounting this attack - reasons which we should all seek to understand.

    The police shooting terrorists?! What next? A police state?!
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited June 2017 Posts: 18,271
    It's ironic. I thought this was a James Bond fan site. He never had many problems with a "shoot to kill" policy. In fact one of his adventures is called Shoot to Kill!
  • Posts: 19,339
    patb wrote: »
    "to be told that they fired 49 or 50 shots and were excessive !!!!!!"

    who said this?

    The police commissioner...it was said several times,seriously ?

    Well,its up to you if you believe me or not ...doesn't matter tbh.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    patb wrote: »
    "to be told that they fired 49 or 50 shots and were excessive !!!!!!"

    Probably in all the excitement they kind of lost track themselves. But given it was an ISIS terrorist who would hack your head clean off you have to ask yourself one question: do I feel lucky? We'll do ya punk? Or would you rather the police risked their lives and intervened and emptied a clip into him for you?

    No wonder this scum laugh at us because the one thing they are professional about is knowing just how much the police's hands are tied by our laughable system.

    The notion that someone can question your judgement in that situation would be utterly unbelievable if I didn't know full well what a joke of country we live in. No existential threat @Getafix? When you put the police under investigation for saving lives? Might as well just put out the red carpet to Downing Street and hoist the ISIS flag over Buck House ourselves. We do everything else for them.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    stag wrote: »
    Typical response - to turn everything into an argument about race in the belief that it will close down opposition. I knew that one was coming. Here's one for you to google. Look up the Muslims who fought in the SS in WW2

    Why not also look up about British people who were Pro-Nazi?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists


    No need to. I already know. What about the non Nazi British appeasers who thought it best to look the other way and allow Hitler to do what he wished? You can look them up and save me a job of explaining. Suffice to say the heads in the sand mentality prevails in many quarters today.
  • Posts: 19,339
    stag wrote: »
    stag wrote: »
    Typical response - to turn everything into an argument about race in the belief that it will close down opposition. I knew that one was coming. Here's one for you to google. Look up the Muslims who fought in the SS in WW2

    Why not also look up about British people who were Pro-Nazi?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists


    No need to. I already know. What about the non Nazi British appeasers who thought it best to look the other way and allow Hitler to do what he wished? You can look them up and save me a job of explaining. Suffice to say the heads in the sand mentality prevails in many quarters today.

    The biggest wimp of all being the bloody PM Chamberlain.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited June 2017 Posts: 18,271
    barryt007 wrote: »
    stag wrote: »
    stag wrote: »
    Typical response - to turn everything into an argument about race in the belief that it will close down opposition. I knew that one was coming. Here's one for you to google. Look up the Muslims who fought in the SS in WW2

    Why not also look up about British people who were Pro-Nazi?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists


    No need to. I already know. What about the non Nazi British appeasers who thought it best to look the other way and allow Hitler to do what he wished? You can look them up and save me a job of explaining. Suffice to say the heads in the sand mentality prevails in many quarters today.

    The biggest wimp of all being the bloody PM Chamberlain.

    Though Chamberlain did win Britain one year from Munich in 1938 until the outbreak of war in 1939 to rearm and that was a vital component in the eventual Allied victory in WWII.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    stag wrote: »
    stag wrote: »
    Typical response - to turn everything into an argument about race in the belief that it will close down opposition. I knew that one was coming. Here's one for you to google. Look up the Muslims who fought in the SS in WW2

    Why not also look up about British people who were Pro-Nazi?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists




    No need to. I already know. What about the non Nazi British appeasers who thought it best to look the other way and allow Hitler to do what he wished? You can look them up and save me a job of explaining. Suffice to say the heads in the sand mentality prevails in many quarters today.

    The biggest wimp of all being the bloody PM Chamberlain.

    Though Chamberlaib did win Britain one year from Munich in 1938 until the outbreak of war in 1939 to rearm though and that was a vital component in the eventual Allied victory in WWII.

    With no idea he just prolonged a war by one year...he was just being basically political ,no other reason.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I must say that the recent revelations about this 'Butt' hole have been quite disturbing, particularly the fact that he may have had access to the tunnels under Parliament while under the employ of the TfL. If true, I hope they are scouring the area thoroughly for potential explosives. The Channel 4 documentary entitled "The Jihadis Next Door" was watched by approximately 1.2m people (but surprisingly not the prime minister). Despite the revelations in it, The Met apparently did not formally request footage or information from the film makers. Why, I wonder?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/06/channel-4-police-did-not-request-footage-jihadis-next-door

    Furthermore, it appears that Butt was a disciple of Anjem Choudary, who along with Abu Izzadeen were students of Omar Bakri Muhammad. All have been responsible for a lot of the hate speech and incitement over the past few years. I include below a youtube video of Choudary & Izzadeen's Islamic Roadshow indoctrination initiative from a few years back.



    I also came across this unfortunate youtube video of an altercation in East London in early 2017 between a few Christian protesters (a man and a woman) and a group of Muslim male protesters. What's rather interesting is at 3:05 to 4:30, the town councillor (a Muslim) arrives on the scene and tries to break up the protests. He shakes the man's hand but refuses to do the same to the woman, which I was troubled to see, given he is an elected official.



    There's a lot of work to be done societally it seems, particularly in these neighbourhoods with large muslim populations.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,255
    stag wrote: »

    Your 'choice of the people' Trump has just financed the next twenty years of suicide bombers and terrorist attacks with a 110 billion (!!!!!) military contract with the Saoudi's. But I guess that's the liberal's fault as well.

    So you're blaming the innocnt and marching with the culprits.

    The last sentence says it all. Okay then - just because I don't march to the happy clappy, love thy enemy tune that you people espouse, I am a Trump/Farage (even Le Penn?) supporter? Someone who is seduced by the simplistic message of the 'populists'?

    Again, a response which is both typical and predictable. By the way, you never said (out loud anyway) 'drooling backwoods racist', I did. Though you just confirmed your thoughts with that same last sentence.

    You people really need to see what is creeping up behind you. [/quote]

    So after an elaborate statement in which I clearly point out that those damned by you liberals are not responsible for what you hold them responsible for, you misiterpret the last sentence and say I think you're a racist. How on earth are you going to fight your enemies if you can't destenguish friend from foe?
    It's the Trumps of this world that have been financing, and are friends with the biggest terrorist-funders ever on the face of this planet! People (you, in the general sense of the word) vote for him out of fear of islamic terrorists. How's that not marching with the culprits?

    I never stated you are a racist, nor did I say I believe Trump voters are racist. I think they're mislead, that's for sure, and I tried to point it out. But these days, If you try to make people see just a little bit further, you're a 'whimp liberal' who's afraid of fighting.
    Even though, again, I can easily point out that no liberals were part of that pc culture you so vehemently dispise.
    stag wrote: »
    @CommanderRoss. Could I please ask how much doorstepping you have done? By this I mean asking the British electorate their views on political matters which are most important to them. FYI I spent a lot of my spare time campaigning for Brexit in the run up to the referendum - and no I am not and never have been a member of UKIP (I have never belonged to any political party)

    Seeing as you state that I have no grasp of the political landscape, I'd be most interested to learn of your own first hand experience of the matters I raise. Surely, if you have been out and about meeting people, then you would concur on the concerns I raised about how the indigenous population are feeling increasingly marginalised?

    Thank you.

    As I live in The Netherlands I've not been doorstepping in the UK, but I did do it many times for a democratic party here, of which I'd been a member for a decade or so. Left them because i think they're too much on the European super state tour, which I find highly concearning. I was actually happy with the Brexit. I think it's a clear sign to Europe's elites that people want their own say and they're fed up with politicians bought by lobby groups. I like the cooperation in Europe, and the single market, but the Euro was a political experiment waiting to fail.

    @Wizard I never said I was not all for violent intervention, I've said it's important we keep on doing it by the book, for if we don't, we lose what we're fighting for. I am actually in faqvour of occupying not only Libia, but Iraq and Afghanisatan as well, in the same way Germany and Japan were, but that would cost such a military effort, nobody here is willing to pay for. Oddly enough.

    The French seem to have gotten the right idea at last:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4555454/France-enlists-Iraqi-soldiers-hunt-French-fanatics.html
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    My replies in bold, within the body of the text below:
    bondjames wrote: »
    I must say that the recent revelations about this 'Butt' hole have been quite disturbing, particularly the fact that he may have had access to the tunnels under Parliament while under the employ of the TfL. If true, I hope they are scouring the area thoroughly for potential explosives. The Channel 4 documentary entitled "The Jihadis Next Door" was watched by approximately 1.2m people (but surprisingly not the prime minister). Despite the revelations in it, The Met apparently did not formally request footage or information from the film makers. Why, I wonder?

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when the media is looking for anyone to blame and can never be fully aware of operational details surrounding such matters. Most likely (and I'm only guessing here) the request was possibly asked to be formalised,
    but those overseeing - after liaising with other specialist bodies - calculated it held nothing of evidential value and/or it's request may somehow compromise ongoing operations by the security services. This issue is multi faceted and not as simplistic as it may first seem. There is, however, also the possibility that there was a simple cock up somewhere along the line. When the SB/MI5 are attempting to juggle thousands of balls at any one time, it is likely they will drop one.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/06/channel-4-police-did-not-request-footage-jihadis-next-door

    Furthermore, it appears that Butt was a disciple of Anjem Choudary, who along with Abu Izzadeen were students of Omar Bakri Muhammad. All have been responsible for a lot of the hate speech and incitement over the past few years.

    Ah, Anjem Choudary. I'm glad someone brought his name up. Although he was eventually gaoled, his case illustrates perfectly the tremendous leeway such people are given as a result of our vacuous laws and the prevailing attitudes of the liberalists. Here is footage of Choudrary's terror group (yes, it was eventually made a proscribed terror organisation) in action:



    The full weight of British law was thrown against some of the perpetrators, this was the result:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/07/muslim-extremist-fined-for-poppy-burning

    Obviously, the penalties incurred was enough to steer those responsible away from extremism. In contrast, some men who threw a pigs head into a mosque was given the following punishment

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2839436/Four-men-jailed-throwing-pig-s-head-mosque-aftermath-murder-Lee-Rigby-despite-pleas-leniency-forgiving-imam.html

    Now I am not defending this action, I am saying that acts which are designed to cause harm and distress - specifically in these two cases - should attract the same punishment. Is it any wonder the British people are increasingly pissed off?



  • Posts: 11,425
    After having been 'slammed' (as an aside is 'slamming' really the action of one who advocates non violence?), I stand suitably chastened.

    I think the word 'liberal' has become a dirty word and it's meaning has become confused somewhat. I take it to mean, and it's a definition that I would apply to my own philosophy in life, that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want if it makes them happy as long as it doesn't hurt or impact on others.

    Confusion might have arisen on here by using the word 'liberal' as a catch all to describe the proponents of the multiculturalist agenda that we are all been forced to live by. There's nothing wrong with being liberal but what is wrong and needs someone to say 'enough is enough' (and sorry Teresa, it needs to be someone with a bit more clout than you before I believe anything is about to change) is the notion that multicultural equality and inclusivity etc etc takes precendence over the law of the land.

    Children having their clitoris mutilated yet no one has ever been brought to prosecution.

    Sex rings of underage teenage girls allowed to continue for years before somebody finally intervened.

    And now finally, the most sickening, fundamentalist subscriber to the PC dogma of all - TfL - employing a known jihadist and allowing him access to critical national infrastructure without the slightest of background checks (i.e. watching f**king Netflix) thereby recklessly jeapoardising the travelling public and their own staff.

    All of the above could only happen in a society, and with a government, where not offending a minority (and please note there is crucial difference between not offending and not discriminating against) is more important than protecting your citizen's wellbeing and enforcing the law.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with PC in principal but the tail has been wagging the dog for some time now and look where we are.

    Getafix wrote: »
    [quote="
    Firstly ISIS is simply not the existential threat you make it out to be. I agree we are in a long term conflict - or war - call it whatever you want. But right now ISIS are on the back foot. They're lashing out at the west because their 'caliphate' is crumbling. These attacks, no matter how horrific, aren't about to bring down the west. Look at your history books. The Germans and the IRA tried to bomb and terrorise the British into submission before and it never works. Think what we've witnessed over the last few months is horrendous? Imagine living through the Blitz or the long years of the US-backed IRA campaign in mainland Britain. The Germans had a proper army and airforce - ISIS has an Irish chef with a bread knife. All these sickos have achieved is actually to increase Britain's determination to defeat them. But don't give them the ego boost they want by making out Britain's facing it's biggest threat since 1939.

    Agree entirely with every word of that. To say these clowns are amateurs is being overly generous. The latest one attacked an armed policeman with a hammer FFS. But at the start the Nazis were a rabble and people dismissed them. Not saying that they have a chance of achieving the success of the Nazis but I think most doctors would tell you that to keep ignoring that mole on your back is not a prudent course of action because it might just mestatasise before you know it.

    How long are we going to continue sleepwalking and allow this cancer to spread unchecked?

    Yes 'liberal' means lots of things to lots of different people, and has different connotations in the US and UK. Its' probably not a terribly helpful term.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    It's the Trumps of this world that have been financing, and are friends with the biggest terrorist-funders ever on the face of this planet!
    @CommanderRoss, it's important to consider that cozying up to the world's most notorious terrorist funders and unelected despots is not only a crime of the right. I used to think like that as well (particularly when I was younger and during the ruinous Bush years), until I realized that both sides of the aisle are as crooked as the other (both in the US & the UK).

    Obama was as much a lackey for the cancerous military/defense/intelligence establishment as Bush was. He just went about it with a softer tone and far more nuanced & impressive (not hard to do in comparison to Bush) vocabulary. I would contend that he was actually more duplicitous as a result. He is the one who shamelessly bowed before the Saudis after all (not to mention instrumental in destabilizing Libya). That Nobel Peace Prize should be returned with immediate effect.

    Let's not forget also that it was Tony Blair who, more than anyone, sold the case for the Iraq War.
  • Posts: 1,031
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's the Trumps of this world that have been financing, and are friends with the biggest terrorist-funders ever on the face of this planet!
    @CommanderRoss, it's important to consider that cozying up to the world's most notorious terrorist funders and unelected despots is not only a crime of the right. I used to think like that as well (particularly when I was younger and during the ruinous Bush years), until I realized that both sides of the aisle are as crooked as the other (both in the US & the UK).

    Obama was as much a lackey for the cancerous military/defense/intelligence establishment as Bush was. He just went about it with a softer tone and far more nuanced & impressive (not hard to do in comparison to Bush) vocabulary. I would contend that he was actually more duplicitous as a result. He is the one who shamelessly bowed before the Saudis after all (not to mention instrumental in destabilizing Libya). That Nobel Peace Prize should be returned with immediate effect.

    Let's not forget also that it was Tony Blair who, more than anyone, sold the case for the Iraq War.

    Tony Bliar - the Conservative neo-liberal labour man.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    stag wrote: »
    My replies in bold, within the body of the text below:
    bondjames wrote: »
    Furthermore, it appears that Butt was a disciple of Anjem Choudary, who along with Abu Izzadeen were students of Omar Bakri Muhammad. All have been responsible for a lot of the hate speech and incitement over the past few years.

    Ah, Anjem Choudary. I'm glad someone brought his name up. Although he was eventually gaoled, his case illustrates perfectly the tremendous leeway such people are given as a result of our vacuous laws and the prevailing attitudes of the liberalists. Here is footage of Choudrary's terror group (yes, it was eventually made a proscribed terror organisation) in action:



    The full weight of British law was thrown against some of the perpetrators, this was the result:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/mar/07/muslim-extremist-fined-for-poppy-burning
    What they did was unacceptable and disrespectful, because they were targeting the soldiers who died for their country. These servicemen/women were just doing their patriotic duty, and paid for it with their lives. Moreover, the event commemorates all soldiers, including those who died for noble wars to protect the homeland.

    The ones they should have been targeting with their protests are the politicians who got them involved in the most recent military escapades, as well as those who sanction continued military excursions and arms sales to unelected regimes.
  • Posts: 4,615
    The overall picture is a horrible mess. The large, long term issues are being swept under the table and the short term solutions offer nothing new or imaginative plus the usual platitudes ("enough is enough", "we stand together" "a religion of peace" etc etc),

    I cant see any reason for it not to continue.
  • Posts: 11,425
    stag wrote: »
    My reply in bold within the body of the text:

    Getafix wrote: »
    stag wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »

    We either believe in a free and open society and defend it or we don't, in which case martial law, internment, extrajudicial killing, government without judicial oversight and targeting of specific religious groups etc is all on the table. That's not a world I want to live in

    That's the world you are going to get once ISIS or whoever takes their place, wins this war.

    Yes, war - I know the word upsets the more sensitive souls here - but that's what it is. During WW2 many personal freedoms were sacrificed. Those same freedoms were re-established once the war had been won. BTW it wasn't the liberals who won our freedom, but people like my father and the parents/grandparents of many here. They fought against fascism. Todays war is a war against fascism, but a different kid of fascism, religious fascism.

    Liberalism once again riding to the defence of our enemies? I'll personally pay the air fare of anyone here who wishes to put their money where their mouth is and fly out to Syria, meet up with ISIS and attempt to broker a peace settlement. Let's see how far you get in your negotiations.

    Sorry but this is straightforward nonsense. What are you wittering on about?

    You need to step out from the world you inhabit and into the real one, you will find it an education. Unfortunately, it's not all the sweetness and light you might think it to be

    Firstly ISIS is simply not the existential threat you make it out to be. I agree we are in a long term conflict - or war - call it whatever you want. But right now ISIS are on the back foot. They're lashing out at the west because their 'caliphate' is crumbling. These attacks, no matter how horrific, aren't about to bring down the west. Look at your history books. The Germans and the IRA tried to bomb and terrorise the British into submission before and it never works. Think what we've witnessed over the last few months is horrendous? Imagine living through the Blitz or the long years of the US-backed IRA campaign in mainland Britain. The Germans had a proper army and airforce - ISIS has an Irish chef with a bread knife. All these sickos have achieved is actually to increase Britain's determination to defeat them. But don't give them the ego boost they want by making out Britain's facing it's biggest threat since 1939.

    I need to read my history books? No need to old boy, I was there, part of it (The IRA thing I mean) from the counter terrorist perspective - I wonder where were you serving at this time?. I know it hurts - most likely because to acknowledge the fact that we are facing a new war against fascism it to acknowledge that your crackpot (the liberalists) ideoligies are largely responsible for it.

    I wonder what all the victims of ISIS inspired Islamist extremist terror attacks, and indeed the families of those who have been killed will make of your statement - I'm sure they would consider it at best deeply disrespectful. Of course terrorism is not a threat - how stupid of me to think so. Let's all hold hands ans sing the coca cola song shall we? I'm sure that[/b]

    Secondly, the war against fascism in WW2 wasn't fought and won by specific sections of society, or by those of one political tendency or another, but by the entire populations of actually very diverse countries like the UK, US and USSR. In the UK people of all walks of life, political tendencies etc. fought and worked alongside each other to defeat fascism.

    What you're saying is frankly (although I'm sure you don't intend it to be ) deeply disrespectful to the millions of men and women who fought for their country in WW2.

    You don't say? I was responding to your fellow libreals remark "it's the liberals that made your freedoms possible". I may have misinterpreted this, but thought it was directed at those who fought in WW2. It is going to take all people from all sections of society to defeat this new fascism

    I suggest you also pause for a minute to consider that millions of men from the British colonies who volunteered to fight for Britain during WW2 as well - and tens of thousands of them were Muslims. A lot died for this country, not that anyone ever thought to thank them for it. i don't know what silly little political category you'd put them in. They probably weren't 'liberals' as you'd define it. It wasn't until 2002 we built the Commonwealth Memorial Gates on Constitution Hill, and even that frankly rather disrespectfully just lumps all the 'darkies' in together. The Animals in War memorial opened soon after in 2004 in Hyde Park.

    Typical response - to turn everything into an argument about race in the belief that it will close down opposition. I knew that one was coming. Here's one for you to google. Look up the Muslims who fought in the SS in WW2



    I'm afraid with all due respect that I have to take claims of security service involvement with a slight pinch of salt. Not saying you're not telling the truth, but this is an online Bond forum.

    Not sure where I said the world was all sweetness and light but happy for you to point it out. I think the point I was making, and which you're clearly disputing, is that ISIS and Islamists in general don't represent the same threat to the UK that Hitler did. I think you're massively exaggerating the threat they pose by making this false comparison. A more appropriate comparison might be between ISIS and the far left extremist groups of the 1970s. ISIS are more dangerous, but I'd still say they're more of that ilk than the Nazis.

    The word 'liberal' means a lot of different things to different people. I think you need to expand on precisely what you mean by it. I'd argue that a lot of 'conservatives' are actually really liberals or neo-liberals. Bush's invasion of Iraq was a liberal act, not a conservative one, because he was trying to radically realign the politics of the Middle East, in a way no real conservative would ever countenance. So perhaps we are closer to agreeing on this than you think.

    I wasn't talking about race, but rather the historical fact (which most Brits are unaware of or don't want to acknowledge) that millions of men from all over the Commonwealth, including Muslims, fought for Britain during it's hour of greatest need.
  • IGotTheMessageIGotTheMessage United States
    Posts: 194
    RC7 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    It has to start somewhere......


    I was saying the other day, I'd ban faith schools, full stop. No matter the religion, it has no place in the education system imo, none whatsoever. If your parents are determined to feed you this outdated horse shit, so be it, but the state should not be entertaining this nonsense in 2017, quite frankly.

    Sub it out and replace it with Mental Health education. If Physical education has a place on the curriculum the same should be true of mental health studies. I'm sick to the back teeth of reading about these fairy stories when we have a serious mental health epidemic.

    And for the record, before some apologist attempts to twist my words - I'm not saying this is how terrorism begins, or even linking the two - what I'm saying is let's get to a point where we converse and interact with each other on a truly humane level. Let's phase out this divisive unnecessary dogma, that creates boundaries and enslaves the mind.

    Let's stop normalising bullshit and allowing patronising arseholes to preach the 'only truth', in schools, no less.

    Very well said Sir.

    It's actually time to go a step further and, as Dawkins suggests, actually call it child abuse to feed this bullshit to your child.

    If when someone turns 18 they want to sign up for this infantile drivel then fair enough, but I bet you'd find those who were educated properly and weren't indoctrinated when toddlers who then got to 18 and decided to take up religion would be less than 1%.


    I am not entirely convinced that that is accurate. You can deride me for it if you would like to, but the fact is that I was not raised in a particularly religious household (although my mother is a Catholic) and I stopped attending church around the age of six or so and became a non-believer. It was not until my late teens that I, essentially independently, became a Christian. Granted, there was probably some familiarity there as my mother had taken me to Catholic Church as a small child, but I nonetheless went and pursued my faith very much on my own accord. Furthermore, while become a Christian, I did not become a Catholic.

    I am sure that there are plenty of people who have experiences somewhat similar to mine. Furthermore, I would push back on the notion that that would make me unelectable to public office because there is a very substantial difference between me being candid about how I have decided to live my life and either gloating about it or insisting that you live yours as I would proscribe to you.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 4,615
    The point re liberalism is worth discussing. IMHO 99% of us are liberals. But the issue has been that there are liberals who seek to avoid confrontation at almost any cost and seem to think that we can have free speech whilst, at the same time, not offend anyone. Plus they avoid hard debates (they seek to protect gay rights and also Muslim rights when most Mulsims are anti-gay - you cant have both)
    And then we have have "liberals with back bone" who also value free speech etc and are prepared to fight for it and admit that people will be offended by free speech and its just tough (Hitchins was the obvious answer)

    This may seem a weird example but, some of the movies of C Eastood are perfect examples. many liberals have criticised these movies as being far right and this has become a cliche but, if you look at the moral, Eastwoods characters are forced to use force in order to protect the rights of the communities (often minority groups): Dirty Harry, Josey Wales, Kowalski (Grand Torino). Getting angry and using force to protect the rights of the community is still a liberal thing to do IMHO
  • Posts: 1,031
    During the miners' strikes and green protest movements MI5 and Special Branch used undercover officers - hope they are with jihadis.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    The point re liberalism is worth discussing. IMHO 99% of us are liberals. But the issue has been that there are liberals who seek to avoid confrontation at almost any cost and seem to think that we can have free speech whilst, at the same time, not offend anyone. Plus they avoid hard debates (they seek to protect gay rights and also Muslim rights when most Mulsims are anti-gay - you cant have both)
    And then we have have "liberals with back bone" who also value free speech etc and are prepared to fight for it and admit that people will be offended by free speech and its just tough (Hitchins was the obvious answer)
    I agree with you, but I think you have to take it one step further. I don't mind someone not subscribing to a view of life (even if that means not being comfortable with homosexuality). I am of the view that people should be free to think what they want to think and don't presume to force them to do anything.

    However, I expect them to educate themselves and more importantly, I believe Govt. Policy should be structured in a manner to discourage backward views. In time, that is the only way to change those views from within and make people more tolerant of alternative perspectives & ways of life. That means no faith based schools for instance. That also means ensuring that people who criticize Govt. policy (which is their right in a free society) do so in a measured tone without inciting hatred, violence & mistrust.

    I also take issue when anyone attempts to impose their view on others.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 4,615
    Yes, agree but how can the establishment support self education and forward looking views when we have a PM who whose dad was a vicar, we have Bishops in the Lords, we have the media who seek the advice and comments of religious leaders when the poo hits the fan, we have politicians who react to disasters of all sorts by praying , "pray for Manchester" etc etc,

    Someone mentioned before about learning from our own history. One thing we do know is that religions dont like change and they reject scientific advances. The World and his dog know that Darwin was right, it's just scientific fact...but not if you are a traditional Muslim.

    the sky fairy has to go, simple as that.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    Yes, agree but how can the establishment support self education and forward looking views when we have a PM who whose dad was a vicar, we have Bishops in the Lords, we have the media who seek the advice and comments of religious leaders when the poo hits the fan, we have politicians who react to disasters of all sorts by praying , "pray for Manchester" etc etc,

    the sky fairy has to go, simple as that.
    I believe you're right. It certainly doesn't help matters and only sows the seeds of division between communities (particularly those who don't subscribe to the same faith beliefs). There is no room for 'organized faith' in official public discourse. That is something that is best done in private or within communities but shouldn't be part of any official policy, in my opinion. We shouldn't be encouraging religious adoption in any way officially.
This discussion has been closed.