Another Tunisian Attack - Sousse

[grand cherokee]

blindswelledrat said:

Except your anecdotes still don't equate to facts I'm afraid.
Because believe it or not, I too deal with people on a daily basis and my own anecdote is the exact opposite of yours.
That most people I speak to on a daily basis are sick of extremists but are perfectly able to distinguish extremists from normal people and are sick of people who can't. In fact, I would think that about 90% of the people I speak to on a daily basis think that the racists on this thread are just as extreme as the extremists they get upset about.
You see at either end of the spectrum you have extremist muslims who thing that all non-muslims are the same and would happily nuke them and on the other end of the spectrum you have western extremists who think all muslims are the same and should be nuked and the 95% of humans in the middle are just normal people.

So no I do not think muslims and islam is a problem, but I think people who do could easily make this a self-fulfilling prophecy because psychos like ISIS feed from the negativity caused by people like this thread and vice versa.

head and sand spring to mind?

you say that people you speak to on a daily basis say ..blah blah blah -do you provide pistonheads links to all your friends/clients?

seems very strange

by the way you cannot be racist when criticising Islam because Islam is a religion not a race - get real please!
I and many see you as part of the problem - certainly not the solution

btw - you 'mum' comment denied you any credibility and showed you are the nut job you have clearly demonstrated

[Ali G]

One wonders if it is wise to permit so many refugees to gather un-chaperoned in Calais for such a long time?

[egor110]

Ali G said:

One wonders if it is wise to permit so many refugees to gather un-chaperoned in Calais for such a long time?

Bearing in mind the distances they've sailed just to get to mainland europe , do we really think the english channel is going to stop them now?

[Ali G]

egor110 said:

Bearing in mind the distances they've sailed just to get to mainland europe , do we really think the english channel is going to stop them now?

One could say the same about the refugees.

How hard could it be to hitch a lift over the channel in a boat?

[blindswelledrat]

grand cherokee said:

head and sand spring to mind?

you say that people you speak to on a daily basis say ..blah blah blah -do you provide pistonheads links to all your friends/clients?

seems very strange

by the way you cannot be racist when criticising Islam because Islam is a religion not a race - get real please!
I and many see you as part of the problem - certainly not the solution

btw - you 'mum' comment denied you any credibility and showed you are the nut job you have clearly demonstrated

Ah, yet another 'it can't be racist because islam is not a race' card.
Just like you can't be racist when calling a black person a n*****r because black is not a race right?
I'm sure to you I have no credibility, but most people who saw you asking if I supply pistonheads links to random people I spoke to would question your sanity not mine.
In fact, I would argue the opposite of you. PH is not a credible barometer of public opinion by any stretch of the imagination or UKIP would have 90% of the vote rather than the 11% it did actually get. In fact it is becoming a rather magnified hive of the Daily Mail types who have found it to be a place they can happily chat with likeminded people about things that they would not voice in public.

[blindswelledrat]

Guam said:

You know I often identify with some of your posts, but where did anyone suggest UKIP would get 90% of the vote on PH.

And you are accusing other posters of being a tad deranged, careful in that glasshouse with those bricks you are lobbing

You missed the point I think. Nobody suggested that- I was making an exaggerated response to Grand Cherokees implication that a persons opinion doesn't count unless they have read pistonheads as that's where the real news is. In fact, 90% (my made up figure) of people who post in NP&E identify with UKIP compared with a real-world 11% i.e. it is a terrible barometer for public opinion.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

IroningMan said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

Mr Cameron and Co. has contributed to this tragedy. The ill conceived intervention in Libya. The bombing for peace he so enthusiastically pursued, has destabilised North Africa and provided the training opportunity for this psycho, along with the attacks in Algeria, earlier Tunisian attack and the Mali mess.

Well done David, you truly are Blair light now.

Yawn. Jihadi terrorism in North Africa goes back a little further than that. Perhaps you should ask yourself why just about every gun-toting nutjob in the Third World uses Russian-made weapons.

what has the origin of the weapon got to do with the wholesale destabilisation of the region with the removal of Gaddafi? You need to ask how chunks of the Libyan arsenal was to be found in Syria including Manpads. Gaddafi kept a tight lid on Wahhabi extremism, as they threatened him too, until Cameron and Sarko decided to bomb for peace.

You have noticed the refugees crossing the med lately?

Thanks Cameron, at least Bliar got the Sierre Leone intervention right (not much else)

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Wednesday 1st July 13:50

[grand cherokee]

blindswelledrat said:

Ah, yet another 'it can't be racist because islam is not a race' card.
Just like you can't be racist when calling a black person a n*****r because black is not a race right?
I'm sure to you I have no credibility, but most people who saw you asking if I supply pistonheads links to random people I spoke to would question your sanity not mine.
In fact, I would argue the opposite of you. PH is not a credible barometer of public opinion by any stretch of the imagination or UKIP would have 90% of the vote rather than the 11% it did actually get. In fact it is becoming a rather magnified hive of the Daily Mail types who have found it to be a place they can happily chat with likeminded people about things that they would not voice in public.

bograt - I really cannot be bothered

got some fallow deer to cull so will be out and about until about 6am tomorrow

tough I know but somebody has to do it

[blindswelledrat]

Guam said:

I didn't miss the point I was being sardonic, but your still off the mark, I would not put it higher than about 40% in NPE in my experience, and then thats people who might vote for them as opposed to "hardcore members"
Call them the nose-holders if you must.
The latter group would have included me in the EURO's and the GE recently.
In my case it was down to the referendum and the Climate change acts.

Cheers.

You are still ignoring the point. 40%/90% makes no difference. The point is that PH has a vastly disproportional amount of UKIP voters and anti-immigration sentiment which still stands even if you are right. Thus anyone who thinks it is a decent barometer of public opinion and anyone who disagrees is 'burying their head in the sand' is wrong. Its actually the opposite - that people who spend too much time on PH and come to believe that the PH opinion equates to public opinion is the one who is burying their head in the sand

[blindswelledrat]

grand cherokee said:

bograt - I really cannot be bothered

got some fallow deer to cull so will be out and about until about 6am tomorrow

tough I know but somebody has to do it

Normally people who cannot be bothered exhibit this by not posting.
On the bewildering topic you have just introduced, are you assuming that we will be envious that you are going out to kill a load of deer?

[blindswelledrat]

Guam said:

Its an internet forum of course its not representative of the public at large
apparently only one is (Mumsnet)

Well why are you arguing with me then? We agree. I don't really know what just happened.

[Mr_B]

blindswelledrat said:

You are still ignoring the point. 40%/90% makes no difference. The point is that PH has a vastly disproportional amount of UKIP voters and anti-immigration sentiment which still stands even if you are right. Thus anyone who thinks it is a decent barometer of public opinion and anyone who disagrees is 'burying their head in the sand' is wrong. Its actually the opposite - that people who spend too much time on PH and come to believe that the PH opinion equates to public opinion is the one who is burying their head in the sand

You also ignore the fact the 70% of the public want big cuts in immigration and at least 50% want some kinda cuts and controls. You also frame it as you just have and written off as simply 'anti immigration' while ignoring the differences in wanting controls and cuts and actually being ' anti immigration'. The fact that every time you speak on the subject you do your best to taint as simply racism makes you look ever more the clown, but one prepared to slap your own back in your great moral virtuosity.

[oyster]

What a silly thread.

If you really think that the 99.9% of law-abiding muslims who live in the UK (and elsewhere) are in any way responsible for the barbarism of the 0.1% then you're not only uneducated, but also blind to the fact that the UK has always been a melting pot of cultures.

[Mr_B]

oyster said:

What a silly thread.

If you really think that the 99.9% of law-abiding muslims who live in the UK (and elsewhere) are in any way responsible for the barbarism of the 0.1% then you're not only uneducated, but also blind to the fact that the UK has always been a melting pot of cultures.

Well, that's belittled anyone from commenting now you've told us. No one has claimed 99.9% are responsible, so maybe your silly statements like that aren't helping either ?
I'm also not sure what the melting pot has got to do with anything or what it proves, other than seemingly being a nice tolerant but meaningless thing to say. I'll bite though and why it's overwhelmingly a problem for just the one group in the UK with thousands gone to fight and side with IS and why the views of your 99.9% show some truly alarming views in an awful lot of areas aligned with IS, all the way from directly supporting terrorism to what is essentially child grooming in state schools on religious backwardness.
Where there logic stands a chance of spreading further in the UK, lays just as much with idiots prepared to say there is no problem or that it is tiny and who bury their head, as much as with any IS propaganda.

[blindswelledrat]

Mr_B said:

You also ignore the fact the 70% of the public want big cuts in immigration and at least 50% want some kinda cuts and controls. You also frame it as you just have and written off as simply 'anti immigration' while ignoring the differences in wanting controls and cuts and actually being ' anti immigration'. The fact that every time you speak on the subject you do your best to taint as simply racism makes you look ever more the clown, but one prepared to slap your own back in your great moral virtuosity.

Sigh, snipping that out of the context of the discussion, which is that GC and others think that all muslims are to blame for the terrorist actions, is pointless.

[Mr_B]

blindswelledrat said:

Mr_B said:

You also ignore the fact the 70% of the public want big cuts in immigration and at least 50% want some kinda cuts and controls. You also frame it as you just have and written off as simply 'anti immigration' while ignoring the differences in wanting controls and cuts and actually being ' anti immigration'. The fact that every time you speak on the subject you do your best to taint as simply racism makes you look ever more the clown, but one prepared to slap your own back in your great moral virtuosity.

Sigh, snipping that out of the context of the discussion, which is that GC and others think that all muslims are to blame for the terrorist actions, is pointless.

Nope, just shows what lazy crap you wrote then when you label it all as 'anti immigration' and have just done again now when you say 'think that ALL Muslims are to blame'.
Can you see the connection when you too write it all of at the extreme end of everything - wanting immigration controls becomes anti immigration, debating the level of support and problems from Muslims and Islam becomes ' blame ALL Muslims'.
You speak in a way you think you are doing great moral work in combating, without the knowledge you're just as every bit as bad. It's probably why your posts stand out as all the more nauseating.

[blindswelledrat]

Mr_B said:

Nope, just shows what lazy crap you wrote then when you label it all as 'anti immigration' and have just done again now when you say 'think that ALL Muslims are to blame'.
Can you see the connection when you too write it all of at the extreme end of everything - wanting immigration controls becomes anti immigration, debating the level of support and problems from Muslims and Islam becomes ' blame ALL Muslims'.
You speak in a way you think you are doing great moral work in combating, without the knowledge you're just as every bit as bad. It's probably why your posts stand out as all the more nauseating.

I realise you are desperate to turn all threads intop discussions on immigration and the rights and wrongs of it, but I frankly can't be bothered on this one so why not keep them to the relevant ones? There are plenty of them in this section without you having to try to make all thread on any subject turn into your little pet immigration ranting thread.

[Mr_B]

blindswelledrat said:

Mr_B said:

Nope, just shows what lazy crap you wrote then when you label it all as 'anti immigration' and have just done again now when you say 'think that ALL Muslims are to blame'.
Can you see the connection when you too write it all of at the extreme end of everything - wanting immigration controls becomes anti immigration, debating the level of support and problems from Muslims and Islam becomes ' blame ALL Muslims'.
You speak in a way you think you are doing great moral work in combating, without the knowledge you're just as every bit as bad. It's probably why your posts stand out as all the more nauseating.

I realise you are desperate to turn all threads intop discussions on immigration and the rights and wrongs of it, but I frankly can't be bothered on this one so why not keep them to the relevant ones? There are plenty of them in this section without you having to try to make all thread on any subject turn into your little pet immigration ranting thread.

Thanks, I'll take this diversion as you at least looked at what you wrote and saw it as bks. I suppose then my pro immigration with controls view is now in your mind 'little pet immigration ranting thread' ?
Now back your campaign about sweeping generalisations with ..erm.. your own sweeping generalisations and those little twists you do so well, such as 'some' becoming 'all' and any opinion on wanting immigration controls becoming 'anti immigration'. You're doing sterling work.

Edited by Mr_B on Wednesday 1st July 14:49

[dirk01]

Mr_B said:

dirk01 said:

Its not religion, Its any group where the people in the group believe that their views should take precedence over others, or only they know the truth, or are intolerant of others

Hitler,
Stalin-
Mao
Pol Pot

Not much in the way of religion there.
I think you will find that those alone were responsible for more deaths than all the deaths caused by religion throughout the whole of human history.

The same seeds of evil can be found in groups across the globe at the moment- Some extreme US sects, UK extreme right-wingers; UK extreme left-wingers, muslim extremists and many others.

Do you really think you can just write off Hitler and the whole Nazi movement and just say no religion there, just by mentioning him ?

Fair point that Hitler and the Nazis hated many religions, not only the Jews, and they did try various half-hearted claims that parts of the old testament were false, and that Jesus was not a Jew, but they never amounted to a religion

As for Winston's allegation that my post was just highly opionated, I offer a challenge:
Lets skip Hitler, because there were religious elements to Hitler and the Nazis even if they were not themselves representing a recognised religion. So just taking the latter 3, demonstrate that religious persecution or conflict has caused more than the deaths directly caused by those atheistic nutters:
Stalin: Over 600,000 were shot by the NKVD alone I am excluding deathes from famine etc)
Mao: A widely accepted minimum figure of murders is 400,000 (though over 30,000,000 in total) dies as a result of his policies
Pol Pot: A generally accepted figure seems to be 1,500,000

So. Over the entire history of mankind, your challenge (if you choose to accept it) is to find religious persecution that has killed more than 2,500,000 people. Please note that I am excluding slavery as that was not religious but commercial

I'll give you a start. Since 9/11 I believe 20, 022 people have been killed by islamic terrorists. Just another 2,497,978 to find

Or if you don't accept the challenge, perhaps you would like to back down?

[Mr_B]

dirk01 said:

Mr_B said:

dirk01 said:

Its not religion, Its any group where the people in the group believe that their views should take precedence over others, or only they know the truth, or are intolerant of others

Hitler,
Stalin-
Mao
Pol Pot

Not much in the way of religion there.
I think you will find that those alone were responsible for more deaths than all the deaths caused by religion throughout the whole of human history.

The same seeds of evil can be found in groups across the globe at the moment- Some extreme US sects, UK extreme right-wingers; UK extreme left-wingers, muslim extremists and many others.

Do you really think you can just write off Hitler and the whole Nazi movement and just say no religion there, just by mentioning him ?

Fair point that Hitler and the Nazis hated many religions, not only the Jews, and they did try various half-hearted claims that parts of the old testament were false, and that Jesus was not a Jew, but they never amounted to a religion

As for Winston's allegation that my post was just highly opionated, I offer a challenge:
Lets skip Hitler, because there were religious elements to Hitler and the Nazis even if they were not themselves representing a recognised religion. So just taking the latter 3, demonstrate that religious persecution or conflict has caused more than the deaths directly caused by those atheistic nutters:
Stalin: Over 600,000 were shot by the NKVD alone I am excluding deathes from famine etc)
Mao: A widely accepted minimum figure of murders is 400,000 (though over 30,000,000 in total) dies as a result of his policies
Pol Pot: A generally accepted figure seems to be 1,500,000

So. Over the entire history of mankind, your challenge (if you choose to accept it) is to find religious persecution that has killed more than 2,500,000 people. Please note that I am excluding slavery as that was not religious but commercial

I'll give you a start. Since 9/11 I believe 20, 022 people have been killed by islamic terrorists. Just another 2,497,978 to find

Or if you don't accept the challenge, perhaps you would like to back down?

Why has it become a numbers game, who said anything about that ? So I'm not sure what I'm meant to be backing down from. Do you even know, I sure as hell don't.