This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Horrific Scenes In Paris
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Mr Palaceman  18 Nov 15 3.45pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Nov 2015 4.07pm
Quote nickgusset at 17 Nov 2015 4.00pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Nov 2015 3.35pm
Quote Southampton_Eagle at 17 Nov 2015 11.32am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Nov 2015 9.11am
Quote Southampton_Eagle at 16 Nov 2015 11.25am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Nov 2015 10.38am
Quote serial thriller at 14 Nov 2015 2.30pm
But I'll end this post with one final remark. The rules on this forum state that any racist ethnically objectionable material will be punished. It is my belief that racism, and indeed all forms of prejudice, stem from ignorance, and what I hope I have proved is that from the almost exclusive ignorance of Hoof's post, conclusions have been reached which at best are ethnically objectionable (Not just a few religious zealots or fundamentalists but with Islam itself... the whole ideology!) and at worst advocating genocide (we need to bring in the experts to destroy the nest!). I'd like to see the mods adhere to the rules of their own forum and warn Hoof that such views aren't welcome on here, yet particularly considering one mod has actively supported his beliefs, I'd be surprised if any of them had the guts to do so.
My reaction......... how childish and pathetic.... trying to get me banned because of my hard line views that oppose his liberal views and calling me racist AGAIN. Not content with that.... comparing my use of an analogy to that of the Nazi propaganda spokesman Goebbels speech on the final solution! Serial.... you and others on here need to stop playing the racist card and revert to trying to convince us your arguments are superior rather than underhand tactics to try and stifle our views.
Your opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else even though you seem to think it is. I avoided this thread all weekend because emotions were high. I'm not surprised to see the chest beating bravado of the usual suspects, those of, shall we say, an older generation with ingrained prejudices. Hol clusterf*ck thread at it's finest.
Get a life.
Anyways... from your tone it sounds like you should take a chill pill. Meanwhile, my offending post continues to get accolades from the free thinkers. Annoying isn't it? I still think your 'intern all muslims' remark is ridiculous. But you are entitled to that view, just as I am mine.
It would be impractical to intern them all anyway. My main thrust was to endorse the right of the government/MI6 to monitor all forms of communication to identify those who wish us harm. I have no problem with you airing your views nick...... none at all mate. Regards. That's not really a clarification, that is a move away from your original post but fair enough. The thing is the circumstances you describe in your clarification, you would not and don't need to "intern" people for. Preaching hate, plotting terrorist acts, inciting others to commit terrorist acts are all criminal offences and you wouldn't intern someone for that, you would jail them. The part of your post that stood out for me was that it was aimed at a particular religious group only. As I said in a previous post that you ignored/missed, discrimination on the basis of religion is a criminal offence in this country, as would be inciting others to discriminate on the basis of religious belief. How many people support your post or not and there are quite a few on both sides, matters not. What you were suggesting is against the law. In regards to your argument that government and security agencies should be allowed to invade whoever's personal freedom as a matter of course, is not a silly argument. Striking a balance between freedom and security is always difficult, especially in these times of extremism and technology. While I will always support any government that strives to keep the people safe, I don't not trust just any goverment not to use that power in order to control. For me that is just as great a threat to democracy and our general way of life as a potential attack. The ability for the people to engage in free speech and to vote privately, is a fundamental right and an essential corners stone of any true democracy.
"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead" Stan Laurel |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Hoof Hearted 18 Nov 15 3.46pm | |
|---|---|
|
Quote Southampton_Eagle at 18 Nov 2015 11.48am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Nov 2015 3.35pm
Quote Southampton_Eagle at 17 Nov 2015 11.32am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Nov 2015 9.11am
Quote Southampton_Eagle at 16 Nov 2015 11.25am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Nov 2015 10.38am
Quote serial thriller at 14 Nov 2015 2.30pm
But I'll end this post with one final remark. The rules on this forum state that any racist ethnically objectionable material will be punished. It is my belief that racism, and indeed all forms of prejudice, stem from ignorance, and what I hope I have proved is that from the almost exclusive ignorance of Hoof's post, conclusions have been reached which at best are ethnically objectionable (Not just a few religious zealots or fundamentalists but with Islam itself... the whole ideology!) and at worst advocating genocide (we need to bring in the experts to destroy the nest!). I'd like to see the mods adhere to the rules of their own forum and warn Hoof that such views aren't welcome on here, yet particularly considering one mod has actively supported his beliefs, I'd be surprised if any of them had the guts to do so.
My reaction......... how childish and pathetic.... trying to get me banned because of my hard line views that oppose his liberal views and calling me racist AGAIN. Not content with that.... comparing my use of an analogy to that of the Nazi propaganda spokesman Goebbels speech on the final solution! Serial.... you and others on here need to stop playing the racist card and revert to trying to convince us your arguments are superior rather than underhand tactics to try and stifle our views.
Your opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else even though you seem to think it is. I avoided this thread all weekend because emotions were high. I'm not surprised to see the chest beating bravado of the usual suspects, those of, shall we say, an older generation with ingrained prejudices. Hol clusterf*ck thread at it's finest.
Get a life.
Anyways... from your tone it sounds like you should take a chill pill. Meanwhile, my offending post continues to get accolades from the free thinkers. Annoying isn't it?
So by your reckoning, because some people agree with you then that makes you right?
Who knows who is right? Lets just agree to disagree and keep it friendly. Regards.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Nov 15 3.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 18 Nov 2015 3.39pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Nov 2015 3.16pm
Quote dannyh at 18 Nov 2015 12.12pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Nov 2015 9.25am
Quote dannyh at 17 Nov 2015 1.13pm
So the slimey bearded tramp has finally made a comment about the mass slaughter of innocent civillians by saying he doesnt agree with a shoot to kill policy on terrorists . Corbyn you are an utter utter spinless wnaker. if I ever meet you in public please dont be offended if I tell you so. You pathetic apologist hangwringing tawtt. I don't generally agree with a shoot to kill policy in any situation either, except where the situation is conflict based. Its never worked in the past, it won't work in the future. You may have to shoot, but the problem of a 'shoot to kill' policy is that 95% of the time you don't actually know with any certainity who is and who is not a terrorist, and even when you do, capture represents a better source of intelligence than death. Certainly in a situation where they're engaged in an operation and lives are actually in danger, or you've established the individual is engaged in terrorist activities beyond reasonable doubt, and capture is not possible. But as an operating procedure, its always backfired and blown up in the face of the state. Cobblers. Iran Embassy ring any bells ? The only situation where a shoot to kill policy would be enforced is where there "is an immanent threat to human life” you need to look up your Rules Of Engagement before you start telling people when and where deadly force can be used. What the Government is talking about is applying the ROE of a battlefield to civilian streets to save life. The ROE are legal and approved by NATO. If the terrorist wants to bring war to our streets then we should not have our hands tied in our response. I will repeat the point once more in case you decide to overlook it, Shoot to kill policy can only be implemented when there “is an immanent threat to human life” The SAS and SBS involved were reacting to an armed situation, where hostages had been killed. That's doesn't require a shoot to kill policy, that's UK law in a nut shell, proportional force to the situation. They were authorised to Kill, not capture. Kill they did effectively and professionally, without any further loss to human life. There was a clear threat from the terrorists as they had already murdered hostages. Deadly force was authorised. Capture was not even on the cards. The Government doesn't actually need to change the laws in order to allow officers to fire on armed suspects, we've even recently established with Duggan, that they don't have to be armed, only that its reasonable for the police to believe them to be armed and a threat to life, for them to open fire (which is beyond the ROE used by NATO'. Another point that people are getting there pants in a twist about, if you shot someone with a high velocity rifle of significant caliber, if you got shot in the guts, the way the rounds bounce around inside you means your pretty f***ed up anyway. The only reall difference is aiming for head, rather than trunk. And no it isnt above and beyond the ROE for NATO, its the same really if you believe there to be a danger to your life or others you may open fire. ( I have attched a ROE card for your education). No ones hands are tied, the law is quite clear about the use of force, where a real or reasonable threat to life exists, the use of deadly force is permitted. And that applies to everyone in the UK, not just the police or armed forces (although most of us don't have access to firearms). Certainly, if I was at my dads, saw an incident in progress where someone was threatening other people with a firearm, or knife, and then shot them with his firearms (shotguns), it would be reasonable force. We are basically agreeing here again Jamie lad, leathel force is justified your just putting it slightly more tactfully than me, as already pointed out if've youv'e been shot with an MP5 unless you've been hit in a bodily extermity, your chances of survival are not great. A shoot to kill policy is a bit different, as it permits the use of lethal force, without qualification of a threat to life. As far as using ROE, I think we'd be better off not doing so, as it would restrict the capacity for 'response' by armed police to a threat to life. Errrrrr. No it does not that is just your sumation of the subject all it amounts to in reality is a volley or burst of shots rather than one, and possibley aiming for the bonce if the shot is on. I suspect that last part might not be necessary, as I don't believe that Police firearms are burst or automatic capable, but they are legally allowed to use expanding head rounds - Something only law enforcement are legally allowed to use (as it reduces the risk of exiting rounds and richochet). I'm not sure if the police in the UK still use these 'man stopper rounds' but effectively they're dum-dum rounds. But I agree, I never even had a problem with the ambushes of Terrorists at arms dumps in Ireland etc. Once you make that decision to take up arms, you can't really cry about people shooting at you when you do.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 18 Nov 15 3.52pm | |
|---|---|
|
Quote Mr Palaceman at 18 Nov 2015 3.45pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Nov 2015 4.07pm
Quote nickgusset at 17 Nov 2015 4.00pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Nov 2015 3.35pm
Quote Southampton_Eagle at 17 Nov 2015 11.32am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Nov 2015 9.11am
Quote Southampton_Eagle at 16 Nov 2015 11.25am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Nov 2015 10.38am
Quote serial thriller at 14 Nov 2015 2.30pm
But I'll end this post with one final remark. The rules on this forum state that any racist ethnically objectionable material will be punished. It is my belief that racism, and indeed all forms of prejudice, stem from ignorance, and what I hope I have proved is that from the almost exclusive ignorance of Hoof's post, conclusions have been reached which at best are ethnically objectionable (Not just a few religious zealots or fundamentalists but with Islam itself... the whole ideology!) and at worst advocating genocide (we need to bring in the experts to destroy the nest!). I'd like to see the mods adhere to the rules of their own forum and warn Hoof that such views aren't welcome on here, yet particularly considering one mod has actively supported his beliefs, I'd be surprised if any of them had the guts to do so.
My reaction......... how childish and pathetic.... trying to get me banned because of my hard line views that oppose his liberal views and calling me racist AGAIN. Not content with that.... comparing my use of an analogy to that of the Nazi propaganda spokesman Goebbels speech on the final solution! Serial.... you and others on here need to stop playing the racist card and revert to trying to convince us your arguments are superior rather than underhand tactics to try and stifle our views.
Your opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else even though you seem to think it is. I avoided this thread all weekend because emotions were high. I'm not surprised to see the chest beating bravado of the usual suspects, those of, shall we say, an older generation with ingrained prejudices. Hol clusterf*ck thread at it's finest.
Get a life.
Anyways... from your tone it sounds like you should take a chill pill. Meanwhile, my offending post continues to get accolades from the free thinkers. Annoying isn't it? I still think your 'intern all muslims' remark is ridiculous. But you are entitled to that view, just as I am mine.
It would be impractical to intern them all anyway. My main thrust was to endorse the right of the government/MI6 to monitor all forms of communication to identify those who wish us harm. I have no problem with you airing your views nick...... none at all mate. Regards. That's not really a clarification, that is a move away from your original post but fair enough. The thing is the circumstances you describe in your clarification, you would not and don't need to "intern" people for. Preaching hate, plotting terrorist acts, inciting others to commit terrorist acts are all criminal offences and you wouldn't intern someone for that, you would jail them. The part of your post that stood out for me was that it was aimed at a particular religious group only. As I said in a previous post that you ignored/missed, discrimination on the basis of religion is a criminal offence in this country, as would be inciting others to discriminate on the basis of religious belief. How many people support your post or not and there are quite a few on both sides, matters not. What you were suggesting is against the law. In regards to your argument that government and security agencies should be allowed to invade whoever's personal freedom as a matter of course, is not a silly argument. Striking a balance between freedom and security is always difficult, especially in these times of extremism and technology. While I will always support any government that strives to keep the people safe, I don't not trust just any goverment not to use that power in order to control. For me that is just as great a threat to democracy and our general way of life as a potential attack. The ability for the people to engage in free speech and to vote privately, is a fundamental right and an essential corners stone of any true democracy.
However right now it only appears to be Islam that is killing people. If any other religion starts killing I will be on their case to. ...... oh and Atheists had better not start any terror campaigns!!!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 18 Nov 15 3.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Nov 2015 3.48pm
I suspect that last part might not be necessary, as I don't believe that Police firearms are burst or automatic capable, The two main weapons carried by the Police are the G-36C and AR15 Defender. Both are high velocity and are capable weapons but cannot be fired automatically.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
johnno42000  18 Nov 15 4.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I'm all for people having the right to wear what they want but I do think this is double standards, Senegal a country with a large majority Muslim population, bans the burqa and there doesn't seem to be much outrage. If a country in the West tried to do the same there would be an uproar about it. [Link] Edited by johnno42000 (18 Nov 2015 4.25pm)
'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more' |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 18 Nov 15 4.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote johnno42000 at 18 Nov 2015 4.24pm
I'm all for people having the right to wear what they want but I do think this is double standards, Senegal a country with a large majority Muslim population, bans the burqa and there doesn't seem to be much outrage. If a country in the West tried to do the same there would be an uproar about it. [Link] Edited by johnno42000 (18 Nov 2015 4.25pm) Should we also stop nuns from wearing their habits?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnno42000 18 Nov 15 4.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 18 Nov 2015 4.28pm
Quote johnno42000 at 18 Nov 2015 4.24pm
I'm all for people having the right to wear what they want but I do think this is double standards, Senegal a country with a large majority Muslim population, bans the burqa and there doesn't seem to be much outrage. If a country in the West tried to do the same there would be an uproar about it. [Link] Edited by johnno42000 (18 Nov 2015 4.25pm) Should we also stop nuns from wearing their habits? Only sexy ones. I'm not really arguing for or against the ban just the fact that a predominately Muslim country brings in the ban and hardly a voice is raised in protest but if a Western country did so there would be a lot of protests against it. Just seems unfair to me.
'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more' |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Nov 15 4.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote johnno42000 at 18 Nov 2015 4.24pm
I'm all for people having the right to wear what they want but I do think this is double standards, Senegal a country with a large majority Muslim population, bans the burqa and there doesn't seem to be much outrage. If a country in the West tried to do the same there would be an uproar about it. [Link] Edited by johnno42000 (18 Nov 2015 4.25pm) Well maybe we should look at why its not an issue in Senegal and its an issue here (esp given how few people actually wear a burqa in the UK and Europe).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| johnno42000 18 Nov 15 4.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Nov 2015 4.36pm
Quote johnno42000 at 18 Nov 2015 4.24pm
I'm all for people having the right to wear what they want but I do think this is double standards, Senegal a country with a large majority Muslim population, bans the burqa and there doesn't seem to be much outrage. If a country in the West tried to do the same there would be an uproar about it. [Link] Edited by johnno42000 (18 Nov 2015 4.25pm) Well maybe we should look at why its not an issue in Senegal and its an issue here (esp given how few people actually wear a burqa in the UK and Europe). I have no idea why. That was really the point of my post.
'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more' |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mr Palaceman 18 Nov 15 5.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 18 Nov 2015 3.52pm
Quote Mr Palaceman at 18 Nov 2015 3.45pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Nov 2015 4.07pm
Quote nickgusset at 17 Nov 2015 4.00pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Nov 2015 3.35pm
Quote Southampton_Eagle at 17 Nov 2015 11.32am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Nov 2015 9.11am
Quote Southampton_Eagle at 16 Nov 2015 11.25am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Nov 2015 10.38am
Quote serial thriller at 14 Nov 2015 2.30pm
But I'll end this post with one final remark. The rules on this forum state that any racist ethnically objectionable material will be punished. It is my belief that racism, and indeed all forms of prejudice, stem from ignorance, and what I hope I have proved is that from the almost exclusive ignorance of Hoof's post, conclusions have been reached which at best are ethnically objectionable (Not just a few religious zealots or fundamentalists but with Islam itself... the whole ideology!) and at worst advocating genocide (we need to bring in the experts to destroy the nest!). I'd like to see the mods adhere to the rules of their own forum and warn Hoof that such views aren't welcome on here, yet particularly considering one mod has actively supported his beliefs, I'd be surprised if any of them had the guts to do so.
My reaction......... how childish and pathetic.... trying to get me banned because of my hard line views that oppose his liberal views and calling me racist AGAIN. Not content with that.... comparing my use of an analogy to that of the Nazi propaganda spokesman Goebbels speech on the final solution! Serial.... you and others on here need to stop playing the racist card and revert to trying to convince us your arguments are superior rather than underhand tactics to try and stifle our views.
Your opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else even though you seem to think it is. I avoided this thread all weekend because emotions were high. I'm not surprised to see the chest beating bravado of the usual suspects, those of, shall we say, an older generation with ingrained prejudices. Hol clusterf*ck thread at it's finest.
Get a life.
Anyways... from your tone it sounds like you should take a chill pill. Meanwhile, my offending post continues to get accolades from the free thinkers. Annoying isn't it? I still think your 'intern all muslims' remark is ridiculous. But you are entitled to that view, just as I am mine.
It would be impractical to intern them all anyway. My main thrust was to endorse the right of the government/MI6 to monitor all forms of communication to identify those who wish us harm. I have no problem with you airing your views nick...... none at all mate. Regards. That's not really a clarification, that is a move away from your original post but fair enough. The thing is the circumstances you describe in your clarification, you would not and don't need to "intern" people for. Preaching hate, plotting terrorist acts, inciting others to commit terrorist acts are all criminal offences and you wouldn't intern someone for that, you would jail them. The part of your post that stood out for me was that it was aimed at a particular religious group only. As I said in a previous post that you ignored/missed, discrimination on the basis of religion is a criminal offence in this country, as would be inciting others to discriminate on the basis of religious belief. How many people support your post or not and there are quite a few on both sides, matters not. What you were suggesting is against the law. In regards to your argument that government and security agencies should be allowed to invade whoever's personal freedom as a matter of course, is not a silly argument. Striking a balance between freedom and security is always difficult, especially in these times of extremism and technology. While I will always support any government that strives to keep the people safe, I don't not trust just any goverment not to use that power in order to control. For me that is just as great a threat to democracy and our general way of life as a potential attack. The ability for the people to engage in free speech and to vote privately, is a fundamental right and an essential corners stone of any true democracy.
However right now it only appears to be Islam that is killing people. If any other religion starts killing I will be on their case to. ...... oh and Atheists had better not start any terror campaigns!!! Fair enough, your not a fan of any religion, your not alone in that, I can respect that point of view. But you then say it ".. only appears to be Islam that is killing people". Islam can't kill anyone or anything, it's a notion, an idea, a religion or a way of life for some. What kills people is when someone takes an idea or a notion and uses it to kill or oppress someone else. Humans don't need the excuse of religion to kill for a notion. There are some extremely fanatical secularists, Christians, Buddhists (yes, them too), Nazis, Communists, Fascists I could go on. If you look at Nazis and Communists only, people that practised those two ideologies have killed people in the hundreds of millions, if you look at Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Nothing to do with religion. IMO humble opinion, I think that the main problem that those who oppose your posts have is that you show a level of discrimination that alarms people. They see echoes of what they believe is an extreme view, in order to combat what are without doubt the extreme views of those that attack our freedoms. Some would say, fire with fire but IMO that just gets everyone burnt, we have to be smarter than that. Incidentally, this is the first post of mine that you have directly replied to, even though many others have replied on your behalf. Christians would say that Christmas must be coming. Don't expect a present...
"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead" Stan Laurel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 18 Nov 15 5.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote johnno42000 at 18 Nov 2015 4.24pm
I'm all for people having the right to wear what they want but I do think this is double standards, Senegal a country with a large majority Muslim population, bans the burqa and there doesn't seem to be much outrage. If a country in the West tried to do the same there would be an uproar about it. [Link] Edited by johnno42000 (18 Nov 2015 4.25pm) France did that in 2010!
Optimistic as ever |
|
| 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.