Terrorist Attacks - WARNING: CONTAINS DISTRESSING IMAGES

[CB Fry]

I am sorry but I didn't realise that it was a close discussion and that we could only discuss Muslims in total isolation.

 

I think it is absolutely critical to the discussion that we cover British attitudes to homosexuality 50 years ago as part of the debate. Thank heavens you've brought that up. If only Trevor Phillips had written a report on that instead of bothering to survey a sample group of Muslims living right now in British contemporary society then I think we'd all understand that there are no issues after all and that's fine. People said queer and woofter in the seventies you know. Disgusting and no mistake.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I am sorry but I didn't realise that it was a close discussion and that we could only discuss Muslims in total isolation.

 

Well apparently some on here really don't approve of any attempt to put the problem of terrorism, violence and intolerance into any type of wider context - presumably because they are simple souls and being asked to think about two things at once causes them some kind of brain ache.

 

But enough of all that stuff - let's move on and discuss nativity plays.

[badgerx16]

http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-30/personal-relationships/homosexuality.aspx

 

Edited 12 April, 2016 by badgerx16

[CB Fry]

Well apparently some on here really don't approve of any attempt to put the problem of terrorism, violence and intolerance into any type of wider context - presumably because they are simple souls and being asked to think about two things at once causes them some kind of brain ache.

 

But enough of all that stuff - let's move on and discuss nativity plays.

 

Or, dopey saps desperately scrabbling around to talk about anything, anything, anything else except the issues. So we end up in SOG's grab bag of random things that have happened in history. Today: attitudes to homosexuality in the sixties.

 

Awfully helpful that's been brought up for us simple souls. You're jolly clever and everything because your rambling on about how the Nazis were like all Christian really, really shed light on the issues at hand.

 

I imagine governments, the UN, the EU, Faith leaders and Charities and NGOs when they come together to discuss this issue probably spend 80 or 90% of their time talking about Christian atrocities through history and stuff Katie Hopkins said to help them solve this global problem. Because that's how awfully clever you guys are. Us simple souls will never be able to workat your level.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Or, dopey saps desperately scrabbling around to talk about anything, anything, anything else except the issues. So we end up in SOG's grab bag of random things that have happened in history. Today: attitudes to homosexuality in the sixties.

 

Awfully helpful that's been brought up for us simple souls. You're jolly clever and everything because your rambling on about how the Nazis were like all Christian really, really shed light on the issues at hand.

 

I imagine governments, the UN, the EU, Faith leaders and Charities and NGOs when they come together to discuss this issue probably spend 80 or 90% of their time talking about Christian atrocities through history and stuff Katie Hopkins said to help them solve this global problem. Because that's how awfully clever you guys are. Us simple souls will never be able to workat your level.

 

But what has any of this to do with the nativity play problem you so astutely raised this morning?

[hypochondriac]

But what has any of this to do with the nativity play problem you so astutely raised this morning?

I think if you can be bothered to check the post history, it was soggy who brought all of that up. Always worth mentioning it every now and again for the comedy value.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I think if you can be bothered to check the post history, it was soggy who brought all of that up. Always worth mentioning it every now and again for the comedy value.

 

I'd be much obliged if you would please remind me of the gist of this point because if I ever read it I've long forgotten.

[whelk]

I'd be much obliged if you would please remind me of the gist of this point because if I ever read it I've long forgotten.

 

I think SOG was planning to shoot up a nativity play shouting 'Hopkins Akbar' but we talked him round

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I think SOG was planning to shoot up a nativity play shouting 'Hopkins Akbar' but we talked him round

 

Well he is clearly a very dangerous man then who must be stopped

[hypochondriac]

I'd be much obliged if you would please remind me of the gist of this point because if I ever read it I've long forgotten.

It was when soggy maintained that Hopkins was likely to be a Christian because she went to a nativity her child was in and proclaimed herself the modern day Jesus christ. He was roundly derided at the time and continues to be every so often when he tries to defend those claims.

[CB Fry]

But what has any of this to do with the nativity play problem you so astutely raised this morning?

I didn't "raise" any nativity play "problem" this morning, I mentioned it in passing in addition to another point about Trevor Phillips. As others have said it was a back reference to one of my favourite running gags on this forum, SOG.

 

Funny, I thought you weren't one of those "simple souls" who can't manage to think about two things at once but turns out you are after all. I'll type more slowly in the future for you.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Thank you very muchly.

 

I'm having one of my alarming 'senior moments' here because I don't really know who Katie Hopkins is, let alone feel able to pontificate on her religious beliefs. Something tells me even if I did know her this point is unlikley to get us very far.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I didn't "raise" any nativity play "problem" this morning, I mentioned it in passing in addition to another point about Trevor Phillips. As others have said it was a back reference to one of my favourite running gags on this forum, SOG.

 

Funny, I thought you weren't one of those "simple souls" who can't manage to think about two things at once but turns out you are after all. I'll type more slowly in the future for you.

 

You don't have to type more slowly matey as I've just had my broadband speed increased by those nice people at Virgin Media. But thanks anyway for this show of concern for my welfare - we so seldom see this kind side to your nature.

[hypochondriac]

Thank you very muchly.

 

I'm having one of my alarming 'senior moments' here because I don't really know who Katie Hopkins is, let alone feel able to pontificate on her religious beliefs. Something tells me even if I did know her this point is unlikley to get us very far.

Probably better that way. I had no interest in her at all until soggy brought her up in another futile attempt to avoid discussing Islamic extremism.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Probably better that way. I had no interest in her at all until soggy brought her up in another futile attempt to avoid discussing Islamic extremism.

 

He's a bad man.

[hypochondriac]

He's a bad man.

Not bad. Deluded, a bit simple and confused maybe.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Not bad. Deluded, a bit simple and confused maybe.

 

Generous to a fault as ever my dear hypo.

 

I say shooting is too good for his type

[hypochondriac]

Generous to a fault as ever my dear hypo.

 

I say shooting is too good for his type

I'd prefer to send him into Syria with a remit to negotiate with IS just using his words. He'd be killed before you can say Christian atrocity.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I'd prefer to send him into Syria with a remit to negotiate with IS just using his words. He'd be killed before you can say Christian atrocity.

 

Well I can only agree now I know how appallingly he has treated this Katie women - the poor little mare has enough to deal with being married to Peter Andre and hauling those enmorous knockers around all day without any of this crapola.

 

Shame.

[badgerx16]

Well I can only agree now I know how appallingly he has treated this Katie women - the poor little mare has enough to deal with being married to Peter Andre and hauling those enmorous knockers around all day without any of this crapola.

 

Shame.

 

Wrong Katie methinks.

[sadoldgit]

Ah, how sweet. Hypo and his mentor posting together again. You guys need to get a room.

[sadoldgit]

It was when soggy maintained that Hopkins was likely to be a Christian because she went to a nativity her child was in and proclaimed herself the modern day Jesus christ. He was roundly derided at the time and continues to be every so often when he tries to defend those claims.

 

Roundly derided by you and your mentor so hardly counts for anything does it? Once again you twist something to try and make yourself look clever but fail miserably. Once again and just for you because you really are one of the most stupid posters on here -

 

I assumed Katy Hopkins was a "Christian" because if a number of reasons. The main reason was that she was educated in a convent school. Maybe I was wrong and perhaps they educated her as a Muslim or a Jew. Who knows. She references Jesus on a number of occasions (not Buddha or Mohammed etc). The nativity issue came about because she had a bit of a spat with Andrew Neill about how she was still able to take her children to the Nativity play at school (you know, the thing that celebrates the birth of the son of God). This came about in one of her many anti Muslim rants.

 

I may be wrong. She might not be a Christian but she was raised as one. I am not wrong about her anti Muslim sentiments as they have been widely published. Interesting that the likes of Fry and his sidekick Hypo are not in the least bit bothered about her vile outpourings as they are about taking the **** out of moderates. Fry seemed to think it was more important in getting me to name the racists on this thread rather than deal with them himself. Hypo wouldn't go there until either for quite some time but has done recently, only now to revert to type and go back to picking at moderates again.

 

CB Fry has all the traits of a kid that was bullied at school and has now turned into an internet troll in an effort to make himself feel better about himself and get his own back. His sidekick Hypo looks like he is well on the spectrum and there is some serious stuff going on there as evidenced in his alter ego posts on another related forum. I would give it up mate. As much as you try and impress your mentor you will never be as unpleasant as him, even with your going to Syria and getting killed stuff.

[hypochondriac]

Ah, how sweet. Hypo and his mentor posting together again. You guys need to get a room.

As you like stats so much- as a percentage, how many of our posts do you think have been after one another? I'd guess a very small number. If you want to pretend that the few times we happen to post together and agree we are actually carrying out a pre-prepared plan then go ahead. It will make you look silly again but if you want to believe it then you can.

[hypochondriac]

Roundly derided by you and your mentor so hardly counts for anything does it? Once again you twist something to try and make yourself look clever but fail miserably. Once again and just for you because you really are one of the most stupid posters on here -

 

I assumed Katy Hopkins was a "Christian" because if a number of reasons. The main reason was that she was educated in a convent school. Maybe I was wrong and perhaps they educated her as a Muslim or a Jew. Who knows. She references Jesus on a number of occasions (not Buddha or Mohammed etc). The nativity issue came about because she had a bit of a spat with Andrew Neill about how she was still able to take her children to the Nativity play at school (you know, the thing that celebrates the birth of the son of God). This came about in one of her many anti Muslim rants.

 

I may be wrong. She might not be a Christian but she was raised as one. I am not wrong about her anti Muslim sentiments as they have been widely published. Interesting that the likes of Fry and his sidekick Hypo are not in the least bit bothered about her vile outpourings as they are about taking the **** out of moderates. Fry seemed to think it was more important in getting me to name the racists on this thread rather than deal with them himself. Hypo wouldn't go there until either for quite some time but has done recently, only now to revert to type and go back to picking at moderates again.

 

CB Fry has all the traits of a kid that was bullied at school and has now turned into an internet troll in an effort to make himself feel better about himself and get his own back. His sidekick Hypo looks like he is well on the spectrum and there is some serious stuff going on there as evidenced in his alter ego posts on another related forum. I would give it up mate. As much as you try and impress your mentor you will never be as unpleasant as him, even with your going to Syria and getting killed stuff.

 

See this is when you look really silly. You realise that not everyone whose children attend a religious school are actually religious right? I should know as I attended one. You also used her saying she was Jesus christ as evidence of her Christianity, hilariously failing to realise that that would be the absolute opposite of what a Christian would do. I organise and attend about 8 nativities a year which are attended by about 100 relatives each. Astoundingly, the vast majority are not Christian. Who knew that attending a nativity is not proof that you are a Christian but rather that you want to see little Freddie dressed as a donkey. Amazing.

 

Regarding Katie Hopkins herself I am not in the least hit interested in what she has to say. As I have told you before I haven't really given her a second thought until you tried to bring her up as a tactic to avoid discussing Islamic extremism. I expect most of what she says is in service of her brand which has made her pretty successful but I would prefer not to discuss her views too much because she gets enough column inches as it is. I'll tell you again, it's not taking the p*ss out of moderates, it's calling an idiot out when he makes idiotic comments, there is a big difference.

 

I wouldn't lower myself to speculating about if you have autism (you continue to peddle this falsehood to try and insult me which I consider extremely strange) but you certainly display a lack of self awareness and a desperation to defend some patently ridiculous and daft opinions you expressed a few months ago, all in an effort to avoid talking about Islamic extremism. You're an apologist and it will continue to be highlighted for as long as you continue to post rubbish in this thread.

[van Hanegem]

It may be that the root cause of the problem here is that some people suffer from a form of mild cognitive disorder that manifests itself in them invariably seeing problems in simple "black or white" terms, while other (more subtle) minds respond to the complexity of the world by comprehending endless "shades of grey". If I recall correctly psychiatrists depict people who fall into the former group as "Polarised Thinkers".

 

For example, anything that is not perfect must therefore be a failure as the existance of a "middle ground" is almost inconceivable to the true polarised thinker. I suppose what we might call the - if you oppose racism then you support terrorism - attitude sometimes displayed on here falls very much into this category.

 

Sometimes it's good to polarise as it will get your point through. Take this Afghan MP and his view on rape: "there's your kind of rape and there's islamic rape and if you don't like it we cut off your nose..." Instead of being bothered with the rubbish of the western world or dodging the question he makes perfectly clear that "his" islam is really something else...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_tMqoKL4rc

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

^ This is not he first video you have chosen to post here of Muslim fanatics expressing views that I would hope most decent people would find unacceptable. Now if there were some organised campaign on here of people attempting to deny that Muslim extemisism exists then this little past-time of yours might serve some kind of recognisable purpose I suppose.

 

But of that is not true is it - as far back as the first sentance of post #1 virtually EVERYONE on here has freely expressed how appalled they are by terrorist violence and attitudes. So again, does the expression "pushing against a open door" not translate into dutch or what? I suppose if I were minded to I could easily post a series of videos showing that moderate muslims who oppose terrorism are just as real as the terrorists are. But there really doesn't seem much point in doing that as (almost) every contributer to this thread already knows that this too is true - to some extent at least.

 

So instead of just going over the same old ground yet again, why don't you let us know what you would like see done (over and above what we are already doing that is) to address the problem of terrorism in Europe - solutions that are consistant with our liberal values, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and EU law would be nice.

[TwoPints]

I understand the programme in question - What Muslims Really Think - will be broadcast on C4 tomorrow night.

I suspect this programme will open a whole new line of argument. I've watched the first ten minutes and so far they've shown Luton and explained it's where the London suicide bombers got on their train. Immediately linking British Muslims to the suicide bombers is not, in my opinion, a great start to a programme that's supposed to give an unbiased view on the views of Muslims in general. They've then gone on to say that 4% of Muslims have some sympathy with the suicide bombers as does 1% of the general population. They've then quoted the number of people that that 4% equates to but didn't give the same information for the general population, which presumably would be more but they've chosen not to share that.

 

I'll watch the rest and see if it improves.

[CB Fry]

I suspect this programme will open a whole new line of argument. I've watched the first ten minutes and so far they've shown Luton and explained it's where the London suicide bombers got on their train. Immediately linking British Muslims to the suicide bombers is not, in my opinion, a great start to a programme that's supposed to give an unbiased view on the views of Muslims in general. They've then gone on to say that 4% of Muslims have some sympathy with the suicide bombers as does 1% of the general population. They've then quoted the number of people that that 4% equates to but didn't give the same information for the general population, which presumably would be more but they've chosen not to share that.

 

I'll watch the rest and see if it improves.

Pretty naive to think it wouldn't reference 7/7 in the programme - it's one of the reasons the survey was carried out and the programme was made. Would have been far more bizarre to not reference it at all.

 

I thought it was very good piece of work.

[TwoPints]

I thought it was very good piece of work.

 

I thought you might

[hypochondriac]

I thought you might

One suspects you would have had issues with any programme that painted muslims in a poor light.

[CB Fry]

One suspects you would have had issues with any programme that painted muslims in a poor light.

Most if the reason I liked it was because it was very fair and painted the British Muslim community as wanting to be here, feeling British, having a perception that they will be treated fairly by the authorities and so on. And the pen portraits and interviews they carried out with the community leader in Blackburn, the stand up comic, the two guys with stands on the street, were positive and very interesting. The methodology was explained well, and as had already been covered here in discussions with saps who don't understand these things, the survey was comprehensive and representative as any you'll get on anything. Trevor Phillips offered a good commentary and some suggestions which were sensible.

 

As a Guardian-reading lily-livered liberal interested in social justice and equality of opportunity it worked for me. People that just wanted a basic "ain't Muslims brilliant" whitewash (probably blaming, like, Tony B-LIAR for every bad thing) would likely leave the programme disappointed.

 

They mentioned 7/7. Gosh. What a disgrace.

[hypochondriac]

Thanks for the summary CB. Sounds like quite a balanced programme then with some interesting points made. I'll try to watch it this evening.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I suspect this programme will open a whole new line of argument. I've watched the first ten minutes and so far they've shown Luton and explained it's where the London suicide bombers got on their train. Immediately linking British Muslims to the suicide bombers is not, in my opinion, a great start to a programme that's supposed to give an unbiased view on the views of Muslims in general. They've then gone on to say that 4% of Muslims have some sympathy with the suicide bombers as does 1% of the general population. They've then quoted the number of people that that 4% equates to but didn't give the same information for the general population, which presumably would be more but they've chosen not to share that.

 

I'll watch the rest and see if it improves.

 

I found it a interesting, if overly agenda-driven rather than impartial effort. Trevor Phillips attempted to sell his usual doomladen anti muliculterism message much as expected and the whole thing was a slick and easy enough programme to watch - if you didn't think too closely about what it was trying to 'sell' you that is.

My eyebrows went into full 'Roger Moore' mode however when I heard this particular ICM poll depicted as pure "science" as this bold claim of scientific impartiality was immediately undermined when the voiceover went on to state that this survey "covered" half of Britain's 3 million Muslim population. That is surely a highly misleading claim as the record shows that ICM actualy interviewed some 1,081 British Muslim respondents to be exact - not 1.5 million!

 

One of the problems I think associated with pollsters claiming that they have somehow indentified a truely representative group to base their findings on is just how truely "representative" are people who agree to spend a hour of their day talking to complete strangers about their innermost thoughts?

I can't speak for anyone else, but whenever I see someone approaching me in the street armed with a survey form my first reaction is to tell them to bugger-off. Could it be that people who would agreed to do such a thing are either atypicaly opinionated people, or perhaps the type who have nothing better to do with their time? Polling is not really a true science methinks it is perhaps more a 'pseudo-science' and when I see pollsters claiming that "1 in 5 Muslims think this or 53% think that" then I take it all with a pretty hefty 'pinch of salt' frankly.

 

What really concerns me here is how the pollsters, and Trevor Phillips in particular, employ and intrepret the word SYMPATHY in relation to how Muslims view terrorism. When this programme claims that 4% of British Muslims say that they have "some sympathy" with violent acts that is not the same thing as 4% being supportive of those who extremists who commit terrorist crimes in Europe. We might also ask what do they mean exactly by 'sympathy' and how much is 'some'?

I can have "some sympathy" with all kinds of people - the two ten year old boys who murdered little James Bulger for example - that does not mean that I approve of criminality. If this programme's conclusion that perhaps 100,000 British Muslims are to some extent sympathetic towards political violence is correct, then that presumably implies that 2.9 million are entirly unsympathic towards that behaviour - but that's not the headline Trevor Phillips wants to focus on here is it?

 

But regardless of how we feel about the reliabilty of polling data the record shows that I have already freely conceded that British Muslims - as a group - probably don't see the world in exactly the same way as others in our society do - as they come from a very different culteral background to the vast majority of British people it would be a little surprising if they did. However, as long as they obay the law then people are free to think whatever they like as far as I'm concerned - that I think is as good a description of 'Britishness' as anything Trevor Phillips has come up with. Different ways of seeing issues does not mean that we cannot exist together harmoniously in this society.

 

We have already taken action against those who preach hatered in our mosques and elsewhere, but I would hope that we have not quite reached the stage when the orwellian nightmare of 'thoughtcrime' has come to pass in this society.

 

.

Edited 14 April, 2016 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Sour Mash]

It comes to something when even the champions of diversity at channel 4 are highlighting the significant problem of islam.

[CB Fry]

I found it a interesting, if overly agenda-driven rather than impartial effort. Trevor Phillips attempted to sell his usual doomladen anti muliculterism message much as expected and the whole thing was a slick and easy enough programme to watch - if you didn't think too closely about what it was trying to 'sell' you that is.

My eyebrows went into full 'Roger Moore' mode however when I heard this particular ICM poll depicted as pure "science" as this bold claim of scientific impartiality was immediately undermined when the voiceover went on to state that this survey "covered" half of Britain's 3 million Muslim population. That is surely a highly misleading claim as the record shows that ICM actualy interviewed some 1,081 British Muslim respondents to be exact - not 1.5 million!

 

One of the problems I think associated with pollsters claiming that they have somehow indentified a truely representative group to base their findings on is just how truely "representative" are people who agree to spend a hour of their day talking to complete strangers about their innermost thoughts?

I can't speak for anyone else, but whenever I see someone approaching me in the street armed with a survey form my first reaction is to tell them to bugger-off. Could it be that people who would agreed to do such a thing are either atypicaly opinionated people, or perhaps the type who have nothing better to do with their time? Polling is not really a true science methinks it is perhaps more a 'pseudo-science' and when I see pollsters claiming that "1 in 5 Muslims think this or 53% think that" then I take it all with a pretty hefty 'pinch of salt' frankly.

 

What really concerns me here is how the pollsters, and Trevor Phillips in particular, employ and intrepret the word SYMPATHY in relation to how Muslims view terrorism. When this programme claims that 4% of British Muslims say that they have "some sympathy" with violent acts that is not the same thing as 4% being supportive of those who extremists who commit terrorist crimes in Europe. We might also ask what do they mean exactly by 'sympathy' and how much is 'some'?

I can have "some sympathy" with all kinds of people - the two ten year old boys who murdered little James Bulger for example - that does not mean that I approve of criminality. If this programme's conclusion that perhaps 100,000 British Muslims are to some extent sympathetic towards political violence is correct, then that presumably implies that 2.9 million are entirly unsympathic towards that behaviour - but that's not the headline Trevor Phillips wants to focus on here is it?

 

But regardless of how we feel about the reliabilty of polling data the record shows that I have already freely conceded that British Muslims - as a group - probably don't see the world in exactly the same way as others in our society do - as they come from a very different culteral background to the vast majority of British people it would be a little surprising if they did. However, as long as they obay the law then people are free to think whatever they like as far as I'm concerned - that I think is as good a description of 'Britishness' as anything Trevor Phillips has come up with. Different ways of seeing issues does not mean that we cannot exist together harmoniously in this society.

 

We have already taken action against those who preach hatered in our mosques and elsewhere, but I would hope that we have not quite reached the stage when the orwellian nightmare of 'thoughtcrime' has come to pass in this society.

 

.

 

 

Yeah, it's definitely Trevor Phillips with the agenda here. Definitely him.

 

I think the phrase we need here is "wiful misunderstanding". Well done.

[TwoPints]

One suspects you would have had issues with any programme that painted muslims in a poor light.

One would be wrong.

[whelk]

Yeah, it's definitely Trevor Phillips with the agenda here. Definitely him.

 

I think the phrase we need here is "wiful misunderstanding". Well done.

 

I love the well some are but most aren't argument. I'd be happy for my kids to play in the park with only 5 paedophiles because that's such a small minority of park users - you need to focus on them.

 

Who knew Charlie would struggle with it although I have not watched it myself yet.

[sadoldgit]

I love the well some are but most aren't argument. I'd be happy for my kids to play in the park with only 5 paedophiles because that's such a small minority of park users - you need to focus on them.

 

Who knew Charlie would struggle with it although I have not watched it myself yet.

 

I am not sure where you are going with this Whelk? Are you saying that if there were 5 Muslims in a park with your kids they would be in jeopardy? Sounds like Sour Mash territory to me.

[buctootim]

I love the well some are but most aren't argument. I'd be happy for my kids to play in the park with only 5 paedophiles because that's such a small minority of park users - you need to focus on them.

 

Its not often you see such a crap analogy posted up. Well done.

 

A more accurate corollary would be refusing to let your kids play with any park users because a small minority might be paedophiles.

[whelk]

I am not sure where you are going with this Whelk? Are you saying that if there were 5 Muslims in a park with your kids they would be in jeopardy? Sounds like Sour Mash territory to me.

 

No - explaining percentages are relevant.

SOG you haven't let me down not understanding

[whelk]

Its not often you see such a crap analogy posted up. Well done.

 

A more accurate corollary would be refusing to let your kids play with any park users because a small minority might be paedophiles.

 

Accurate corollary?

Is this place full of simpletons who try to mask it by incorporating the word from their 'word of the day' email?

[buctootim]

Accurate corollary?

Is this place full of simpletons who try to mask it by incorporating the word from their 'word of the day' email?

 

So you had to look it up. No shame in that

[whelk]

So you had to look it up. No shame in that

 

Wheelbarrow

[buctootim]

Wheelbarrow

 

I lied about the shame

[whelk]

I lied about the shame

 

Lying is naughty Tim

[sadoldgit]

Thank you very muchly.

 

I'm having one of my alarming 'senior moments' here because I don't really know who Katie Hopkins is, let alone feel able to pontificate on her religious beliefs. Something tells me even if I did know her this point is unlikley to get us very far.

 

Charlie, you don't really need to know who Katie Hopkins is other than she is a minor tv celebrity who has had a column in The Sun and now has an online column for the Mail. She is known for her unpleasant outspoken views. Her religious beliefs only became an issue because a poster on here thought to make an issue of them rather than the comments that she made. For the record, she was being interviewed by Andrew Neill and made the point that not enough Muslims for her liking had come out and condemned the recent terrorist atrocities. Apparently the person who made an issue about what I thought her religious background was seem to think that more important than her statement condemning moderate Muslims because they hadn't satisfied her criteria as to what constitutes a decent backlash.

[badgerx16]

[van Hanegem]

^ This is not he first video you have chosen to post here of Muslim fanatics expressing views that I would hope most decent people would find unacceptable. Now if there were some organised campaign on here of people attempting to deny that Muslim extemisism exists then this little past-time of yours might serve some kind of recognisable purpose I suppose.

 

So instead of just going over the same old ground yet again, why don't you let us know what you would like see done (over and above what we are already doing that is) to address the problem of terrorism in Europe - solutions that are consistant with our liberal values, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and EU law would be nice.

 

Yup, in dutch we have the saying "kicking in an open door" but as there are still many people living in la la land with a ridiculous strong door, we just go on kicking it... We have another saying: "soft healers do make stinking wounds" which you would know as "desperate times require drastic measures" but that doesn't cover the dutch expression in the right way. So I believe it's necessary to show these kind of video's to show what we're up against. These kind of imbeciles also walk around in Europe, putting their poison in feeble minds, telling them that islamic law is above the law of the country they live in and all the rest of their sh*t about women, gay people and so on. Your idea that these lot have to be confronted with a country's law and order system is meaningless to them, they just go on in jail if they ever get there at all. Like I told you before: in your country they even allow them to set up sharia councils. What would you think when a catholic priest would say that people accused of apostasy should be killed and your government allows this madman to take part in the justice system? Yeah I know, Jews do have some kind of justice system too in Britain so things have to be equal etc. etc.

 

I believe islam in Europe needs some kind of reformation to prevent local civil wars. I hope I don't have to show you the video's with extreme right wing idiots all around Europe do I? You're aware that neo nazi's do get seats in political systems in several European countries right? The German NPD does even have one member at the European Parliament... These nasty developments are mainly caused by the fear against foreigners who happen to be muslim, wouldn't you agree? You'll probably believe that Europeans have to put some effort in adepting to these new times but that would be the other way around. No, to turn things around we depend on the so called moderate muslims to step forward and tell the radicals to p*ss off. It's not enough for them to say they disagree with them on twitter or to organise some demonstration, they will have to get rid of the idiots the hard way. Only this will be a clear signal to Europe and will lead to acceptance by infidels. As long as they don't move I'd better go on with showing video's to wake them up.

 

So what's your idea of a solution?

[TwoPints]

I love the well some are but most aren't argument. I'd be happy for my kids to play in the park with only 5 paedophiles because that's such a small minority of park users - you need to focus on them.

 

Who knew Charlie would struggle with it although I have not watched it myself yet.

Did you watch the programme Whelk? One of the stats quoted was that their survey showed that 4% had some sympathy with suicide bombers and they were at great pains to point out, they did it twice in fact, that 4% equates to about 100,000 British Muslims. Whilst they also pointed out that the figure was only 1% of the general population, they failed to mention that 1% of, say, 60 million people, is 600,000. That's half a million more non Muslims that have some sympathy with suicide bombers than Muslims. So, who are you going to avoid in the park now?

[badgerx16]

....... I'd be happy for my kids to play in the park with only 5 paedophiles because that's such a small minority of park users - you need to focus on them.

..... So, who are you going to avoid in the park now?

 

Maybe the paediatricians.

Edited 14 April, 2016 by badgerx16