[Archived] Extra ! Extra ! Read All About It !

[adopted scouser]

  On 22/08/2015 at 14:22, thenodrog said:

I have! We've now identified the ebola virus and are a long way down the road to having developed a successful cure. Best keep it to ourselves eh?

Aids aswell, apparently prossies have been infecting beardy @#/?s.

It's all good.

[Baz]

  On 22/08/2015 at 09:27, ABBEY said:

Syria for one . The powers that be know where the main players and Isis are . Or are you happy to say crack on .. Let them behead people like the 80 year old historian this week .

We have been bombing Syria.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/17/david-cameron-knew-uk-pilots-were-bombing-isis-in-syria

[ABBEY]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/alien-warp-speed-ufo-spotted-6318172?ICID=FB_mirror_main

UFO SIGHTING

[Audax]

Interesting UFO, is it real? I have no idea.

[T J Hooker]

I'm pretty certain its not an alien spacecraft.

[ultrablue]

Donald Trump has already promised to deport them and their families

[Audax]

Hillary must have sent out an email and didn't know it was classified info.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

  On 22/08/2015 at 11:57, Tom M said:

Problem is abbey you just said this bloke was Morrocan, we can't just bomb everyone in the hope it will sort it.

And I don't have a solution myself either.

Having a solution is one thing, but many people in this country are scared to even identify the problem. By which I don't mean the superficial problem, the superficial problem is Islamic extremists are killing tens of thousands of people every year. But what's the underlying problem? Why aren't there Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist groups around the world doing the same thing? It stands to reason there must be a difference here, no matter how unwilling many people are to admit it.

The difference, simply through logic, is that the Koran and the way it is generally taught/interpreted must be more stringent and less tolerant than the teachings of the other major religions or non-religions. Forget about violent extremism for a second. What about extreme customs that are either tolerated or made into law by governments in most majority Muslim countries? Honour killings, death penalties for blasphemy, public floggings, the Niqab, the illegality of homosexuality/kissing in public/drinking, Sharia law. The reason there are thousands of times more Muslim terrorists in the world than any other religion is blatantly because the mainstream of the religion is more extreme.

Unfortunately, as blatantly obvious as it is, anyone who states this view on a more prominent platform than a brfcs "I can't believe its not Football" forum, is routinely bullied into silence by contemptible liberal lobbying groups.

[jim mk2]

  On 02/09/2015 at 16:30, Steve Kean's Hypnotoad said:

Having a solution is one thing, but many people in this country are scared to even identify the problem. By which I don't mean the superficial problem, the superficial problem is Islamic extremists are killing tens of thousands of people every year. But what's the underlying problem? Why aren't there Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist groups around the world doing the same thing? It stands to reason there must be a difference here, no matter how unwilling many people are to admit it.

The difference, simply through logic, is that the Koran and the way it is generally taught/interpreted must be more stringent and less tolerant than the teachings of the other major religions or non-religions. Forget about violent extremism for a second. What about extreme customs that are either tolerated or made into law by governments in most majority Muslim countries? Honour killings, death penalties for blasphemy, public floggings, the Niqab, the illegality of homosexuality/kissing in public/drinking, Sharia law. The reason there are thousands of times more Muslim terrorists in the world than any other religion is blatantly because the mainstream of the religion is more extreme.

Unfortunately, as blatantly obvious as it is, anyone who states this view on a more prominent platform than a brfcs "I can't believe its not Football" forum, is routinely bullied into silence by contemptible liberal lobbying groups.

Reasonable post with some good debating points spoilt again by a silly signoff with the usual political posturing.

Try again.

[K-Hod]

  On 02/09/2015 at 16:49, jim mk2 said:

Reasonable post with some good debating points spoilt again by a silly signoff with the usual political posturing.

Try again.

You're both exactly right Jim.

But re your post- are you really criticising someone for political posturing??

Glass houses....

[ABBEY]

  On 02/09/2015 at 16:49, jim mk2 said:

Reasonable post with some good debating points spoilt again by a silly signoff with the usual political posturing.

Try again.

How can you post that after what you disgracefully accused AL of ?

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

  On 02/09/2015 at 16:49, jim mk2 said:

Reasonable post with some good debating points spoilt again by a silly signoff with the usual political posturing.

Try again.

Ok then Jim, whose fault is it that there hasn't been open discussion in the UK political arena on this topic since it first reared its ugly head on 9/11?

Straight answer please, I'm dying to know.

[thenodrog]

It reared it's ugly head before 9/11 Steve. It reared it's ugly head in the 8th century and has steadfastly refused to update it's teachings even with all the advancement of knowledge and science in well over a millenium.

[Baz]

just watched the news, and cannot believe that whilst other European countries are struggling under the weight of taking in people fleeing the abyss of Syria, Northern Iraq and Afghanistan, we are far from taking any kind of fair share, in fact we are in the midst of building a higher fence to stop the few coming here getting in.

Yet the BBC interview a few people and all of them are under the impression that we are the only ones getting these people, and that we "are full".

It's also terrible we are not doing enough to help those people in their own country, which would have stopped this before these scenes.

[jim mk2]

  On 02/09/2015 at 17:59, Steve Kean's Hypnotoad said:

Ok then Jim, whose fault is it that there hasn't been open discussion in the UK political arena on this topic since it first reared its ugly head on 9/11?

Straight answer please, I'm dying to know.

When has there not been a discussion ? I read and hear the Muslim question in the mainstream media every day. Corbyn (who you presumably dislike) actually talks to these extremists. And before you go off on another rant, he and others don't talk to them because he likes them or agrees with them. I would suggest that your "liberal lobbying groups" (whoever they are) would be far more likely to have an "open discussion" than some of the closed minds on your side of the fence.

  On 02/09/2015 at 21:37, Baz said:

just watched the news, and cannot believe that whilst other European countries are struggling under the weight of taking in people fleeing the abyss of Syria, Northern Iraq and Afghanistan, we are far from taking any kind of fair share, in fact we are in the midst of building a higher fence to stop the few coming here getting in.

Yet the BBC interview a few people and all of them are under the impression that we are the only ones getting these people, and that we "are full".

It's also terrible we are not doing enough to help those people in their own country, which would have stopped this before these scenes.

Germany is taking 800,000 (repeat800,00o) this year alone; we're taking a tiny fraction of that. No wonder the EU isn't interested in minor problems such as Calais. Farage and the likes of David Davies are a disgrace when they say we should shut the door on these people.

[T J Hooker]

just going of the interviews and footage it seems like the smart refugees that have done their research head for places like Germany and Scandinavian countries and we just mostly get the desperados and dregs

i'm not saying that's actually how it is(cos I don't know) but that's how it seems to be being portrayed in most of OUR media outlets

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

  On 02/09/2015 at 21:43, jim mk2 said:

When has there not been a discussion ? I read and hear the Muslim question in the mainstream media every day. Corbyn (who you presumably dislike) actually talks to these extremists. And before you go off on another rant, he and others don't talk to them because he likes them or agrees with them. I would suggest that your "liberal lobbying groups" (whoever they are) would be far more likely to have an "open discussion" than some of the closed minds on your side of the fence.

Define "the Muslim question". As I was at pains to point out, there is only ever discussion on the face-value effect of Islam, and even that is restrained. Compare the number of expletives, scathing satire, marches and outright venom towards ISIS compared to that dished out to right-wing groups in the past century. There's almost never discussion on the fundamental intolerance of Islam, because the left immediately play the race card whenever anyone dares to point it out. Its ironic really, they are the most active enforcers of fascism in modern UK politics.

Does Corbyn talk to them or sympathise with them? He's stated himself that he is entirely against what they believe in, so what is his motivation for talking to them? To persuade them they're in the wrong? To reach a compromise? Show me evidence of any time he's achieved deterring Hamas/Hezbollah/ISIS/whoever from their violent goals.. As far as I can see all Corbyn, Galloway, Chamberlain 80 years ago, do is revel in the superficial amiability scumbag terrorist groups award them for being nicey-nice.

[Mike E]

  On 02/09/2015 at 16:30, Steve Kean's Hypnotoad said:

Having a solution is one thing, but many people in this country are scared to even identify the problem. By which I don't mean the superficial problem, the superficial problem is Islamic extremists are killing tens of thousands of people every year. But what's the underlying problem? Why aren't there Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist groups around the world doing the same thing? It stands to reason there must be a difference here, no matter how unwilling many people are to admit it.

The difference, simply through logic, is that the Koran and the way it is generally taught/interpreted must be more stringent and less tolerant than the teachings of the other major religions or non-religions. Forget about violent extremism for a second. What about extreme customs that are either tolerated or made into law by governments in most majority Muslim countries? Honour killings, death penalties for blasphemy, public floggings, the Niqab, the illegality of homosexuality/kissing in public/drinking, Sharia law. The reason there are thousands of times more Muslim terrorists in the world than any other religion is blatantly because the mainstream of the religion is more extreme.

Unfortunately, as blatantly obvious as it is, anyone who states this view on a more prominent platform than a brfcs "I can't believe its not Football" forum, is routinely bullied into silence by contemptible liberal lobbying groups.

Hold on: Worldwide terrorism stats show that only 6% of terrorist acts are in the name of Islam.

7% by Jewish groups, 29% by extreme left wing groups (including communists) and 42% by Latino groups! 16% by 'others'.

See the problem?

[jim mk2]

  On 02/09/2015 at 22:47, Steve Kean's Hypnotoad said:

Define "the Muslim question". As I was at pains to point out, there is only ever discussion on the face-value effect of Islam, and even that is restrained. Compare the number of expletives, scathing satire, marches and outright venom towards ISIS compared to that dished out to right-wing groups in the past century. There's almost never discussion on the fundamental intolerance of Islam, because the left immediately play the race card whenever anyone dares to point it out. Its ironic really, they are the most active enforcers of fascism in modern UK politics.

Does Corbyn talk to them or sympathise with them? He's stated himself that he is entirely against what they believe in, so what is his motivation for talking to them? To persuade them they're in the wrong? To reach a compromise? Show me evidence of any time he's achieved deterring Hamas/Hezbollah/ISIS/whoever from their violent goals.. As far as I can see all Corbyn, Galloway, Chamberlain 80 years ago, do is revel in the superficial amiability scumbag terrorist groups award them for being nicey-nice.

Ultimately, you have to talk to these groups. Northern Ireland peace was achieved only when the British govt talked to the IRA. It will be the same with IS. How would you deal with these groups - by trying to wipe them off the face of the earth? It hasn't worked in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Mike E]

  On 02/09/2015 at 23:29, jim mk2 said:

Ultimately, you have to talk to these groups. Northern Ireland peace was achieved only when the British govt talked to the IRA. It will be the same with IS. How would you deal with these groups - by trying to wipe them off the face of the earth? It hasn't worked in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Difference being that the IRA (while going about it horrifically) merely wanted full independenCE from the UK and our monarchy.

ISIS want to convert the world or kill those who don't. Big difference.

[K-Hod]

I see that Rebekah Brooks has been appointed as head of News UK.

Just when you think Murdoch can't be any more of a @#/?....

In any case, she must have some dirt on Murdoch, as I seem to recall her defence team mentioning her 'incompetence' during the phone hacking trial...

[adopted scouser]

  On 03/09/2015 at 06:59, K-Hod said:

I see that Rebekah Brooks has been appointed as head of News UK.

Just when you think Murdoch can't be any more of a @#/?....

In any case, she must have some dirt on Murdoch, as I seem to recall her defence team mentioning her 'incompetence' during the phone hacking trial...

Wasn't she found not guilty though ?!

[K-Hod]

She was. That being said, quite how she's got such a prestigious job after she described herself as incompetent us beyond me.

[Mike E]

  On 03/09/2015 at 12:56, K-Hod said:

She was. That being said, quite how she's got such a prestigious job after she described herself as incompetent us beyond me.

To be fair, incompetency is merely the act of being unaware that your doing something wrong until someone points it out.

I reckon she wasn't incompetent at all but just plain malicious, as many journos seem to be.

[Baz]

  On 03/09/2015 at 06:59, K-Hod said:

I see that Rebekah Brooks has been appointed as head of News UK.

Just when you think Murdoch can't be any more of a @#/?....

In any case, she must have some dirt on Murdoch, as I seem to recall her defence team mentioning her 'incompetence' during the phone hacking trial...

Her defence was that although hacking was going on whilst she was Chief executive, she didn't know anything about it, so wasn't culpable.

It's pretty obviously given her re-appointment that Murdoch didn't believe she was incompetent, which leads to the conclusion..........