|
Post by Zany on Aug 11, 2024 18:06:32 GMT
Searched a lot this morning, I find no link beyond the idea that attacking Taylor Swift events at this time would get global media interest. Does this mean the Southport attack is not linked? Not at all, it proves nothing either way. But even if it was connected all it does is say there was a Muslim extremist involved. Its not as if we don't know there are Muslim extremists.. You seem to me to be focusing on the wrong things. "Muslim extremist" is just a practical political category. It is not possible to independently and objectively verify that a person is, or is not, definitely a Muslim. You can only come up with a likelihood based on their behavior and statements - ie a sliding scale of likelihood. If someone (anyone) is motivated to pursue the homicidal aims of a group like ISIS, then they are for all practical political purposes 'a Muslim extremist', even if they don't appear to own a prayer mat. A totally meaningless set of words put together to form what appears to be a paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 11, 2024 18:17:50 GMT
Does it justify the rioting and theft, can't see how in any way. Unless you are one of the loonies that thinks if you stop more Muslims living here you will stop the Muslim terrorism. . Orac likes percentages (Odds) well there are 4,000,000 Muslims in the UK and a few hundred active extremists That's 1 in 20,000. Hardly fair to condemn a whole religion for such a tiny number. Let me rephrase one of those - "One of those LOONIES who believes that if Muslims are not in your territory, they have less opportunity to attack your people"This is a weird kind lunacy that looks exactly like plain common sense I didn't say it justified rioting. However, If a botched arrest leading to a death can justify riots, surely mass child murder can as well? Its genuine lunacy. The only reason it seems logical to you is that you only apply it to Muslims. If you were to apply it as maths like you imply you do. Then you would have to ban every section of humanity for which there is a more than 1 in 20,000 chance they are dangerous. It wasn't 1, a botched arrest. 2, just that one time. Did it justify riots? NO it didn't. It justified BLM and taking the knee in support. How does mass child murder justify burning and looting the property of people hundreds of miles away? Do you think Tommies little gang would have shown up to Riot if the killer was a white middle aged women? I say it had nothing to do with the killing of children and everything to do with racism.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 11, 2024 18:19:40 GMT
Are you calling for the deportation of all Muslims then? I believe the tangerine Mussolini tried that in the US and it was ruled illegal. No. But my position here doesn't change the logic. Far from being lunatic, it is patently obvious that having a large Muslim population in your territory affords more opportunity for your people to be attacked by Muslims And a large non Muslim population in your territory affords more opportunity for your people to be attacked by non Muslims
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 11, 2024 18:22:42 GMT
As does having a large Catholic population increase the chances of being attacked by Catholics Sure. So, you essentially agree with me. If significant political strands of Catholicism, saw themselves as essentially at war with us and we were treated to sporadic machete attacks and beheading involving Catholics shouting "in the name of our lady", then, by importing more Catholics, you are increasing the likelihood of such attacks But if 1 in 20,000 Catholics raped School boys would you ban them?
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 11, 2024 18:26:08 GMT
Bombing pubs and shopping centres is more the Catholic style but yes, let's ban all religions. No need to ban religion, just stop importing hostile groups and using them as proxies to undermine and attack the native population. If you find that notion / principle disagreeable, i have to wonder what your motives might be. This isn't limited to religion But they don't. Only 1 in 20,000 do. Only 1 in every 20,000 are hostile. and if you stopped importing the good ones you would only get the hostile ones.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 11, 2024 18:28:48 GMT
I hear that a full fifth of council houses are presently occupied by foreigners - that is, people who have a nationality other than British. Can anyone explain why a government would allow such a peculiarity to arise - other than as a part of a foreign interested criminal operation or an attempt to attack the people of the UK? Yes immigrants are foreign people. You can't import non foreign people. Why they import them is about taxation not QAnon
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 11, 2024 18:31:54 GMT
What possible motivation could a government have for undermining and attacking the 'native' population? To weaken a population's aggregate resistance to tyranny The damage to social cohesion is of course important and, if the newly introduced population is broadly tyranny-positive or simply unfamiliar with, or hostile to, democratic society, that's a bonus.- If you want to do x and a population wants to do Y, introducing the correct foreign client groups can make X more feasible.and Y less feasible Oh yes you only have to look at India Pakistan and Bangladesh to see how those peoples welcome tyranny and don't fight it. Sigh.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,600
|
Post by Steve on Aug 11, 2024 21:12:05 GMT
Because you continued to omit them after being told what the true words were - that was a deliberate act by you. The BBC could plead incompetence. You did not make it clear at all that you referring to the BBC, until just today. Further I referenced the BBC and the Manifesto in the same post showing the same text. Anyway enough crappy word games, its all you have and like everyone else here I had enough.. Everyone bar you knows the Tories have repeatedly claimed they would curb immigration and never have. I didn't make it clear that I was referring to the BBC for the simple fact that I was not referring to the BBC. Th e electoral promise is the manifesto and as I have comprehensively proven, the manifesto did not contain the promise you have imagined was given. Not that the electorate endorsed the manifesto anyway making the promise moot. You have spent page after page with false accounts of what was promised and false accounts of what I've posted. You must be so proud.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,600
|
Post by Steve on Aug 11, 2024 21:13:31 GMT
because your table doesn't contain that data and it is out of date.We are talking at cross purposes but we can talk about it as a hypothetical. Hypothetically, would you consider such a situation concerning? I'm not going to do hypotheticals that will get twisted. The last census refutes your assertion. Please provide the data you believe supports your position.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 12, 2024 7:02:29 GMT
You did not make it clear at all that you referring to the BBC, until just today. Further I referenced the BBC and the Manifesto in the same post showing the same text. Anyway enough crappy word games, its all you have and like everyone else here I had enough.. Everyone bar you knows the Tories have repeatedly claimed they would curb immigration and never have. I didn't make it clear that I was referring to the BBC for the simple fact that I was not referring to the BBC. Th e electoral promise is the manifesto and as I have comprehensively proven, the manifesto did not contain the promise you have imagined was given. Not that the electorate endorsed the manifesto anyway making the promise moot. You have spent page after page with false accounts of what was promised and false accounts of what I've posted. You must be so proud. The Conservative party manifesto 2010 general-election-2010.co.uk/2010-general-election-manifestos/Conservative-Party-Manifesto-2010.pdfImmigration has enriched our nation over the years and we want to attract the brightest and the best people who can make a real difference to our economic growth. But immigration today is too high and needs to be reduced. We do not need to attract people to do jobs that could be carried out by British citizens, given the right training and support. So we will take steps to take net migration back to the levels of the 1990s – tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands.The 2015 manifesto. Our plan to control immigration will put you, your family and the British people first. We will reduce the number of people coming to our country with tough new welfare conditions and robust enforcement. We will: keep our ambition of delivering annual net migration in the tens of thousands, not the
hundreds of thousands
You are kidding yourself, but not me.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 12, 2024 7:32:12 GMT
You seem to me to be focusing on the wrong things. "Muslim extremist" is just a practical political category. It is not possible to independently and objectively verify that a person is, or is not, definitely a Muslim. You can only come up with a likelihood based on their behavior and statements - ie a sliding scale of likelihood. If someone (anyone) is motivated to pursue the homicidal aims of a group like ISIS, then they are for all practical political purposes 'a Muslim extremist', even if they don't appear to own a prayer mat. A totally meaningless set of words put together to form what appears to be a paragraph. Which bit is giving you difficulty? Lets start from the top and so how far we get with the logic Do you agree there is no objective test that can be performed to tell if a person is a Muslim?
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 12, 2024 7:43:08 GMT
Let me rephrase one of those - "One of those LOONIES who believes that if Muslims are not in your territory, they have less opportunity to attack your people"This is a weird kind lunacy that looks exactly like plain common sense I didn't say it justified rioting. However, If a botched arrest leading to a death can justify riots, surely mass child murder can as well? Its genuine lunacy. The only reason it seems logical to you is that you only apply it to Muslims. If you were to apply it as maths like you imply you do. Then you would have to ban every section of humanity for which there is a more than 1 in 20,000 chance they are dangerous. Again - lets try to do this one painful step at a time. Do you agree that if there no Muslims in the UK, this would cut the opportunity of Muslims to attack UK people and vice versa? If you agree with this statement then you agree that someone saying it isn't a loony?
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 12, 2024 7:58:05 GMT
Sure. So, you essentially agree with me. If significant political strands of Catholicism, saw themselves as essentially at war with us and we were treated to sporadic machete attacks and beheading involving Catholics shouting "in the name of our lady", then, by importing more Catholics, you are increasing the likelihood of such attacks But if 1 in 20,000 Catholics raped School boys would you ban them? If catholic society had historically and recently posed itself as in opposition to important parts of our society and significant threads of catholic opinion called intrinsic aspects of our society (like democracy) Satan and declared themselves in a historic war with us and Catholic engaged in rampaging Machete attacks on our citizens while shouting 'our lady', then i would suggest that moving large numbers of Catholics into our community was a very bad idea. I don't think you would disagree with this - the odd thing is how you seem to get 'stuck on stupid' when it comes to Muslims in particular. You whole framing suggests that this isn't a risk we are visiting on ourselves. It actually requires effort on our part to force these people into the country against the wishes of the UK public.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 12, 2024 8:24:08 GMT
A totally meaningless set of words put together to form what appears to be a paragraph. Which bit is giving you difficulty? Lets start from the top and so how far we get with the logic Do you agree there is no objective test that can be performed to tell if a person is a Muslim? No. There are many ways to check if someone is a Muslim.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 12, 2024 8:29:24 GMT
But if 1 in 20,000 Catholics raped School boys would you ban them? If catholic society had historically and recently posed itself as in opposition to important parts of our society and significant threads of catholic opinion called intrinsic aspects of our society (like democracy) Satan and declared themselves in a historic war with us and Catholic engaged in rampaging Machete attacks on our citizens while shouting 'our lady', then i would suggest that moving large numbers of Catholics into our community was a very bad idea. I don't think you would disagree with this - the odd thing is how you seem to get 'stuck on stupid' when it comes to Muslims in particular. You whole framing suggests that this isn't a risk we are visiting on ourselves. It actually requires effort on our part to force these people into the country against the wishes of the UK public. Which bits of our society has the Muslim church said they were opposed to important parts of our society? You seem to be mistaking extreme minority groups of the Muslim church with the main body. Or do you mean if tiny parts of the Christian church opposed significant parts of our society, would I think moving large numbers of Catholics into our community was a very bad idea.
|
|