isis

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 78 of 85 < 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 >

legaleagle 22 Aug 15 10.48am
Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Aug 2015 6.36am Quote legaleagle at 21 Aug 2015 11.22pm My grandmother was Romanian I don't really think too much about if someone is white or not if they come from Romania (a country,like us, of various ethnicities). Do you? It is you who imply that my comments on immigration are racist and based on the ethnicity of a person. I object to mass immigration per se, regardless of the ethnicity. Similarly, I think that communities that have proportionary high crime rates are cause for concern, regardless of their ethnicity. OK. I will take what you write at face value then. Please forgive me.I had understood you (from other threads) wrongly to be someone like a poster you may remember called Derben who would move out of their locality if people of a different race,ethnicity or religion moved in.I apologise if I was wrong about that and I am sure that your future posts will show that personal aversity/prejudice towards people of a different ethnicity to you play no part in your views on say immigration or crime. And,anyway, people who are merely averse to people of a different ethnicity but don't discriminate in their views on the basis of race are not racists,rather they are xenophobic ethnocentrists. Lets wipe the slate clean and take it from here. Edited by legaleagle (22 Aug 2015 11.01am)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

22 Aug 15 10.48am

Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Aug 2015 6.36am

Quote legaleagle at 21 Aug 2015 11.22pm

My grandmother was Romanian

I don't really think too much about if someone is white or not if they come from Romania (a country,like us, of various ethnicities). Do you?

It is you who imply that my comments on immigration are racist and based on the ethnicity of a person. I object to mass immigration per se, regardless of the ethnicity. Similarly, I think that communities that have proportionary high crime rates are cause for concern, regardless of their ethnicity.

OK. I will take what you write at face value then. Please forgive me.I had understood you (from other threads) wrongly to be someone like a poster you may remember called Derben who would move out of their locality if people of a different race,ethnicity or religion moved in.I apologise if I was wrong about that and I am sure that your future posts will show that personal aversity/prejudice towards people of a different ethnicity to you play no part in your views on say immigration or crime.

And,anyway, people who are merely averse to people of a different ethnicity but don't discriminate in their views on the basis of race are not racists,rather they are xenophobic ethnocentrists.

Lets wipe the slate clean and take it from here.

Edited by legaleagle (22 Aug 2015 11.01am)

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Aug 15 11.20am
Quote legaleagle at 22 Aug 2015 10.48am Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Aug 2015 6.36am Quote legaleagle at 21 Aug 2015 11.22pm My grandmother was Romanian I don't really think too much about if someone is white or not if they come from Romania (a country,like us, of various ethnicities). Do you? It is you who imply that my comments on immigration are racist and based on the ethnicity of a person. I object to mass immigration per se, regardless of the ethnicity. Similarly, I think that communities that have proportionary high crime rates are cause for concern, regardless of their ethnicity. OK. I will take what you write at face value then. Please forgive me.I had understood you (from other threads) wrongly to be someone like a poster you may remember called Derben who would move out of their locality if people of a different race,ethnicity or religion moved in.I apologise if I was wrong about that and I am sure that your future posts will show that personal aversity/prejudice towards people of a different ethnicity to you play no part in your views on say immigration or crime. And,anyway, people who are merely averse to people of a different ethnicity but don't discriminate in their views on the basis of race are not racists,rather they are xenophobic ethnocentrists. Lets wipe the slate clean and take it from here. Edited by legaleagle (22 Aug 2015 11.01am) I thought you were all for the free movement of people? mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 22 Aug 15 11.20am

Quote legaleagle at 22 Aug 2015 10.48am

Quote leggedstruggle at 22 Aug 2015 6.36am

Quote legaleagle at 21 Aug 2015 11.22pm

My grandmother was Romanian

I don't really think too much about if someone is white or not if they come from Romania (a country,like us, of various ethnicities). Do you?

OK. I will take what you write at face value then. Please forgive me.I had understood you (from other threads) wrongly to be someone like a poster you may remember called Derben who would move out of their locality if people of a different race,ethnicity or religion moved in.I apologise if I was wrong about that and I am sure that your future posts will show that personal aversity/prejudice towards people of a different ethnicity to you play no part in your views on say immigration or crime.

And,anyway, people who are merely averse to people of a different ethnicity but don't discriminate in their views on the basis of race are not racists,rather they are xenophobic ethnocentrists.

Lets wipe the slate clean and take it from here.

Edited by legaleagle (22 Aug 2015 11.01am)

I thought you were all for the free movement of people?

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 22 Aug 15 11.27am
So long as (like in your case) its not based simply on the ethnicity,religion or race of the people you object to moving in. If someone (unlike you) was of that ilk,they can of course move.Nothing to stop them. They could hold those views,nothing to stop them. But they might then legitimately be referred to as a racist or as an xenophobic ethnocentrist, depending of which of their particular aversities came into play on the occasion in question.
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

22 Aug 15 11.27am

So long as (like in your case) its not based simply on the ethnicity,religion or race of the people you object to moving in.

If someone (unlike you) was of that ilk,they can of course move.Nothing to stop them. They could hold those views,nothing to stop them.

But they might then legitimately be referred to as a racist or as an xenophobic ethnocentrist, depending of which of their particular aversities came into play on the occasion in question.

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Aug 15 11.33am
Quote legaleagle at 22 Aug 2015 11.27am So long as (like in your case) its not based simply on the ethnicity,religion or race of the people you object to moving in. If someone (unlike you) was of that ilk,they can of course move.Nothing to stop them. They could hold those views,nothing to stop them. But they might then legitimately be referred to as a racist or as an xenophobic ethnocentrist, depending of which of their particular aversities came into play on the occasion in question. Would it be ok to move if you simply did not like the general ambiance of the area, or did not like your neighbours? What about if you find that your local shops don't stock the sort of thing you want? What if crime rates soared? Or do you think there should be legislation stopping one moving unless you can prove politically correct reasons for doing so - a sort of compulsory stay put rule? mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 22 Aug 15 11.33am

Quote legaleagle at 22 Aug 2015 11.27am

So long as (like in your case) its not based simply on the ethnicity,religion or race of the people you object to moving in.

If someone (unlike you) was of that ilk,they can of course move.Nothing to stop them. They could hold those views,nothing to stop them.

But they might then legitimately be referred to as a racist or as an xenophobic ethnocentrist, depending of which of their particular aversities came into play on the occasion in question.

Would it be ok to move if you simply did not like the general ambiance of the area, or did not like your neighbours? What about if you find that your local shops don't stock the sort of thing you want? What if crime rates soared? Or do you think there should be legislation stopping one moving unless you can prove politically correct reasons for doing so - a sort of compulsory stay put rule?

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 22 Aug 15 11.39am
Well,if I just wrote just before you posted that "of course,they can move,nothing to stop them",I think that's has already answered that one,no? As for your other point,it would depend what motivated them.Whether or not it was a simple blanket aversity towards people because of their different race,religion or ethnicity. Edited by legaleagle (22 Aug 2015 11.40am)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

22 Aug 15 11.39am

Well,if I just wrote just before you posted that "of course,they can move,nothing to stop them",I think that's has already answered that one,no?

As for your other point,it would depend what motivated them.Whether or not it was a simple blanket aversity towards people because of their different race,religion or ethnicity.

Edited by legaleagle (22 Aug 2015 11.40am)

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Aug 15 7.08pm
I see that the heavily armed man who was overpowered by terrific members of the American armed forces on a train in France was a 26-year-old Moroccan with links to the "radical Islamist movement" - but of course this is probably just a coincidence and he has actually has nothing to do with Islam and is possibly 'vulnerable' and had been 'groomed', or perhaps it was all a CIA stunt? mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 22 Aug 15 7.08pm

I see that the heavily armed man who was overpowered by terrific members of the American armed forces on a train in France was a 26-year-old Moroccan with links to the "radical Islamist movement" - but of course this is probably just a coincidence and he has actually has nothing to do with Islam and is possibly 'vulnerable' and had been 'groomed', or perhaps it was all a CIA stunt?

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 22 Aug 15 7.24pm
Sounds like an horrendous incident and possible mass killings averted. No doubt in due course more facts will emerge about the guy and what he was up to.At the moment sounds likely he was a salafist jihadist who had spent time in Syria.But none of us would know. You'd be the last one to want to use something like this to make cheap digs,I know.
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

22 Aug 15 7.24pm

Sounds like an horrendous incident and possible mass killings averted.

No doubt in due course more facts will emerge about the guy and what he was up to.At the moment sounds likely he was a salafist jihadist who had spent time in Syria.But none of us would know. You'd be the last one to want to use something like this to make cheap digs,I know.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 22 Aug 15 7.35pm
Quote legaleagle at 22 Aug 2015 7.24pm Sounds like an horrendous incident and possible mass killings averted. No doubt in due course more facts will emerge about the guy and what he was up to.At the moment sounds likely he was a salafist jihadist who had spent time in Syria.But none of us would know. You'd be the last one to want to use something like this to make cheap digs,I know. I wonder if someone's going to make a claim that Islamic terrorists commit no more criminal acts than any other group. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Aug 2015 7.36pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

22 Aug 15 7.35pm

Quote legaleagle at 22 Aug 2015 7.24pm

Sounds like an horrendous incident and possible mass killings averted.

I wonder if someone's going to make a claim that Islamic terrorists commit no more criminal acts than any other group.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Aug 2015 7.36pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 22 Aug 15 7.37pm
Quote legaleagle at 22 Aug 2015 7.24pm Sounds like an horrendous incident and possible mass killings averted. No doubt in due course more facts will emerge about the guy and what he was up to.At the moment sounds likely he was a salafist jihadist who had spent time in Syria.But none of us would know. You'd be the last one to want to use something like this to make cheap digs,I know. It just seems to be such a strange coincidence that this chap and the 'vulnerable' chap on the Tunisian beach happen to have associations with jihadist groups but at the same time their activities of course have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. I think to clarify things, instead of calling these vulnerable people Islamic State or Daesh (which is an acronym for the Arabic translation of ‘Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’), we should call them People Who Carry Out Atrocities Who Have Nothing To Do With Islam. Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Aug 2015 7.37pm) mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 22 Aug 15 7.37pm

Quote legaleagle at 22 Aug 2015 7.24pm

Sounds like an horrendous incident and possible mass killings averted.

It just seems to be such a strange coincidence that this chap and the 'vulnerable' chap on the Tunisian beach happen to have associations with jihadist groups but at the same time their activities of course have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. I think to clarify things, instead of calling these vulnerable people Islamic State or Daesh (which is an acronym for the Arabic translation of ‘Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’), we should call them People Who Carry Out Atrocities Who Have Nothing To Do With Islam.

Edited by leggedstruggle (22 Aug 2015 7.37pm)

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

palace_in_frogland In a broken dream 22 Aug 15 7.44pm
Quote legaleagle at 22 Aug 2015 10.41am Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 22 Aug 2015 9.29am Another waste of time discussion with entrenched unmoving views. It's meant to be about so called ISIS BTW. What we want here is the truth not spin. If bad has been done there is no pint covering it up for the sake of PC. Equally, always blaming the foreigner is a little one sided. What we want is unspun facts and unbiased observation (if such a thing still or ever did exist). This thread does little to contradict the claims from the right of center that liberal/left bias exists in media. I notice that all the people on the right have been yellow carded and "theJudge" has been banned. I cannot see why by reading these posts. If you want a debate then you have to have two sides, and the moderators seem to have some bias of their own. Rescind the cards I say and let's discuss like men, not schoolboys. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. And a sensible discussion is always to be welcomed over personal "mud slinging",I agree. But to deal with just four of your points. It could be said this thread evidences the "right". bias that exists in the media.Depends how you perceive it.Some might say you are "bang on".Others might say its ironic you say that since it is itself a biased point made by you as part of a post decrying biased posts. Re yellow cards,you assume posters got cards for their views and/or because of something on this thread.I have no idea why The Judge got a red. You jump to the conclusion it was because of his views.LS got a yellow for trolling, not because of his views.A Mod explained why. FUE may or may not have got a yellow for suggesting on another thread he would booby trap a house here migrants (including kids)lived in,and that the SAS should go in and mow down all the potential migrants (including kids) in Calais.His defenders say he was just joking. If "wrong has been done",there is no reason to "cover it up" on "PC grounds". If there is a debate about whether that's the case generally and the extent to which "the wrong" illustrates an overall situation or not,that's perfectly legitimate.So,again, there could be those that might say your view/conclusion itself shows a certain bias on your part.Others might say you are "bang on". I think to suggest that on threads like this and similar,"all" those on the "right" get carded and that there is a need for "two sides" so this needs to be corrected/balanced is just not sustainable when you see the number of posters of the "anti-immigration" "right" generally on General Talk. The "left" are hardly a majority on General Talk IMO. As for the thread being about ISIS,yes but since when has a thread this long stuck strictly to topic?! Edited by legaleagle (22 Aug 2015 11.36am) Have you bought a box of "quotation marks" from Willo?
Alert a moderator to this post

palace_in_frogland

In a broken dream 22 Aug 15 7.44pm

Send a Private Message to palace_in_frogland

Quote legaleagle at 22 Aug 2015 10.41am

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 22 Aug 2015 9.29am

Another waste of time discussion with entrenched unmoving views. It's meant to be about so called ISIS BTW.
What we want here is the truth not spin. If bad has been done there is no pint covering it up for the sake of PC.
Equally, always blaming the foreigner is a little one sided.
What we want is unspun facts and unbiased observation (if such a thing still or ever did exist).
This thread does little to contradict the claims from the right of center that liberal/left bias exists in media.
I notice that all the people on the right have been yellow carded and "theJudge" has been banned. I cannot see why by reading these posts. If you want a debate then you have to have two sides, and the moderators seem to have some bias of their own.
Rescind the cards I say and let's discuss like men, not schoolboys.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

And a sensible discussion is always to be welcomed over personal "mud slinging",I agree.

But to deal with just four of your points.

It could be said this thread evidences the "right". bias that exists in the media.Depends how you perceive it.Some might say you are "bang on".Others might say its ironic you say that since it is itself a biased point made by you as part of a post decrying biased posts.

Re yellow cards,you assume posters got cards for their views and/or because of something on this thread.I have no idea why The Judge got a red. You jump to the conclusion it was because of his views.LS got a yellow for trolling, not because of his views.A Mod explained why. FUE may or may not have got a yellow for suggesting on another thread he would booby trap a house here migrants (including kids)lived in,and that the SAS should go in and mow down all the potential migrants (including kids) in Calais.His defenders say he was just joking.

If "wrong has been done",there is no reason to "cover it up" on "PC grounds". If there is a debate about whether that's the case generally and the extent to which "the wrong" illustrates an overall situation or not,that's perfectly legitimate.So,again, there could be those that might say your view/conclusion itself shows a certain bias on your part.Others might say you are "bang on".

I think to suggest that on threads like this and similar,"all" those on the "right" get carded and that there is a need for "two sides" so this needs to be corrected/balanced is just not sustainable when you see the number of posters of the "anti-immigration" "right" generally on General Talk. The "left" are hardly a majority on General Talk IMO.

As for the thread being about ISIS,yes but since when has a thread this long stuck strictly to topic?!
Edited by legaleagle (22 Aug 2015 11.36am)

Have you bought a box of "quotation marks" from Willo?

Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 22 Aug 15 7.54pm
Quote legaleagle at 21 Aug 2015 9.14pm Quote fed up eagle at 21 Aug 2015 9.05pm All the white paedo rings get their come uppance in the press as much as the muslim gangs grooming young girls in Rotheram and various other towns, so let's not get all indignant about the Asian grooming gangs being exposed. It is true to say that this ridiculous approach of being too scared to say anything for fear of being branded a racist has probably allowed this disgusting behaviour to flourish. All paedophillia, no matter the colour of the perps is truly disgusting. Hell, all you have to do is be against immigration and you get branded a racist! This ridiculous leftist PC BS has to stop now. No,all someone has to do to be branded a racist is to make a number of comments suggesting they have a clear propensity for holding and spouting racist sentiments. Not everyone raising anti-immigration points of view is a racist and it would be absurd to suggest otherwise.About as silly as anyone labelling someone of vaguely "left" views as an admirer of,say, Trotsky or N Korea or Stalin. There are some of a "left" persuasion who do admire Trotsky.Far from all but they are there.There are some who are of "the right" and who are "anti-immigration" who give the clear impression of being racist and are rightly called racists.Far from all,but they are also there. Edited by legaleagle (21 Aug 2015 9.22pm) No, in your world anyone who disagrees with you is a racist.
Alert a moderator to this post

fed up eagle

Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 22 Aug 15 7.54pm

Quote legaleagle at 21 Aug 2015 9.14pm

Quote fed up eagle at 21 Aug 2015 9.05pm

All the white paedo rings get their come uppance in the press as much as the muslim gangs grooming young girls in Rotheram and various other towns, so let's not get all indignant about the Asian grooming gangs being exposed. It is true to say that this ridiculous approach of being too scared to say anything for fear of being branded a racist has probably allowed this disgusting behaviour to flourish. All paedophillia, no matter the colour of the perps is truly disgusting.
Hell, all you have to do is be against immigration and you get branded a racist! This ridiculous leftist PC BS has to stop now.

No,all someone has to do to be branded a racist is to make a number of comments suggesting they have a clear propensity for holding and spouting racist sentiments. Not everyone raising anti-immigration points of view is a racist and it would be absurd to suggest otherwise.About as silly as anyone labelling someone of vaguely "left" views as an admirer of,say, Trotsky or N Korea or Stalin. There are some of a "left" persuasion who do admire Trotsky.Far from all but they are there.There are some who are of "the right" and who are "anti-immigration" who give the clear impression of being racist and are rightly called racists.Far from all,but they are also there.

Edited by legaleagle (21 Aug 2015 9.22pm)

No, in your world anyone who disagrees with you is a racist.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 22 Aug 15 8.03pm
They are certainly carrying out a fundamentalist 'version' of Islam. Those who say that the actions of IS have absolutely nothing to do with Islam are simply ignoring some uncomfortable truths. People wonder why IS and the House of Saudi carry out beheadings.....It's partly from the verse, 'When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks'.....It's written down in the holy book. Who is it exactly that says that one verse should be followed in preference to another verse? Who decides the context? Who exactly has the right to tell you this 'Islam' is more truthful than another 'Islam'? Is it just because one version is more adaptable to modern western sensibilities than another? IS carry out the slaving and rape of enemy female captives. For this they can point to specific verses. There are also verses permitting Muslims to lie to non believers. I agree that the vast majority of Muslims don't support the enactment of this behaviour......Indeed it's a prominent point that the vast majority of people doing the ground work fighting against IS are Muslims themselves.......Like the Kurds. But it's not a simplistic picture. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Aug 2015 8.15pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

22 Aug 15 8.03pm

They are certainly carrying out a fundamentalist 'version' of Islam.

Those who say that the actions of IS have absolutely nothing to do with Islam are simply ignoring some uncomfortable truths.

People wonder why IS and the House of Saudi carry out beheadings.....It's partly from the verse, 'When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks'.....It's written down in the holy book.

Who is it exactly that says that one verse should be followed in preference to another verse?

Who decides the context? Who exactly has the right to tell you this 'Islam' is more truthful than another 'Islam'? Is it just because one version is more adaptable to modern western sensibilities than another?

IS carry out the slaving and rape of enemy female captives. For this they can point to specific verses.

There are also verses permitting Muslims to lie to non believers.

I agree that the vast majority of Muslims don't support the enactment of this behaviour......Indeed it's a prominent point that the vast majority of people doing the ground work fighting against IS are Muslims themselves.......Like the Kurds.

But it's not a simplistic picture.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Aug 2015 8.15pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 78 of 85 < 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

isis

Site Map

Sponsors