Terrorist Attacks - WARNING: CONTAINS DISTRESSING IMAGES

[sadoldgit]

Hmmm might carry more weight if it came from anyone but you (disabled? where did that come from?) So still nothing re Sour Mash?

[CB Fry]

Hmmm might carry more weight if it came from anyone but you (disabled? where did that come from?) So still nothing re Sour Mash?

I think your "dribbling from the side of your mouth" comment is unhelpful and offensive with a clear implication. For someone who likes to ponce about on every thread as a holier-than-though moral authority it's interesting to get some clear evidence to show how paricularly malevolent you can be.

 

We've seen it now a few times in the last couple of days and it's good to see how you really are.

[van Hanegem]

I really don't know why exactly you feel that law adiding European Muslims - i.e. the vast majority of them - are under some special obligation to counter terrorist extremism when they (like everyone else) pay their taxes so that the state can maintain that basic law and order function in society. Furthermore, I must say that statements such as "get rid of the idiots the hard way" come across in English as some kind of call for vigilantism. That may or may not be your opinion, but I for one like to think that most civilised people are quite capable of comprehending just how hideously UNDESIRABLE such a outcome would be in the current tense and inflamed situation. Indeed, if your "hard way" really is a call for more violence then methinks some may well consider that you are a rather strange induvidual.

 

So again, my "solution" to the problem of political violence in society is that the forces of law and order do their utmost to address the issue as effectively as humanly possible and that the public in turn (whether they be religiously inclined or not) keep as calm as possible and do whatever they can to support those who serve to protect us all in this very difficult time.

 

There is a certain irony, that I doubt somehow you are aware of, in that your proposed solution to the problem of extremism is itself extreme. On the other hand, here in the UK we have a popular expression that can be traced back to a famous WWII poster (if you will forgive me yet another 'Godwin') that sums up nicely a sterotypical but nevertheless typically 'British' reaction to adversity.

 

You're being silly now Charlie, I'm not talking about physical violence at all and your veiled suggestion that I might is a cheap shot to put some label on me as your "political correctness" probably can't cope with the things I'm telling you. But if you won't take it from me, maybe this guy will make more of an impression on you...

 

Edited 16 April, 2016 by van Hanegem

[sadoldgit]

I think your "dribbling from the side of your mouth" comment is unhelpful and offensive with a clear implication. For someone who likes to ponce about on every thread as a holier-than-though moral authority it's interesting to get some clear evidence to show how paricularly malevolent you can be.

 

We've seen it now a few times in the last couple of days and it's good to see how you really are.

 

So you have to be disabled to dribble? It is a bit rich you calling me malevolent. What is your favourite put down? Crazy as a box of frogs? Classy. Still nothing about Sour Mash?

Edited 16 April, 2016 by sadoldgit

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Aristotle also thought that the sun revolved around the Earth and than women were deformed men.

 

But okay then - to clear up any misunderstanding here please explain what you did mean by "the hard way" as this seems unclear.

[sadoldgit]

I think your "dribbling from the side of your mouth" comment is unhelpful and offensive with a clear implication. For someone who likes to ponce about on every thread as a holier-than-though moral authority it's interesting to get some clear evidence to show how paricularly malevolent you can be.

 

We've seen it now a few times in the last couple of days and it's good to see how you really are.

 

Thinking back, didn't you once refer to me as "swivel-eyed?" I am guessing that was not meant as a compliment and seems to have certain mental health connotations does it not?

 

As you seem to be struggling with my question I will help you out. All you have to do is respond with a number that you agree with. Ok?

 

1. I agree with everything that Sour Mash says about Muslims.

 

2. I agree with some of the things that Sour Mush says about Muslims.

 

3. I don't agree with anything that Sour Mush says about Muslims.

[CB Fry]

So you have to be disabled to dribble? It is a bit rich you calling me malevolent. What is your favourite put down? Crazy as a box of frogs? Classy. Still nothing about Sour Mash?

 

I've never said "crazy as a box of frogs" but the expression I have used is clearly not as perojative or clearly related to mental illness/disability as references to "dribbling from the side of your mouth". Ditto "swivel eyed" which has a long history in political commentary over the years. I don't think I have seen either of those expressions linked to mental illness or disability or Down's syndrome or Cerebal Palsy that your expression could easily be linked to.

 

Funnily enough I use those two expressions directly about two different and specific contributors to this forum, neither of them you. I think you feel you're missing out as I haven't got a catchphrase for you.

 

Anyway, make your mind up - if you are feigning offence at "Box of Frogs" then why are you using references to "dribbling from the side of your mouth" as a perojative term which is far, far worse on any measure you like.

 

Let's be clear, I'm not in any way offended - you will never offend me - but I am enjoying your usual, addled, rag-bag of contradictory nonsence that makes up your thought process.

 

Anyway, I am sure you are only three or four posts away from you pompously asking "are you saying this about ALL 1 billion Muslims???" to someone on this thread for the 57th time. Here's a hint: they aren't.

[sadoldgit]

Struggling with 1, 2 or 3? Perhaps we can assume it is no 1 but you don't have the b@lls to say so?

 

By the way, when you accused me of failing to answer a question I was apparently "running away."

Edited 16 April, 2016 by sadoldgit

[TwoPints]

And my point, which it looks like you still don't understand, is that the 1% is not statistically significant to justify turning that into a population equivalent. It would be an unjustified, sensationalist number.

 

On the 4% it wasn't incorrect to show the population, just ill-advised editorially.

 

For you to again suggest Channel 4 knowingly share false and unjustified information suggest you don't really understand what "a reasonable and rational analysis of the figures" actually means. Funny I thought you understood my point when I explained before but looks like I over estimated you.

 

Try again.

 

PS. Also interesting you switched the percentages around in this post. Nice try.

 

It doesn't really matter what your point was, as you clearly don't understand mine. The basic concept is that if they think quoting the number for Muslims and not the general population is reasonable then I disagree. Whatever the reason why they shouldn't have quoted either, whether it be statistically insignificant or unjustified and sensationalist it was just wrong. That's all I'm saying, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Maybe you could point out the post where I have said that Channel 4 shared false information. I haven't suggested any of their information was wrong but the way they chose to present it was unhelpful in my opinion.

 

Apologies for getting the % round the wrong way. Genuine error.

[CB Fry]

It doesn't really matter what your point was, as you clearly don't understand mine. The basic concept is that if they think quoting the number for Muslims and not the general population is reasonable then I disagree. Whatever the reason why they shouldn't have quoted either, whether it be statistically insignificant or unjustified and sensationalist it was just wrong. That's all I'm saying, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Maybe you could point out the post where I have said that Channel 4 shared false information. I haven't suggested any of their information was wrong but the way they chose to present it was unhelpful in my opinion.

 

Apologies for getting the % round the wrong way. Genuine error.

 

Now what are you on about? I haven't said you said that C4 shared false information, I'm saying that's what you keep asking them to do. Read my post again.

 

The info C4 shared was correct, the info you seem to want them to have shown would have been wrong and not justified by the data.

 

You don't understand the simple point I am making, which is odd, but I'll stop making it because it is pretty bleeding dull now.

[TwoPints]

Now what are you on about? I haven't said you said that C4 shared false information, I'm saying that's what you keep asking them to do. Read my post again.

 

The info C4 shared was correct, the info you seem to want them to have shown would have been wrong and not justified by the data.

 

You don't understand the simple point I am making, which is odd, but I'll stop making it because it is pretty bleeding dull now.

Yes. It is rather dull. You clearly seem to have read my quote that I would have preferred them to quote neither as somehow wanting them to quote false information. Pointless trying to get you to understand so I won't bother anymore as it's rally not that important.

[CB Fry]

Yes. It is rather dull. You clearly seem to have read my quote that I would have preferred them to quote neither as somehow wanting them to quote false information. Pointless trying to get you to understand so I won't bother anymore as it's rally not that important.

 

Except you do say it here. That's the thing about forums. What you write actually stays there for people to see. It's the bit where you say "they should do the same" - I took that to mean "they should do the same" because you wrote "they should do the same".

 

No, my point has always been that if they're quoting 1% of the Muslim population as a number then they should do the same with the 4% quoted for the general population otherwise it suggests a certain level of bias by just doing so with one and not the other.

 

I would have argued the same if they quoted the number of the general population and not the Muslim population as that would have suggested bias the other way and if you're after a reasonable and rational analysis of the figures, you want an even playing field. Nice try though.

 

No actual mention of neither here at all. You've only said neither in other posts is when you've said "both or neither" and my point is that is a false choice as both would have been wrong. So not both, an option you desperately continue to cling to. Anyway, clearly I am wasting my time here. I tried.

[TwoPints]

I tried.

 

 

No you haven't. I know what I meant, you know what I meant but because it wasn't written exactly how you would like it you just like to pick holes in it. I see you were picked up on this very same thing in the EU referendum thread too.

 

 

You don't understand the simple point I am making, which is odd, but I'll stop making it because it is pretty bleeding dull now.

 

And for someone that's keen on picking up people on their posts, in your last one you claimed you'd given up but clearly you haven't. Maybe we all say things on posts that could have holes picked in them?

[sadoldgit]

Lets see. So you pick up the likes of Two Pints, CEC and myself yet let Sour Mash and Holepuncture make sweeping derogatory comments about a whole religion and let them go unchallenged. You pick up me for allegedly not answering a question yet don't feel compelled to answer one yourself no matter how many times it has been asked. You call people names and often they are related to their apparent mental state yet pick me up for mentioning dribbling. Interesting set of priorities you have, apart from clearly being a hypocrite. In the world of CB Fry it is a bigger crime to mention a number of times that not all Muslims are terrorists or rapists yet it is fine to make constant Islamophobic remarks. As you would say, classy.

[badgerx16]

[buctootim]

They should report that fire escape.

[CB Fry]

Lets see. So you pick up the likes of Two Pints, CEC and myself yet let Sour Mash and Holepuncture make sweeping derogatory comments about a whole religion and let them go unchallenged. You pick up me for allegedly not answering a question yet don't feel compelled to answer one yourself no matter how many times it has been asked. You call people names and often they are related to their apparent mental state yet pick me up for mentioning dribbling. Interesting set of priorities you have, apart from clearly being a hypocrite. In the world of CB Fry it is a bigger crime to mention a number of times that not all Muslims are terrorists or rapists yet it is fine to make constant Islamophobic remarks. As you would say, classy.

Let's see. Box of frogs is an acceptable name for a theatre group, a comedy troupe, a band featuring members of the Yardbirds, a Web development agency, a pub in Ireland and is used a a term of endearment in reviews and interviews. No one seems to see it as shorthand for disability. I use it for Art on this forum because he is, clearly, nuts. Never said it about you, ever.

 

http://boxoffrogstheatreacademy.co.uk/our-team/

 

https://boxoffrogsimpro.wordpress.com/

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_of_Frogs

 

http://livingthesheepsheadway.com/box-of-frogs/

 

Swivel eyed is different, it only has one context, mainly fanaticism specifically for right wing reactionaries. Occasionally brandished as a badge of honour, but some do get offended by it, but on the terms of denying their strident political beliefs rather than any implication of mental difficency. It exists entirely in the political sphere. Left wing equivalent is probably bleeding-heart, lily-livered or yoghurt knitter or something about sandal - wearing.

 

I use it solely for Saint Richmond who will only return in the summer to rant in capital letters about the transfer window. Never said it about you, ever.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2013/05/defence-swivel-eyed-lunacy

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22607108

 

 

On the other hand, your attempted put down to me - I'm drooling out the side of my mouth, oh aha-ha-ha-ha - is entirely loaded with implications of disability, especially cerebral palsy or Down's syndrome. I'm robust enough to not be offended by your pathetic line of attack but personally think you should be suitably embarrassed by such schoolyard barbs, especially when linked with your gleeful baiting of someone else here as being autistic because they disagree with you.

 

You're too pig headed and ignorant to apologise but I don't think using disability to mock is acceptable.

 

For a long time, I've paid monthly to Scope, inspired by the comedian Richard Herring (he's mad as a box of frogs he is). Perhaps that's something you could consider too.

 

http://www.scope.org.uk/

 

Apologies to everyone, this isn't on topic but I am not standing by to be fu cking lectured at by some pompous arse who thinks it's acceptable to use disability to attack someone on a bloody football forum.

Edited 17 April, 2016 by CB Fry

[sadoldgit]

Since when has accusing someone of dribbling accusing them of a disability? People dribble and spit when they rant and rave don't they? The expression box of frogs comes from either crazy as a box of frogs or mad as a box of frogs. When you say box of frogs to someone you are calling them a theatre group are you? Or you are calling them a member of a band? Seriously? As for swivel eyed, as far as I know most peoples eyes do not swivel, the only swivel if they have something wrong with them, which would be a disability would it not?

 

The box of frogs and swivel eyed comments are just a few of the CB Fry jibes used to belittle people and to put people down. So you didn't call me swivel eyed (you have called me plenty of other names) you still used the expression to someone else.

 

Your buddy Hypo, who I have asked if he has issues before, had recently called me an "imbicile." He has called me names several times before and displayed the play ground mentality that you accuse me of, but you never, ever, go after him. But you are quite happy to let someone spout Islamophobic comments all day long. I didn't make fun of him or say that he was a box of frogs or swivel eyed, I asked him straight if he had certain ailments. I asked him because he seems to get himself worked up over things that others don't. Yes, a bit like you. I have worked with people who are on the spectrum and his behaviour is very similar to them. Someone else elsewhere has asked a similar question of him so that makes two of us at least.

 

Anyway, nice effort at diversion. Lets get back to the more important point, your avoidance of the question do you agree with Sour Mash on here or not. You have gone out of your way to avoid the question, something that you call "running away." Why is that? It is not difficult. You agree with him or you don't. And if you don't why do you spend so much time and energy nit picking the posts of those who don't agree with him and let him get away scot free.

 

You may think I am a pompous arse but perhaps you need to take a closer look at yourself. You nit pick, belittle and bully and you have a strange set of priorities. If you are going to apologise to people on here, perhaps you should do so for your trolling tendencies?

 

You dish it out all day long but you can't take it can you?

Edited 18 April, 2016 by sadoldgit

[hypochondriac]

Trust me sweetheart, the very last thing I do is get worked up over what you write on here. If anything it's a pleasure to point out some of the stupid things you say. It's a pathetic and low jibe trying to pretend I have a disability and for someone who likes to pretend they have a superior moral compass, pretty hypocritical as well but I'm not surprised you are now trying to justify it. Asking if I'm on the spectrum just highlights once again that you have lost any argument we were having and shows why you are not taken seriously.

[sadoldgit]

Trust me sweetheart, the very last thing I do is get worked up over what you write on here. If anything it's a pleasure to point out some of the stupid things you say. It's a pathetic and low jibe trying to pretend I have a disability and for someone who likes to pretend they have a superior moral compass, pretty hypocritical as well but I'm not surprised you are now trying to justify it. Asking if I'm on the spectrum just highlights once again that you have lost any argument we were having and shows why you are not taken seriously.

 

Good for you sweetheart. I haven't pretended you have anything, I just asked the question but feel free to twist my words as you usually do. You seem to be a very different person to the one that posts on Sotonians, just wonder what is going on and why. As for the superior moral compass, you are welcome to your opinion but given some of the sh*t you and your buddy have thrown at me (and others) on this thread and others, there seems to be a bit of pot, kettle, black going on don't you think? Do you really think you are taken seriously mate? As for your buddy, wouldnt you say he is a hypocrite after all that rubbish about running away and not answering questions given the number of times he has dodged a straightforward question about Sour Mash? You don't go after him though do you? It also took you plenty of time to start picking up on the Islamophobes before you started to turn back on the moderates again. You make a good pair and you also are happy to dish it out but cant take it. Before you try and claim any moral high ground I suggest you stop calling people names.

Edited 18 April, 2016 by sadoldgit
sp

[CB Fry]

Since when has accusing someone of dribbling accusing them of a disability? People dribble and spit when they rant and rave don't they? The expression box of frogs comes from either crazy as a box of frogs or mad as a box of frogs. When you say box of frogs to someone you are calling them a theatre group are you? Or you are calling them a member of a band? Seriously? As for swivel eyed, as far as I know most peoples eyes do not swivel, the only swivel if they have something wrong with them, which would be a disability would it not?

 

The box of frogs and swivel eyed comments are just a few of the CB Fry jibes used to belittle people and to put people down. So you didn't call me swivel eyed (you have called me plenty of other names) you still used the expression to someone else.

 

Your buddy Hypo, who I have asked if he has issues before, had recently called me an "imbicile." He has called me names several times before and displayed the play ground mentality that you accuse me of, but you never, ever, go after him. But you are quite happy to let someone spout Islamophobic comments all day long. I didn't make fun of him or say that he was a box of frogs or swivel eyed, I asked him straight if he had certain ailments. I asked him because he seems to get himself worked up over things that others don't. Yes, a bit like you. I have worked with people who are on the spectrum and his behaviour is very similar to them. Someone else elsewhere has asked a similar question of him so that makes two of us at least.

 

Anyway, nice effort at diversion. Lets get back to the more important point, your avoidance of the question do you agree with Sour Mash on here or not. You have gone out of your way to avoid the question, something that you call "running away." Why is that? It is not difficult. You agree with him or you don't. And if you don't why do you spend so much time and energy nit picking the posts of those who don't agree with him and let him get away scot free.

 

You may think I am a pompous arse but perhaps you need to take a closer look at yourself. You nit pick, belittle and bully and you have a strange set of priorities. If you are going to apologise to people on here, perhaps you should do so for your trolling tendencies?

 

You dish it out all day long but you can't take it can you?

 

I can take what you "dish out" all day long as I have made very, very clear - you can't upset me but I will use what you say to show up the simple fact that you aren't the holier than thou guardian you like to make out you are by dishing out autism jibes to others and drooling jibes to me.

 

And, let's be fair. You are an imbecile.

[sadoldgit]

Good for you, doesn't alter the fact that he have avoided answering the same question a number of times and you seem to think it is more important to pick someone up over the number of times they say that not all Muslims are bad rather than pick up blatant Islamophobic posts, a trait you share with your buddy Hypo.

 

Oh, and I would rather be an imbecile than a troll. Ok for you to dish out jibes and refer to people as swivel eyed and "box of frogs" and name call but not ok for others?

[CB Fry]

Good for you, doesn't alter the fact that he have avoided answering the same question a number of times and you seem to think it is more important to pick someone up over the number of times they say that not all Muslims are bad rather than pick up blatant Islamophobic posts, a trait you share with your buddy Hypo.

 

Oh, and I would rather be an imbecile than a troll. Ok for you to dish out jibes and refer to people as swivel eyed and "box of frogs" and name call but not ok for others?

 

It's okay to dish out jibes to me, I get them all the time from various people on the forum, it's fine. I don't mind a good jibe-ing. I think I will get buried underneath them on the EU thread soon.

 

Just pointing out that you like to come across as holier than thou but can dish out some very spiteful stuff yourself as seen on this thread. I'm not offended by your jibes but find your spectacular hypocrisy highly amusing.

[sadoldgit]

Well then I am in good company as you have clearly demonstrated that you are a rank hypocrite too. That and you seem to side with the Islamophobes. Anyway, I'll leave you to it as I have got to dig some ivy up and that is far more interesting. Say hi to Hypo for me. Box of frogs and swivel eyes. Classy!

[moonraker]

Interesting video on the BBC website that may settle the backlash debate; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/features/world-middle-east-36096587/36096587

[Johnny Bognor]

Interesting video on the BBC website that may settle the backlash debate; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/features/world-middle-east-36096587/36096587

 

Not really a back lash against islamic terrorism. More a struggle for freedom against the oppressive Assad regime in Raqqa, which was replaced by FSA and then subsequently ISIS, where the struggle continued.

 

Brilliant video/story though showing their bravery and struggle for freedom.

[van Hanegem]

Aristotle also thought that the sun revolved around the Earth and than women were deformed men.

 

But okay then - to clear up any misunderstanding here please explain what you did mean by "the hard way" as this seems unclear.

 

Hey, you're saying we should leave things to the justice and police department, that doesn't mean you're wrong on other subjects too...

This week the Dutch intelligence service AIVD reported that they have leads there will be a new assault in Europe and the USA. Of course this horror should be dealt with by the authorities but than we're only talking about the symptoms and I believe moderate muslims can help to destroy the root of the problem by setting up some European form of islam which doesn't conflict with European norms and values. That means that they'll have to acknowledge some parts of islam (or should I say islamic culture from the Middle East and North Africa?) don't mix with European standards like the freedom of speech, equality of men and women and that the rules of a religion are inferior to the rules and laws of a country. I would like them to get united and make clear that it's not ok to see a woman as an unclean creature you don't shake hands with, I would like them to not attend a mosque where an idiot imam says that gay people should be thrown of the roof from an apartment building because they don't have the right to live and I would like them to address the problems in tv shows, letters in newsapers or on social media instead of always screaming they're the victims of racist views or that they're not accepted as Dutch. How can you be seen as a Dutchman when you openly declare that Dutch comedians should not be allowed to ridicule Erdogan because he's your Prime Minister? I told you before about the problems on some schools in our big cities which are dominated by muslims. Well, the situation is even worse as this week the news on Dutch tv showed that teachers from elemantary schools need to get educated how to deal with little kids who declare that Isis is good for islam or with the children that put their fingers in their ears because they're not allowed to listen to western music the teacher plays for them. I'm not talking about the kids from refugees here but about the fourth generation of immigrants from muslim countries. There is no progress Charlie, things are getting worse and now a spitefull politician like Geert Wilders gets more than 40% of the votes in the polls and we see movements like Pegida in Germany demonstrating against the "islaminisation" of their country. The only ones who can help to make things better are the moderate muslims who can change things from within their culture. They can crank up some kind of reformation but it will take years to distance themselves from the hardliners and it will be painfull to condemn one's family, friends or co-workers for not accepting the norms and values of the country they live in. That's what I meant with "the hard way" as it's going to be a difficult path. To me it's a better option than to keep calm and do nothing...

[CB Fry]

Ian McKellen tonight on BBC 2 was simply brilliant with this speech.

 

I've long thought St George's day was a load of old small-minded pony and the same day would be infinitely better served as Shakespeare Day, and this piece which I wasn't aware of previously, seals it for me. Apposite on this thread.

 

William's take on Thomas More's speech to the mob protesting against migrants in 1517:

 

 

 

 

Grant them removed, and grant that this your noise

Hath chid down all the majesty of England;

Imagine that you see the wretched strangers,

Their babies at their backs and their poor luggage,

Plodding to the ports and coasts for transportation,

And that you sit as kings in your desires,

Authority quite silent by your brawl,

And you in ruff of your opinions clothed;

What had you got? I’ll tell you: you had taught

How insolence and strong hand should prevail,

How order should be quelled; and by this pattern

Not one of you should live an aged man,

For other ruffians, as their fancies wrought,

With self same hand, self reasons, and self right,

Would shark on you, and men like ravenous fishes

Would feed on one another….

Say now the king

Should so much come too short of your great trespass

As but to banish you, whether would you go?

What country, by the nature of your error,

Should give you harbour? go you to France or Flanders,

To any German province, to Spain or Portugal,

Nay, any where that not adheres to England,

Why, you must needs be strangers: would you be pleased

To find a nation of such barbarous temper,

That, breaking out in hideous violence,

Would not afford you an abode on earth,

Whet their detested knives against your throats,

Spurn you like dogs, and like as if that God

Owed not nor made not you, nor that the claimants

Were not all appropriate to your comforts,

But chartered unto them, what would you think

To be thus used? this is the strangers case;

And this your mountainish inhumanity.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not putting any more Shakespeare on this forum tonight, two threads is quite enough but from a billion eons away he sees the truth in us all.

 

I'd recommend watching McKellen if you can. Imagine it will be on YouTube within hours. Brilliant.

[sadoldgit]

If anyone brings up the Crusades or the Nazis on this thread the wrath of Fry is vested upon them. Yet the great man himself can quote Shakespeare and that is supposed to be more relevant? So can we talk about the Crusades or the Nazis without ridicule now?

[sadoldgit]

So then, several days since the elections and no comments about the first Muslim Mayor in London? Well at least Katie Hopkins hasn't let me down. She threatened to run through London naked with a sausage up her backside (a halal one at that) if Sadiq Khan won and is saying she will stand by her pledge.

[whelk]

So then, several days since the elections and no comments about the first Muslim Mayor in London? Well at least Katie Hopkins hasn't let me down. She threatened to run through London naked with a sausage up her backside (a halal one at that) if Sadiq Khan won and is saying she will stand by her pledge.

 

Are you saying all Muslims are mayors?

[sadoldgit]

Are you saying all Muslims are mayors?

 

No, but some mayors are Muslim. What is the world coming to?

[hypochondriac]

No, but some mayors are Muslim. What is the world coming to?

Looks like you are looking for a negative reaction so you can go off on one again. You must be disappointed that no one has obliged you. You would have thought all those obvious racists would be desperate to write of their disgust.

[sadoldgit]

Not really. I was pleasantly surprised that the usual suspects didn't kick off. Well not yet anyway. As for the obvious racists, if you really don't believe they exist when the evidence is very clear then you are a very blinkered individual.

[hypochondriac]

Not really. I was pleasantly surprised that the usual suspects didn't kick off. Well not yet anyway. As for the obvious racists, if you really don't believe they exist when the evidence is very clear then you are a very blinkered individual.

Then why bring it up encouraging people to comment? Clearly you are hoping for negative comments to support your weird agenda.

[sadoldgit]

"Weird agenda?" Since when has supporting normal, peaceful Muslims been a "weird agenda?" Perhaps in your world mate where you seem to want to be seen as a moderate but spend an awful lot of energy attacking people who are moderates. Why do you assume I was seeking negative comments? For all you know I might have been seeking positive comments. Afterall, it is a big deal being the first Muslim Mayor of London is it not? And given that we have been talking about the integration of Muslims into British society, what better way to integrate than be in one of the biggest jobs in public service? I am sure you cracked open the champers too when you heard that Khan had won.

[hypochondriac]

"Weird agenda?" Since when has supporting normal, peaceful Muslims been a "weird agenda?" Perhaps in your world mate where you seem to want to be seen as a moderate but spend an awful lot of energy attacking people who are moderates. Why do you assume I was seeking negative comments? For all you know I might have been seeking positive comments. Afterall, it is a big deal being the first Muslim Mayor of London is it not? And given that we have been talking about the integration of Muslims into British society, what better way to integrate than be in one of the biggest jobs in public service? I am sure you cracked open the champers too when you heard that Khan had won.

 

And off he goes again, accusing people of claiming it is weird to support normal Muslims- something that nobody has ever said and once again something you have invented in your head. Your weird agenda has precisely nothing to do with standing up for moderate Muslims. If you think that attacking you and your crackpot ideas is me spending a lot of time attacking "moderates" then i worry about you. Does every reply to you have to end by saying "no one is attacking you or ridiculing you or rubbishing your views because you are standing up for moderate Muslims"? Maybe you will comprehend that this time but I'm not holding out hope.

 

I personally don't give a toss about politics in London as it won't be affecting me in the slightest and the religion of an elected official is of zero relevance anyway unless it impacts on his ability to do his job.

 

Your lame attempt to get people on here to criticise Sadiq Khan solely for being a Muslim has thus far failed and you won't be able to run around shouting about how many racists there are on here. What a shame for you.

Edited 10 May, 2016 by hypochondriac

[CB Fry]

"Weird agenda?" Since when has supporting normal, peaceful Muslims been a "weird agenda?" Perhaps in your world mate where you seem to want to be seen as a moderate but spend an awful lot of energy attacking people who are moderates. Why do you assume I was seeking negative comments? For all you know I might have been seeking positive comments. Afterall, it is a big deal being the first Muslim Mayor of London is it not? And given that we have been talking about the integration of Muslims into British society, what better way to integrate than be in one of the biggest jobs in public service? I am sure you cracked open the champers too when you heard that Khan had won.

He's off again, failing to realise that pretty much all socio-political discourse in the western world is moderates vs moderates. Pretty much everyone is a moderate but you don't like that because it destroys the little fiction you've created around yourself that you are the great visionary moderate thinker and everyone else is a racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.

 

This leads you to come our with absolute guff like your claim that people in the UK are fine with the Ku Klux Klan, a nonsensical comment you have never been brave enough to explain. In many, many ways the man who comes out with the most ill-informed prejudice-ridden sweeping statements on this forum is, well, you. Definitely you.

 

Anyway, your mission has failed but nice try. As a lifelong Labour voter and someone who thinks Corbyn is effing useless, Khan's election is great news as he ticks both boxes for me.

[whelk]

 

Surely should have been shouting 'this is for Brevik'

[hypochondriac]

 

Surely should have been shouting 'this is for Brevik'

I fail to see why it warranted an apology since they were enacting a scenario where daesh were involved. That is what members of daesh shout before blowing themselves up.

[whelk]

I fail to see why it warranted an apology since they were enacting a scenario where daesh were involved. That is what members of daesh shout before blowing themselves up.

 

They should have used an old lady with shopping trolley

 

[Batman]

I fail to see why it warranted an apology since they were enacting a scenario where daesh were involved. That is what members of daesh shout before blowing themselves up.

 

It is the way it is now.

In London. Christian slogans are banned from being displayed on TFL vehicles

 

But at the mo. There are Islamic preachings a on them.

 

Just only going to be more divisive as the years tick by

[aintforever]

I fail to see why it warranted an apology since they were enacting a scenario where daesh were involved. That is what members of daesh shout before blowing themselves up.

 

Agree with this, it's bonkers. Muslim extremists are the only real terrorist threat to us, that is just a fact.

[hypochondriac]

It was a suicide bomb exercise. What other suicide bombers have there been than Muslim extremists?

[whelk]

It was a suicide bomb exercise. What other suicide bombers have there been than Muslim extremists?

 

Has SOG gone to bed?

[hypochondriac]

Has SOG gone to bed?

He'll be back with a few diatribes in due course I would expect.

 

"Are you saying all terrorists are Muslims? Even the ones during the crusades?"

 

"Why am I the only one standing up for the moderate Muslims?" I don't actually know any Muslims but I'm the only one standing up for them! "

[whelk]

He'll be back with a few diatribes in due course I would expect.

 

Probably reading Katie Hopkins blog

[hypochondriac]

Probably reading Katie Hopkins blog

Or reading A beginners guide to your first Holy communion by A. Hitler

[holepuncture]

It is the way it is now.

In London. Christian slogans are banned from being displayed on TFL vehicles

 

But at the mo. There are Islamic preachings a on them.

 

Just only going to be more divisive as the years tick by

 

My concern with the new London Mayor with links to islamic extremism, is that islamic extremists may feel more empowered as a result of his position and suspicious past.

 

Though Goldsmith didn't do himself any favours, his campaign was more for the home counties, the true British etc, he forgot just how diverse and ultimately foreign London is these days. London didn't want him.

 

In other news, the police are apologising for their trial terror attack in Manchester, where the mock terrorist shouted allahu akbar, at the same time and in real life, a crazed man in Munich killed a man and stabbed three others whilst screaming allahu akbar. All this while three afgans have been arrested in Italy suspected of organising attacks on London, Paris, Rome and Bari. The three had been given humanitarian protection by the Italians, two other suspects remain at large.

 

Rainbows, multicultural, enrichment, diversity, the religion of peace.

 

It is a beautiful thing.

[Plastic]

In London. Christian slogans are banned from being displayed on TFL vehicles

 

Not true