Paris shooting and casualties ?

[Mr_B]

Pistom said:

Mr_B said:

You were asked why she should assume that the people on this march were obviously simple minded bigots ( You called the woman in the interview obviously simple minded, not me ) who couldn't handle a woman wearing a dress. You were asked why the journalist was meant to assume that because they wear Muslim garb as you put it, she needed to dress in the street not wearing a dress that shows any of her shape to get a reasoned response that wasn't from being proactive.
You were also asked what the provocative questions were, but again, no response.

I'm not sure why in trying to defend Muslims, you've made the assumption that those who wear a burka would be so intolerant of someone wearing a dress in public unless you think the two are linked. I thought that's what you were bending over backwards to disprove ? You seem to make the most gross assumptions about people and encouraging everyone to do the same. Is there any reason why a woman who wants the freedom to wear a burka would not want the freedom for her to want to wear a dress in public and be equal ?
I would await a response, but think I'll settle for more rubbish about how you can't.

Looks like reading and interpretation could be a an area for improvement.

Start by reading your own post.

Does someone who says the things in paragraph 1 sound like he is defending Muslims as you suggest in paragraph 2?.

Do they sound like they were defending anyone in that march.

Again, the focus moves away from the original point trying to undermine the messenger.

Thanks for the non answer. You can't even reply with what were you claimed were loaded questions done in the provocative way of wearing a dress on the street, while trying to push the point that it should be obvious anyone dressed in a burka would take offence at a woman in a dress.
You might want to pick a line and stick to it as you are all over the place. Your hyper sense of offence is comical and goes nowhere but to make things worse. I'll leave you alone to sit in your darkened room eating lunch.

[Mr_B]

EskimoArapaho said:

99% of all Daily Mail clickthroughs come from numbnuts posting the clickbait here. Fact.

I like those who start their post ' sorry for the Mail link, but.....' best.

[Mr_B]

Breadvan72 said:

You seem a moderately logical sort of person, AJS is the logic in classing all Muslims as dodgy on the basis of the actions of a few? TDo we judge all Christians by the actions of the KKK? I add that I do not say that Islamic extremists are not Islamic. Islam is a dreadful system of thought, and when militant is vile, just like all religions. What I don't buy is the idea that all Muslims are suspect. Muslims are the main victims of Islamic extremism. We in the west get off relatively lightly. This is not to belittle the horror of terrorist outrages in the west, but a bit of global perspective might not go amiss.

BV, how could you ? That's dangerously close to a Blindswelldrat type post. No one says it's all Muslims. Please don't lower yourself to being one of those who write 'oh right, so now all Muslims are terrorists now'type post with a rolling eyes smilie type face things.

[Mr_B]

blindswelledrat said:

Mr_B said:

BV, how could you ? That's dangerously close to a Blindswelldrat type post. No one says it's all Muslims. Please don't lower yourself to being one of those who write 'oh right, so now all Muslims are terrorists now'type post with a rolling eyes smilie type face things.

You are so tedious.
I disagree with people like AJS but at least he offers discussion and voices his opinion.
You just lurk like some kind of weirdo adding absolutely nothing whatsoever, just looking for the opportunity to attack other posters. I just inwardly groan with boredom every time I see your name

You couldn't even defend the exaggerated drivel ( people who say they don't hate Muslims get called left wing ) you wrote just yesterday. It's why I use you as the low tide mark of PH debate. Sorry.

[Mr_B]

_dobbo_ said:

Mr_B said:

BV, how could you ? That's dangerously close to a Blindswelldrat type post. No one says it's all Muslims.

To be fair, exactly that "all Muslims" sentiment has been expressed on this thread. There was a brief discussion of whether a Muslim should hold political office in the UK. One of the argument against was that their "morals" would include approval of stonings, beatings and chopping off of hands. Presumably on the basis that one Muslim = all Muslims.

I'll disagree. The comment from BV was towards AJS and I feel a bit false in the 'all Muslims' stakes when I don't believe he said anything to justify the ' all Muslims' part.
This comment and variations of it gets wheeled out by the lazy clowns like BSR a bit too often , to the point it's almost now obligatory to post it with a rolling eyes smilie face thing as some kinda meaningful response.
If people wish to use it against those who do try and prove its all , then fine. Someone here wrote about turning Syria to glass, which is a stupid comment, but of course then gets picked up and turned against people who made no such comment, again as if it means anything.

I have a particular dislike of it as I like to speak quite openly and be clear what my views are regardless of what people may think, good or bad.
For instance, in one thread on here I was asked to condemn totally unrelated comments with no connection what so ever to me by another poster here because he deemed them racist and therefore must be linked to me because I was arguing a point about immigration which wasn't seen as being blindly pro immigration. The same person then went on to tell me the racist poster was 'my friends' be cause he was anti immigration and I was arguing a point about some negative aspect of open EU immigration.
On the same subject, I write here that immigration has always been needed and probably always will be and that it can bring many benefits. The moment I mention anything negative about immigration , people like our resident clown, BSR (again ) turn up and in the same vein as the 'all Muslims' quote, turn up and say I'm anti immigration. I just find a lot of it a lazy argument to declare it 'all' and declare it obviously rubbish on that basis.

[Mr_B]

Breadvan72 said:

Mr_B said:

... The comment from BV was towards AJS and I feel a bit false in the 'all Muslims' stakes when I don't believe he said anything to justify the ' all Muslims' part.
...

Re read AJS' comments. He says that he views all Muslims with suspicion. Others on this thread and the other threads on similar topics make various sweeping generalisations about Muslims, including the generalisation that Muslims are for some reason incapable of being governed other than by violent dictators. Not racism, I grant you, but a form of prejudice, I suggest.

You'd have to point out the specific bit as it wasn't quoted by yourself and possible I may have missed it, but assumed it was from where he said 'No doubt I do have a tendency to think the worst as far as it concerns Muslim rabbles' ? If so, I would find that a leap to declare it all Muslims worldwide.
There is indeed a lot of generalisations, and as I tried to show they go both ways with equal laziness. I haven't read every single post and maybe someone has posted about the inability to be governed other than by dictators , which I would agree is nonsense. I hope it's not being confused though with someone saying things were at least quieter with the likes of Assad, Gaddafi, Hussein. Something that is an expression of support for either.

[Mr_B]

blindswelledrat said:

That's one hell of a crap back track MrB.

In other words "oops, sorry-fair point and I am a bit embarrassed about my childish rant".
The only person who would criticise anyone for doing that is.....you... and given that you are the one who said it you'd be on safe ground.

No back track. I said if the part I quoted is the part BV takes his 'all' from, then I think he's wrong to do so and is an assumption. How clear can that be ? So no, not sorry, no fair point and not embarrassed.

[Mr_B]

Breadvan72 said:

Mr_B said:

Breadvan72 said:

Mr_B said:

... The comment from BV was towards AJS and I feel a bit false in the 'all Muslims' stakes when I don't believe he said anything to justify the ' all Muslims' part.
...

Re read AJS' comments. He says that he views all Muslims with suspicion. Others on this thread and the other threads on similar topics make various sweeping generalisations about Muslims, including the generalisation that Muslims are for some reason incapable of being governed other than by violent dictators. Not racism, I grant you, but a form of prejudice, I suggest.

You'd have to point out the specific bit as it wasn't quoted by yourself and possible I may have missed it, but assumed it was from where he said 'No doubt I do have a tendency to think the worst as far as it concerns Muslim rabbles' ? If so, I would find that a leap to declare it all Muslims worldwide.
There is indeed a lot of generalisations, and as I tried to show they go both ways with equal laziness. I haven't read every single post and maybe someone has posted about the inability to be governed other than by dictators , which I would agree is nonsense. I hope it's not being confused though with someone saying things were at least quieter with the likes of Assad, Gaddafi, Hussein. Something that is an expression of support for either.

I am not going to read the thread for you, Mr B. I was referring to a later comment by AJS, which, AFAIK, he does not deny making. I have many faults, but making stuff up isn't one of them. Really, if you can't be bothered to read the thread before posting on it, is there much point? OK, there is no point to PH anyway, but, even so.

PS: sorry to be picky (OK, not really), but "there ARE a lot of generalisations", not "there is a lot of generalisations". Spelling may not matter (I might disagree), but, I suggest, basic grammar does.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 18th November 17:36

Maybe the key word of 'all' is there, I didn't see it, it wasn't quoted but would be very happy to admit I could be wrong and say sorry if so, but would be surprised if he said that, mainly because in the post in question on page 142 where you ask him the logic in classing all Muslims as dodgy, his direct reply to you is "I'm not saying anything about all Muslims, or indeed all anyone".

I'm afraid you'll have to suffer my poor grammar. It's your choice to read and participate.

[Mr_B]

Commander of the Bataclan raid speaks.

www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/commando-recoun...

[Mr_B]

otolith said:

It's the same sentiment as this, but with less swearing and patisserie.

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradio...

Oliver's one was crap that didn't really say anything and ended up almost being used as a promotional tool ( not his intention I think )for his show and HBO.
Neil's one was thought out and was a safe act of defiance that has caught the mood. Someone made a cheap jibe earlier about the BBC earlier regarding his remarks and how it must have slipped out on live broadcast, which is rubbish.

[Mr_B]

blindswelledrat said:

Something I cant really understand.
I disagree with a lot of people here and I get called "pro-islam" and "lefty" and often simply just "".
But something we all seem to more-or-less agree on is that we should all be uniting and piling into Syria/Iraq and crushing IS like the scum they are. Perhaps I am naive but I would assume we could do it easily.

And yet I read that Cameron is having difficulty getting agreement to even do more airstrikes and that more than 50% of people in the UK still don't support them even after Paris.
Unlike a lot of people here, I don't assume that everyone else is stupid/lefty/thick/insert other insult - I assume I am missing something because to me it is so obvious we should be doing it. Anyone have a reasonable explanation?

Lots of people calling for war and bombing, few have any clue what that actually means or what you intend to actually do. Can you say for yourself a basis of military action that you want to see and what happens after ?

The theory is a good one, thirty thousand idiots should be able to be defeated by the 5 million plus Arab forces lone they could bring to bear, but they can't be arsed. The reality of a massed attack might have them melting away quite quickly with hardly a fight, but what then ? US installed Syrian president voted for in sham elections like Afghanistan, Assad stays with our help and that won't cause a fight ? People seem to think post-ISIS there won't be another group or just even more internal Sunni Shia killing and excuses for doing so because of western intervention.

Right now I think I'll stay out of it until someone comes up with a better plan of sending 7 ageing RAF jets to add next to nothing. If I feel under threat, then it's likely to manifest itself in the form of British person blowing himself up here, so maybe clamping down on things at home if the politicians want to leap into action and do something.

Edited by Mr_B on Friday 20th November 17:47

[Mr_B]

Zod said:

Mr_B said:

blindswelledrat said:

Something I cant really understand.
I disagree with a lot of people here and I get called "pro-islam" and "lefty" and often simply just "".
But something we all seem to more-or-less agree on is that we should all be uniting and piling into Syria/Iraq and crushing IS like the scum they are. Perhaps I am naive but I would assume we could do it easily.

And yet I read that Cameron is having difficulty getting agreement to even do more airstrikes and that more than 50% of people in the UK still don't support them even after Paris.
Unlike a lot of people here, I don't assume that everyone else is stupid/lefty/thick/insert other insult - I assume I am missing something because to me it is so obvious we should be doing it. Anyone have a reasonable explanation?

Lots of people calling for war and bombing, few have any clue what that actually means or what you intend to actually do. Can you say for yourself a basis of military action that you want to see and what happens after ?

The theory is a good one, thirty thousand idiots should be able to be defeated by the 5 million plus Arab forces lone they could bring to bear, but they can't be arsed.=. The reality of a massed attack might have them melting away quite quickly with hardly a fight, but what then ? US installed Syrian president voted for in sham elections like Afghanistan, Assad stays with our help and that won't cause a fight ? People seem to think post-ISIS there won't be another group or just even more internal Sunni Shia killing and excuses for doing so because of western intervention.

Right now I think I'll stay out of it until someone comes up with a better plan of sending 7 ageing RAF jets to add next to nothing. If I will under threat, then it's likely to manifest itself in the form of British person blowing himself up here, so maybe clamping down on things at home if the politicians want to leap into action and do something.

I can turn that round and ask you what you think will be the result of doing nothing.

Here in the UK ? I would probably be safer if you did a range of things from the immediate, to thinking generational stopping poison being spread and creating a divide in religious schools. The ideology may come from abroad, the ones blowing themselves up and doing the work though come from here and are radicalised here too for the most part.

I'm not absolutely set against any action, but it would have to be with a huge consensus from the ME with them taking the lead and with a plan on what happens on the simple point of Syria. It's 30k people with a rifle after all, if you had massive numbers of troops there would be little fight because most would melt away. The problem being what happens then if you then start afresh with new grievances that any western lead intervention then becomes the new excuse for.
To be blunt, I'm not sure various groups and counties have done enough killing to the point of where they are sick of it and feel the need compromise.

What's your view ?

[Mr_B]

Zod said:

Mr_B said:

Here in the UK ? I would probably be safer if you did a range of things from the immediate, to thinking generational stopping poison being spread and creating a divide in religious schools. The ideology may come from abroad, the ones blowing themselves up and doing the work though come from here and are radicalised here too for the most part.

I'm not absolutely set against any action, but it would have to be with a huge consensus from the ME with them taking the lead and with a plan on what happens on the simple point of Syria. It's 30k people with a rifle after all, if you had massive numbers of troops there would be little fight because most would melt away. The problem being what happens then if you then start afresh with new grievances that any western lead intervention then becomes the new excuse for.
To be blunt, I'm not sure various groups and counties have done enough killing to the point of where they are sick of it and feel the need compromise.

What's your view ?

Action needs to be comprehensive and thought out, both at home and in the ME.

Religious schools are not a problem per se. We have had CofE and RC schools for a very long time and they have always accepted children of other faiths and no faith. Unless Islamic schools can operate in the same way, they should not be allowed to exist. Indoctrination into extremism must be stamped out in schools, places of worship and prisons. There can be no tolerance of it.

We need to undertake coordinated military action with NATO, Russia and perhaps China and to encourage (strongly) the Arab countries to join in to kill IS leaders and dismantle it.

Without the ME involvement you'll just go round and round. They simply can't be arsed to do anything and it then always comes back to the meddling west as an excuse for more killing and the cause of division.
There's a line in the film Lawrence of Arabia during the scene at the well where he says something along the lines of 'as long as Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people'. I'm sorry to say whether its al Qaeda, ISIS, sunni/shia , the differences just seem to be used to continue old divisions and keep on killing.
I'm afraid I can well see just another version of ISIS even if the current lot were obliterated ( the reality is many will melt away during any action ) unless their is any appetite in that region to actually do something for themselves. It will be a strange world if we consider it some kinda result that the mass murderer, Assad, is back in power and in control of Syria.

[Mr_B]

Halb said:

ISIS are just so extreme they go up to 11.

You could flog T-shirts with that on eBay.

[Mr_B]

Breadvan72 said:

It would be wonderful if Islam could be eradicated from the World along with all the other death cults

Quite.