This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Is Islam, the new Nazi ?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
jamiemartin721  Reading 18 Jun 14 1.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Jun 2014 9.37am
Quote legaleagle at 18 Jun 2014 9.08am
I think you may have missed my point re foreign policy. Of course most countries most of the time have hypocritical foreign policies. My point was that, regardless of this, many young idealistic people in those countries may feel affronted by such policies, particularly where the policies are lacking in any veneer of sophisticated rhetorical justification. In some cases (anti-Vietnam war)it can cause whole sectors of the population to feel estranged from the whole system in their countries... If we want to have any chance of understanding why some young British Muslims might start to feel estranged from the "system" here, we need to be open to the possibility that their feelings of antipathy to aspects of our foreign policy are not automatically "anti-western" but no different in that way, say, to the example of the anti-Vietnam war protesters....I think things are less simplistic and more complex than that...so, we demonise people in a simplistic kneejerk way at our peril..
Any foreign policy decision is going to annoy someone. Governments who bother with concerns over sections of their population with mixed loyalties are weak eggshell governments. A government should do what it believes in. Britain has been going to war with other Christian countries all though its history without fear from its own church goers.....If people ask for equality in terms of being 'British', which I'm happy to accept then I also don't accept any anti western attitudes....These are westerners by their own choice. I feel it is a shoehorn comparison between US Vietnam war protesters and 'British' Muslims who have mixed loyalties over foreign policy due to religion. A better comparison would be between those who objected to the wars without allegiance or religion problems being a factor. While I feel both wars were necessary given their circumstance (with Iraq being the weakest) I at least respect objections based upon going to war itself....As war is extreme by its very nature. Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Jun 2014 9.42am) A government should pursue the issues and policies it laid out in its manifesto. Anything outside that barring emergency issues, should be referred back to the electorate.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 serial thriller The Promised Land 18 Jun 14 3.18pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 18 Jun 2014 7.25am
Quote Kermit8 at 17 Jun 2014 11.05pm
Quote matt_himself at 17 Jun 2014 10.12pm
Quote Kermit8 at 17 Jun 2014 9.41pm
Quote matt_himself at 17 Jun 2014 8.42pm
Quote Kermit8 at 17 Jun 2014 5.44pm
Quote matt_himself at 17 Jun 2014 1.03pm
Quote Kermit8 at 17 Jun 2014 11.48am
I don't know how some of you lot would have coped in the 70's with IRA bombs going off in London every other month for years. Muslim extremism is a hundred times the danger to other muslims in their own country than it is to us lot in Blighty. pakistan, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan - pity those poor tens of millions of souls wanting a peaceful family life not conflict and stop wetting yer pants about something that is not going to happen to you. Top 10 terrorists groups worldwide in 2012. 6 were Islamic fundamentalist types 4 were not (FARC,PKK, Indian Maoist, FLNC)
Do you remember your rant about UKIP where you said the problem would be in ten years time when millions of racists will be unleashed into the political hierarchy as a result of voting for Nigel Farage? Do you not apply the same logic to Muslim extremism or does that not count for some reason? How can I apply logic to that illogical paradigm? When we have a muslim party threatening the political status quo then your post/question will have some weight. As it stands it is just inconsequential fluff. UKIP, as I said, imo will have no option than to lurch further to the right the more power it gets. That, obviously, will attract BNP types. Edited by Kermit8 (17 Jun 2014 5.53pm)
Or does 'Kermits Law' only work for political groupings he opposes?
I've said that enough times now for you not to get it wrong yet still you do. Jet lag? I note that you do not respond about Muslim extremists but continue with your deluded UKIP bashing. Interesting. Is this deliberate or the result of exhaustion induced by a heavy day of house husbanding?
Oh yeah, is this new obsession about house husbands a replacement for the fishing about my time as a teacher? Shucks - I really must set up a Twitter account so you can follow me 24/7. Edited by Kermit8 (17 Jun 2014 11.12pm) Please do set up a Twitter account and cut & paste the below for an everyday description of your activities: 7.00 - up to make the wife her breakfast; What? You spent how long writing out this drivel? My Christ you're a bellend.
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| matt_himself Matataland 18 Jun 14 3.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2014 3.18pm
Quote matt_himself at 18 Jun 2014 7.25am
Quote Kermit8 at 17 Jun 2014 11.05pm
Quote matt_himself at 17 Jun 2014 10.12pm
Quote Kermit8 at 17 Jun 2014 9.41pm
Quote matt_himself at 17 Jun 2014 8.42pm
Quote Kermit8 at 17 Jun 2014 5.44pm
Quote matt_himself at 17 Jun 2014 1.03pm
Quote Kermit8 at 17 Jun 2014 11.48am
I don't know how some of you lot would have coped in the 70's with IRA bombs going off in London every other month for years. Muslim extremism is a hundred times the danger to other muslims in their own country than it is to us lot in Blighty. pakistan, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan - pity those poor tens of millions of souls wanting a peaceful family life not conflict and stop wetting yer pants about something that is not going to happen to you. Top 10 terrorists groups worldwide in 2012. 6 were Islamic fundamentalist types 4 were not (FARC,PKK, Indian Maoist, FLNC)
Do you remember your rant about UKIP where you said the problem would be in ten years time when millions of racists will be unleashed into the political hierarchy as a result of voting for Nigel Farage? Do you not apply the same logic to Muslim extremism or does that not count for some reason? How can I apply logic to that illogical paradigm? When we have a muslim party threatening the political status quo then your post/question will have some weight. As it stands it is just inconsequential fluff. UKIP, as I said, imo will have no option than to lurch further to the right the more power it gets. That, obviously, will attract BNP types. Edited by Kermit8 (17 Jun 2014 5.53pm)
Or does 'Kermits Law' only work for political groupings he opposes?
I've said that enough times now for you not to get it wrong yet still you do. Jet lag? I note that you do not respond about Muslim extremists but continue with your deluded UKIP bashing. Interesting. Is this deliberate or the result of exhaustion induced by a heavy day of house husbanding?
Oh yeah, is this new obsession about house husbands a replacement for the fishing about my time as a teacher? Shucks - I really must set up a Twitter account so you can follow me 24/7. Edited by Kermit8 (17 Jun 2014 11.12pm) Please do set up a Twitter account and cut & paste the below for an everyday description of your activities: 7.00 - up to make the wife her breakfast; What? You spent how long writing out this drivel? My Christ you're a bellend.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 18 Jun 14 3.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2014 1.10pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Jun 2014 9.37am
Quote legaleagle at 18 Jun 2014 9.08am
I think you may have missed my point re foreign policy. Of course most countries most of the time have hypocritical foreign policies. My point was that, regardless of this, many young idealistic people in those countries may feel affronted by such policies, particularly where the policies are lacking in any veneer of sophisticated rhetorical justification. In some cases (anti-Vietnam war)it can cause whole sectors of the population to feel estranged from the whole system in their countries... If we want to have any chance of understanding why some young British Muslims might start to feel estranged from the "system" here, we need to be open to the possibility that their feelings of antipathy to aspects of our foreign policy are not automatically "anti-western" but no different in that way, say, to the example of the anti-Vietnam war protesters....I think things are less simplistic and more complex than that...so, we demonise people in a simplistic kneejerk way at our peril..
Any foreign policy decision is going to annoy someone. Governments who bother with concerns over sections of their population with mixed loyalties are weak eggshell governments. A government should do what it believes in. Britain has been going to war with other Christian countries all though its history without fear from its own church goers.....If people ask for equality in terms of being 'British', which I'm happy to accept then I also don't accept any anti western attitudes....These are westerners by their own choice. I feel it is a shoehorn comparison between US Vietnam war protesters and 'British' Muslims who have mixed loyalties over foreign policy due to religion. A better comparison would be between those who objected to the wars without allegiance or religion problems being a factor. While I feel both wars were necessary given their circumstance (with Iraq being the weakest) I at least respect objections based upon going to war itself....As war is extreme by its very nature. Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Jun 2014 9.42am) A government should pursue the issues and policies it laid out in its manifesto. Anything outside that barring emergency issues, should be referred back to the electorate.
Governments are elected to govern and make decisions in this country. It is the way government has operated since the dawn of parliamentary democracy and how it should remain, IMHO.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Jun 14 4.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 18 Jun 2014 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2014 1.10pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Jun 2014 9.37am
Quote legaleagle at 18 Jun 2014 9.08am
I think you may have missed my point re foreign policy. Of course most countries most of the time have hypocritical foreign policies. My point was that, regardless of this, many young idealistic people in those countries may feel affronted by such policies, particularly where the policies are lacking in any veneer of sophisticated rhetorical justification. In some cases (anti-Vietnam war)it can cause whole sectors of the population to feel estranged from the whole system in their countries... If we want to have any chance of understanding why some young British Muslims might start to feel estranged from the "system" here, we need to be open to the possibility that their feelings of antipathy to aspects of our foreign policy are not automatically "anti-western" but no different in that way, say, to the example of the anti-Vietnam war protesters....I think things are less simplistic and more complex than that...so, we demonise people in a simplistic kneejerk way at our peril..
Any foreign policy decision is going to annoy someone. Governments who bother with concerns over sections of their population with mixed loyalties are weak eggshell governments. A government should do what it believes in. Britain has been going to war with other Christian countries all though its history without fear from its own church goers.....If people ask for equality in terms of being 'British', which I'm happy to accept then I also don't accept any anti western attitudes....These are westerners by their own choice. I feel it is a shoehorn comparison between US Vietnam war protesters and 'British' Muslims who have mixed loyalties over foreign policy due to religion. A better comparison would be between those who objected to the wars without allegiance or religion problems being a factor. While I feel both wars were necessary given their circumstance (with Iraq being the weakest) I at least respect objections based upon going to war itself....As war is extreme by its very nature. Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Jun 2014 9.42am) A government should pursue the issues and policies it laid out in its manifesto. Anything outside that barring emergency issues, should be referred back to the electorate.
Governments are elected to govern and make decisions in this country. It is the way government has operated since the dawn of parliamentary democracy and how it should remain, IMHO. Its not very democratic though. Governments are elected based on their representation of the people, and to represent their constituants, not to rule, to govern. It could wait until the next election. Or we could utilise this IT technology internet thingy, and put it to the people to decide. I find it odd that if you get enough signitures on an epetition, a question has to be raised in the house, yet we don't utilise the same technology to utilise the population directly in politics (such as holding minor referendums utilising Communications technology to let people vote on such issues).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Jun 14 5.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 18 Jun 2014 3.33pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2014 1.10pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Jun 2014 9.37am
Quote legaleagle at 18 Jun 2014 9.08am
I think you may have missed my point re foreign policy. Of course most countries most of the time have hypocritical foreign policies. My point was that, regardless of this, many young idealistic people in those countries may feel affronted by such policies, particularly where the policies are lacking in any veneer of sophisticated rhetorical justification. In some cases (anti-Vietnam war)it can cause whole sectors of the population to feel estranged from the whole system in their countries... If we want to have any chance of understanding why some young British Muslims might start to feel estranged from the "system" here, we need to be open to the possibility that their feelings of antipathy to aspects of our foreign policy are not automatically "anti-western" but no different in that way, say, to the example of the anti-Vietnam war protesters....I think things are less simplistic and more complex than that...so, we demonise people in a simplistic kneejerk way at our peril..
Any foreign policy decision is going to annoy someone. Governments who bother with concerns over sections of their population with mixed loyalties are weak eggshell governments. A government should do what it believes in. Britain has been going to war with other Christian countries all though its history without fear from its own church goers.....If people ask for equality in terms of being 'British', which I'm happy to accept then I also don't accept any anti western attitudes....These are westerners by their own choice. I feel it is a shoehorn comparison between US Vietnam war protesters and 'British' Muslims who have mixed loyalties over foreign policy due to religion. A better comparison would be between those who objected to the wars without allegiance or religion problems being a factor. While I feel both wars were necessary given their circumstance (with Iraq being the weakest) I at least respect objections based upon going to war itself....As war is extreme by its very nature. Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Jun 2014 9.42am) A government should pursue the issues and policies it laid out in its manifesto. Anything outside that barring emergency issues, should be referred back to the electorate.
Governments are elected to govern and make decisions in this country. It is the way government has operated since the dawn of parliamentary democracy and how it should remain, IMHO. I think what happens is that legislation is voted on by all members of the house, following a petition by an MP or party. I'm just saying that the rest of the UK electorate could quite easily be involved in that process.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
pefwin  Where you have to have an English ... 18 Jun 14 5.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 18 Jun 2014 3.30pm
Quote serial thriller at 18 Jun 2014 3.18pm
Quote matt_himself at 18 Jun 2014 7.25am
Quote Kermit8 at 17 Jun 2014 11.05pm
Quote matt_himself at 17 Jun 2014 10.12pm
Quote Kermit8 at 17 Jun 2014 9.41pm
Quote matt_himself at 17 Jun 2014 8.42pm
Quote Kermit8 at 17 Jun 2014 5.44pm
Quote matt_himself at 17 Jun 2014 1.03pm
Quote Kermit8 at 17 Jun 2014 11.48am
I don't know how some of you lot would have coped in the 70's with IRA bombs going off in London every other month for years. Muslim extremism is a hundred times the danger to other muslims in their own country than it is to us lot in Blighty. pakistan, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan - pity those poor tens of millions of souls wanting a peaceful family life not conflict and stop wetting yer pants about something that is not going to happen to you. Top 10 terrorists groups worldwide in 2012. 6 were Islamic fundamentalist types 4 were not (FARC,PKK, Indian Maoist, FLNC)
Do you remember your rant about UKIP where you said the problem would be in ten years time when millions of racists will be unleashed into the political hierarchy as a result of voting for Nigel Farage? Do you not apply the same logic to Muslim extremism or does that not count for some reason? How can I apply logic to that illogical paradigm? When we have a muslim party threatening the political status quo then your post/question will have some weight. As it stands it is just inconsequential fluff. UKIP, as I said, imo will have no option than to lurch further to the right the more power it gets. That, obviously, will attract BNP types. Edited by Kermit8 (17 Jun 2014 5.53pm)
Or does 'Kermits Law' only work for political groupings he opposes?
I've said that enough times now for you not to get it wrong yet still you do. Jet lag? I note that you do not respond about Muslim extremists but continue with your deluded UKIP bashing. Interesting. Is this deliberate or the result of exhaustion induced by a heavy day of house husbanding?
Oh yeah, is this new obsession about house husbands a replacement for the fishing about my time as a teacher? Shucks - I really must set up a Twitter account so you can follow me 24/7. Edited by Kermit8 (17 Jun 2014 11.12pm) Please do set up a Twitter account and cut & paste the below for an everyday description of your activities: 7.00 - up to make the wife her breakfast; What? You spent how long writing out this drivel? My Christ you're a bellend.
It is the politics of ENVY, those that earn more are called Champagne Socialists and such; those that earn less and rely on benefits that Matt does not he will ever need, don't deserve them and are Scroungers those that are different or outside his comfort zone are alien and scary and should "go home". Due to a lack of wisdom if not raw intelligence, I more pity than want to cuss. Based on historic posting I would quote Shakespeare "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 18 Jun 14 5.49pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2014 1.08pm
All schools should be free of religeous influence, ownership and control. The duty of the state is to provide education to its citizens. Meanwhile, faith groups should be free to offer part time religeous tuition, outside of core school hours (mornings, afternoons, evenings and weekends). Bit hardline, but generally having met people who've been to Catholic school, strongly protestant schools, and recent events regarding Islamic school and the whole US issues regarding the christian right and schools. Its all a form of conditioning aimed at securing that religeous organisations future client basis. Its a racket of generations thats essentially social programming for children to 'adopt the beliefs' of their parents. We should be teaching kids to think for themselves and then let them make their own decisions.
'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 |
|
| pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 18 Jun 14 5.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Jun 2014 5.49pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2014 1.08pm
All schools should be free of religeous influence, ownership and control. The duty of the state is to provide education to its citizens. Meanwhile, faith groups should be free to offer part time religeous tuition, outside of core school hours (mornings, afternoons, evenings and weekends). Bit hardline, but generally having met people who've been to Catholic school, strongly protestant schools, and recent events regarding Islamic school and the whole US issues regarding the christian right and schools. Its all a form of conditioning aimed at securing that religeous organisations future client basis. Its a racket of generations thats essentially social programming for children to 'adopt the beliefs' of their parents. We should be teaching kids to think for themselves and then let them make their own decisions.
I would agree as well but there are still difficult questions as they had in France where all schools are secular, a couple of years ago, over head scarfs and religious symbolism.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 18 Jun 14 6.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote pefwin at 18 Jun 2014 5.55pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Jun 2014 5.49pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2014 1.08pm
All schools should be free of religeous influence, ownership and control. The duty of the state is to provide education to its citizens. Meanwhile, faith groups should be free to offer part time religeous tuition, outside of core school hours (mornings, afternoons, evenings and weekends). Bit hardline, but generally having met people who've been to Catholic school, strongly protestant schools, and recent events regarding Islamic school and the whole US issues regarding the christian right and schools. Its all a form of conditioning aimed at securing that religeous organisations future client basis. Its a racket of generations thats essentially social programming for children to 'adopt the beliefs' of their parents. We should be teaching kids to think for themselves and then let them make their own decisions.
I would agree as well but there are still difficult questions as they had in France where all schools are secular, a couple of years ago, over head scarfs and religious symbolism.
Though I've always fallen down on the side of uniform if a school has that policy.....Every parent should know a school's rules before their child attends.....If they don't like it and it's that important to them, find another school. I like the French embrace of secularism through its institutions.
'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 |
|
| pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 18 Jun 14 6.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Jun 2014 6.02pm
Quote pefwin at 18 Jun 2014 5.55pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Jun 2014 5.49pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Jun 2014 1.08pm
All schools should be free of religeous influence, ownership and control. The duty of the state is to provide education to its citizens. Meanwhile, faith groups should be free to offer part time religeous tuition, outside of core school hours (mornings, afternoons, evenings and weekends). Bit hardline, but generally having met people who've been to Catholic school, strongly protestant schools, and recent events regarding Islamic school and the whole US issues regarding the christian right and schools. Its all a form of conditioning aimed at securing that religeous organisations future client basis. Its a racket of generations thats essentially social programming for children to 'adopt the beliefs' of their parents. We should be teaching kids to think for themselves and then let them make their own decisions.
I would agree as well but there are still difficult questions as they had in France where all schools are secular, a couple of years ago, over head scarfs and religious symbolism.
Though I've always fallen down on the side of uniform if a school has that policy.....Every parent should know a school's rules before their child attends.....If they don't like it and it's that important to them, find another school. I like the French embrace of secularism through its institutions. I would agree again. I would suggest: 1 All schools had a uniform.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 18 Jun 14 6.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote pefwin at 18 Jun 2014 6.08pm
I would agree again. I would suggest: 1 All schools had a uniform. Yup.....Pretty much.
'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 |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.