Election

[Karl]

Personally...


I can't stand the Tories because they lie and cheat and only care for themselves and are driven by money and power.

I can't stand the Liberals because they live in a dream world and fail to punish the evils of this world by thinking everyone can be rehabilitated.

I can't stand the Reformists because they are racist, prejudice bigots who give white British people like myself a bad name.

I can't stand the Socialists because they are happy to bring everyone down and crush a dreamers aspirations to stand out from the masses of sheep.

I can't stand the Greens because they are hippy pot-heads who would rather smoke weed and hug trees.



Not sure where that leaves me politically haha!

Well, what if you focused on the things you do like? Such as, I don't know... Do you like books?

[caz]

Excellent point.


There are many variations of belief in the religion of Islam; some are more moderate than others.

There are at least half a dozen different sects of Islam that all have different views and relative levels of Piousness.

Wahabism for example is a more strict belief system compared to some other sects; whereas Quranism/Quaranists are more moderate in their world views and is an area of Islam that is becoming more popular with younger Muslims who seek moderation whilst remaining loyal to the Quran.

There is so much infighting between the various sects and sub-sects of Islam that it makes Christianity look like it has its s**t together.

There are books and writings named collectively as the "Hadith" which are essentially a series of stories and oral tradition passed down through generations and then used as a means to follow Islam.
The issue with the "Hadith' is that they all contradict each other and some even oopose the words of the authentic and original book of Islam; namely the Quran.

The problem with the Western world is that we lack the desire and capacity to want to learn WHY there are ongoing divides in the world.

What doesn't help is if we tarnish all Muslims as fundamentalists; because there are vastly and overwhelmingly more moderate Muslims than there are Muslim militant extremists

The majority of Muslims are killed by other Muslims because there are so many variations of Islam that oppose each other and so to tarnish everyone with the same brush is simply a means for the uneducated West to try and deal with and process the relative unknown.

In 2023 Saudi Arabia (the geographical birthplace of Islam) took a step in the right direction by allowing the words of the moderate Quranists (believiers in the Quran and opposed to all Hadith writings) to be brought into the mainstream. Compare that to a decade ago when Quaranists were imprisoned for speaking out against the Hadith.

An interesting side note... the name of the prophet Muhammad appears in the Quran only 4 times.

114 chapters of the Quran, and the most important man in the Islamic faith; the 40 year old man who founded Islam in 610 AD, is mentioned only 4 times.

I am not a Muslim but I believe it's rather important to learn and educate myself in such matters, so that I can form a more moderate, respectful and informed understanding of how the world really works.


RD

A really useful and interesting guide for the perplexed, Rookie, of whom I am a fully paid-up member.

I'm still wondering how ordinary, law-abiding Muslims are expected to go about 'weeding out' the extreme elements in their own communities, as one poster suggested, if the best they can do within the laws of their land is to lead by example, or seek to change those laws. Muslims are not an 'organisation', like the police, the clergy or the Government, who can and should be held legally and morally responsible for weeding out their own rotten apples.

It has been mentioned that we are not personally responsible for the sins of our ancestors. But do white males, for example, consider themselves responsible for 'weeding out' white male political extremists, religious fanatics, potential terrorists and sexual predators from within their communities or the wider population? If they pose a threat to public safety, it's a matter for the police or the armed forces. If they stand for parliament, it's the ballot box. Short of lacing their tea with weed killer, I'm not sure what the average white band is currently doing to pick up their own pieces [see what I did there? I'm here all week]. Judging by this thread, all the stiff lectures on what everyone else needs to stop doing are not working.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Rookie Detective]

Personally...


I can't stand the Tories because they lie and cheat and only care for themselves and are driven by money and power.

I can't stand the Liberals because they live in a dream world and fail to punish the evils of this world by thinking everyone can be rehabilitated.

I can't stand the Reformists because they are racist, prejudice bigots who give white British people like myself a bad name.

I can't stand the Socialists because they are happy to bring everyone down and crush a dreamers aspirations to stand out from the masses of sheep.

I can't stand the Greens because they are hippy pot-heads who would rather smoke weed and hug trees.




Not sure where that leaves me politically haha!


A centralist I guess.

But I really don't like it when someone just sits on the fence all day and fails to make decisions.


Hmm...

decisions decisions...


Haha!


RD

[caz]

So to sum up, we have side A - who believe that there is a problem with too much immigration in the UK and that not enough is done to control the illegal immigrants and who also believe that there is a problem within Islam which is more serious and possibly more potentially far-reaching than side B do. Side B think that side A are, at best alarmist, at worst racist, Islamophobe etc.

And side B - who believe that there is no issue with immigration and take a ‘more the merrier’ outlook. The also see no issue within Islam of any real seriousness and that all of this is blown out of all proportion by the lying right-wing Press. Side A think that side B are too Woke or PC to face the truth.

This may be the boring approach but isn’t it at least a possibility that the truth might lie somewhere within a territory in the middle of all this and that we should all perhaps be more willing to look at the other side? I personally accept that the right wing Press fan the flames (as all Press do in fact) whilst we are in the centre trying to find out which is corrrect, the facts and figures presented by the Left or the Right.

Karl said this on immigration:

“You don't speak for Britain, mate. No, neither do I, but your side is a minority of people. Who just got their asses kicked in the last election, by the way.”

But in every single poll that has been take Immigration is right up there with the problems that voters want sorting. In one or two polls it was above ‘the economy,’ so this is clearly an issue. Millions of people have the exact same opinions as some of us on here. Surely you can’t dismiss a huge chunk of the populace as phobes?

We appear to be between Fraser from Dad’s Army “we’re all doomed!” and some leftist hippie “chill out man, everyone is cool, be mellow.”

Like in many subjects maybe it’s the middle where the danger lies unseen and unchallenged? On both sides.

A substantial chunk of the British population voted for Brexit, Herlock. While this chunk was not solely made up of bigots, I submit that most if not all bigots who voted, would have voted Leave. I can't dismiss them all for that unique moment of idiocy, because they were conned by the loudest voices, picking away bit by bit at their personal insecurities. Those voices knew exactly which buttons to press, while the slightly less substantial chunk of us who were horrified by this and warned of what was in store, are still being blamed today when we are owed a huge apology from the huge chunk who fell for the con trick and took everyone else down with them.

At some point, it should be obvious that majority opinion is not going to be in everyone's best interests, and will often turn out to be in nobody's but a select few billionaires and megalomaniacs. It's a condition of being a member of the human race. Things may only change if aliens from space threaten us all equally, and we have to pull together, share our resources and forget our differences - or let them take over the planet and force feed us KFC. It's a horrific thought.

Love,

Caz
X

[Karl]

You are quoting me out of context. I was replying to another poster's use of the word and the word fear.

You said people shouldn't use the word, full stop. I addressed the context directly when I pointed out that's not how the word has ever been used, nor how it should be used. Just like homophobia isn't a mortal fear of homosexuals, it's the irrational aversion to homosexuals rather than a fear as such - but the label is still appropriate.

I'm against ANY religion having sex with young girls, exploding bombs or terrorising people in general. I suspect most folk are. Does that make them xyz a phobic?

No one has ever been called Islamophobic or any sort of phobic for those reasons. Ever. I'm against those things, too, but I'm not against religion, people, or people believing in religion. Religion is whatever people make it. It's a crutch for people, providing them with justification for the things they have already decided they want to do. Religion is a direct consequence of human nature, and to be against religion is just as futile as being against human nature. People will always be religious, whether they belong to an organised god-belief or a non-theistic ideology, people will always be religious. And religiosity does not become more dangerous just because there's a deity involved. Look at the French Revolution: people went bananas, even in the name of their replacement for Catholicism, the so-called "Church of Reason". It was a bloodbath, all in the name of liberté, égalité, fraternité. Not because of those worthy ideals, but because "we're right, they're wrong, and their ideas are a DANGER to ours". That's the root of every single ideological conflict. Everyone insists that they are peaceful, but if outsiders can be portrayed as being a DANGER, then all bets are off.

That was a very long-winded way of getting to my point, which is if you see someone as a DANGER merely because they have a certain religion, then I'd say "islamophobe" is apt.

[caz]

Labor just sanctioned the continued funding by License fees until 2027.
After that they are looking at direct funding from central taxation.
The BBC needs to lick the boots of the office that grants them your license fee - for now.

I've watched news from European countries that have been edited down when shown on the BBC.
Subjects that might prove embarrassing for the British govt. have been edited out, or reworded.

You do know who was in power in Britian for 14 years up until this month, don't you? If the BBC has edited out or reworded anything to spare the blushes of the British Government during that time, they were licking the boots of the right, which is what I just told you they were doing.

We will have to wait and see if the BBC returns to any semblance of balance under the new lot. Many decent journalists took off from the BBC because it had shackled itself to the Tories, who didn't know the meaning of the word 'impartial', or didn't want to know.

[Geddy2112]

Islamophobia has never been used to describe a fear akin to eg. the fear of spiders. It is the irrational fear that Islam presents a danger to society. It does not apply to people who merely have criticisms of Islam, it applies to people who think "they mean to kill us all", or who think that "Islam" is synonymous with "terrorism", or other such alarmist nonsense.

You are quoting me out of context. I was replying to another poster's use of the word and the word fear.

I'm against ANY religion having sex with young girls, exploding bombs or terrorising people in general. I suspect most folk are. Does that make them xyz a phobic?

[Karl]

And that right there is the reason people should not use the word 'Islamophobia.' You can make points, observations or other such comments without having a 'fear' of something. It's called having an opinion. An opinion is not always a fear, a dislike or dare I say it a hatred. If you are going to slur people with these words at least do it correctly and do not misrepresent people's 'innocent' intentions or opinions.

Islamophobia has never been used to describe a fear akin to eg. the fear of spiders. It is the irrational fear that Islam presents a danger to society. It does not apply to people who merely have criticisms of Islam, it applies to people who think "they mean to kill us all", or who think that "Islam" is synonymous with "terrorism", or other such alarmist nonsense.

[Geddy2112]

So to be clear, you don't fear Islam? When you said that Islam is the greatest threat we have seen since WW2, that wasn't out of fear, that was out of....... love?

And that right there is the reason people should not use the word 'Islamophobia.' You can make points, observations or other such comments without having a 'fear' of something. It's called having an opinion. An opinion is not always a fear, a dislike or dare I say it a hatred. If you are going to slur people with these words at least do it correctly and do not misrepresent people's 'innocent' intentions or opinions.

[Karl]

Hi RD.


I assume you intentionally left out the bit where Muhammed marries a 7 year old girl named Aisha, this chivalrous individual waited a whole 2 years before he raped her, at the age of 9.
Unless we accept a 9 year old understands what consent is?

What relevance does this have at all? This was standard practice pretty much all over back in the day. The Quran says nothing about age of consent, and what an historical character did is moot. Why would you expect someone from the past to adhere to cultural standards 1400 years in the future? Do YOU adhere to futuristic standards?

There is a reason young Muslim men across Europe are raping juveniles, it was condoned by Muhammed.

Oh Jeeeeeesus f-ing Christ. No, they are not. Not to any greater extent than Christians. Rape is illegal in Islam too - as you well know. I mean, your logic here is beyond ridiculous. The age of consent most places in Europe is 16 (and that's a fairly recent thing). Does that mean "young white Europeans are raping kids from 16 years up, because that's what they're allowed to"? Well, does it? If you look at it from a religious perspective, not only are men not allowed to rape, they are not allowed to have sex outside of marriage. But let me guess, now religious tenets do not count?

Age of consent wasn't even a thing until the late 19th century. Prior to that it was all about age of marriage, which was anywhere between 10-12 years old across the Western world (only outlier being Delaware, which lowered their age of marriage from 10 to 7 in 1870).

But, on reflection, perhaps we should leave that out.

Or perhaps you should stop being so flagrantly dishonest.

[Tab]

The point I was making, which I thought was crystal clear, was about Muslim’s believing that everything in the Quran is the perfect and literal word of God.

Well good job making a pigs ear of it by coming up with your own definition of fundamentalist, having labels printed, and then sticking them to every Muslim in the world.

Tab posted some irrelevant stuff about interpretation (because will all know, that in all religions, there is an element of interpretation and debate and that theologians have been debating this stuff pointlessly for years.)

Careful, your disdain for religion is showing.

As an atheist who has been at group meetings including Muslims I have yet to find a single one that accepted that the Quran can be questioned. Every single one believed in its perfection. And none of them were interested in far-reaching theological debate either because they believe this to be a black and white issue.

Was this your weekly get together of Problematic Opinions Anonymous?

I have at no point on here ever expressed or even implied a dislike of Muslims (I do not dislike them). Not once. And yet you immediately spring into action with the same hackneyed responses and insults.

This is how you show you like people is it?

How many stood up and criticised the 9/11 bombers without a ‘but…’ or a ‘however’ in the response.

Look at Gaza. Problem solved if the Palestinian Muslims just accepted a 2 state solution but they won’t.

Because of their deep-seated, religiously-based hatred of Jews. Their unending desire for their total obliteration. Its not complex stuff.

I don’t think for a second that the majority want to integrate.

It’s about conquest, converting everyone to Islam, the genocide of the Jewish people. They have no middle ground.

But not all Christian’s are fundamentalists. All Muslims are though.

These people demand respect but what they real want is fear and submission.

Feel free to scroll back and look at the context surrounding the above quotes, it doesn't make them any better.

I haven’t seen your side once, not once, ever acknowledge that perhaps the the left wing Press might have an agenda too. It always appears to be, from your point of view, Left wing Press good guys, Right wing Press evil.

Let me fix that for you. I agree, the left wing press might have an agenda too.

So to wrap up, not that you will accept this of course, but I categorically state that am NOT a racist (and I resent any accusation or implication from anyone) and I am NOT Islamophobic and yes, I too struggle with the new gender theories (as does every single person that I know without exception) but I am NOT Transphobic because I don’t fear or hate trans people.

So to be clear, you don't fear Islam? When you said that Islam is the greatest threat we have seen since WW2, that wasn't out of fear, that was out of....... love?

I am f*****g sick and tired of being labelled purely because my opinion doesn’t tally with the current Leftist ideology.

Cry me a river.

that the views expressed on here about immigration, or religious extremism or even trans issues (although these have only been a side issue on here) are the views of the vast majority in this country.

They aren't

And now that we have people who are apparently terrorists sympathisers posting I think it’s definitely time to move on. F**k it.

Are you OK? Do we need to organise a welfare check on you?

[Karl]

Israel abandoned Gaza in 2005.

No, they did not. They made a partial disengagement, but they are still, by all legal definitions, occupying Gaza and controlling everything that comes in or out. That's not "abandoning" anything.

No, Israel has not been in conflict within Gaza until the Oct. 7th massacre.
Since that date Israel moved in to Gaza to hunt the Hamas terrorists, which is not an occupation.

The first sentence is a lie so egregious it merits no further comment. It is impossible that you do not know you're lying.
The second sentence is also a lie, one that you perhaps even tell yourself. You do not hunt anyone by indiscriminate bombing, and the deliberate targeting of hospitals and refugee camps. "But there may be Hamas there". So what? There are definitely innocent people there. This is pure revenge, not even a thought for the hostages; Israel is simply out to kill as many Palestinians as possible. Hell, they even bombed the West Bank. What did they do that for?

The death tolls reported by the UNOCHA come from Gaza government officials. The breakdown of the figures in the UNOCHA report only includes casualties whose identities have been confirmed by the Gaza Health Ministry (GHM), while the overall figure is the number of deaths reported by the Gaza Government Media Office.

Who is the Govt. of Gaza?
Hamas.

Yeeees, but just because a certain party is in government doesn't mean that everything in the country IS that party. When you go to the hospital, you're treated by the NHS - you're not treated by Labour. Labour will now affect how the NHS can treat people, but it's still not Labour that makes a diagnosis or prescribes treatment, or performs surgeries. It's not like hospitals are staffed according to political affiliation.

Hamas has governed the Gaza Strip in Palestine since its takeover of the region from rival party Fatah in June 2007. Hamas' government was led by Ismail Haniyeh from 2007 until February 2017, when Haniyeh was replaced as leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip by Yahya Sinwar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_government_in_the_Gaza_Strip

"Security forces revealed to i24News that humanitarian aid trucks entering the Gaza Strip, and being seized by armed men, apparently belonging to Hamas."

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/1708947844-i24news-reveals-hamas-gunmen-allegedly-seizing-humanitarian-aid-trucks-entering-gaza

They've been doing it for years.
Read on...

Yeees, Hamas seizes stuff. As does the IDF. Care to tell me how humanitarian aid can be used militarily?

Educate yourself.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD.


I assume you intentionally left out the bit where Muhammed marries a 7 year old girl named Aisha, this chivalrous individual waited a whole 2 years before he raped her, at the age of 9.
Unless we accept a 9 year old understands what consent is?
There is a reason young Muslim men across Europe are raping juveniles, it was condoned by Muhammed.
But, on reflection, perhaps we should leave that out.



This is actually important, in the 70's when the Islamic Revolution decided to overthrow the Shah of Iran, they allied with Russian Communists. Once the overthrow was complete, the Islamic Republic, now in power, turned on the Communists and wiped them out.

If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Today we see western University students throwing their support behind Palestine, being indoctrinated by Hamas and Palestinian supporters. We even see 'Gays for Palestine' they have no clue Muslims execute gays, these fools are so misguided.
Western students are the same, likely bored, ill-informed, looking for a meaning in their lives, they are game for Palestine sympathizers. They also have no clue what they are talking about.

If the radical Islamists are successful, all these western leftist idiots will be victimized by the Regime, they don't see it because they are ignorant over what they are injecting themselves into.
They are all being used and the Islamists know they are too stupid to see it.

If those misguided western do-gooders had any idea how females are treated in Palestine, and parts of Iran, Syria, Iraq, etc. they wouldn't be so enthusiastic with their support of Palestine.

I was last in the middle-east in Oct. '22, so its not like I have only read books. I've met and talked with a lot of Muslims, both male and female and learned something about their culture & values. We can read websites & books about Islam, theirs no substitute for person to person conversations.

We must also remember that Jesus's mother Mary was only 14 when she conceived.

Or was it God who...

Anyway...

At the time being 14 would have been considered normal of course; but if we take that and apply it to today's morals...

...That perhaps explains why there are so many evil paedophiles in the Catholic Church that are protected by the organisation run by powerful privileged white men who use the church as a shield to know they're above the law.

So at least we have established that perhaps Muhammed, Joseph and possibly even God are dodgy, for having their way with underage girls.

But I do see your point how SOME young Muslim men do feel they can treat women like dirt; the same can be applied to those scumbag Romans who raped their way across Europe.
The Romans treated women just as bad, and became even worse when they adopted Christianity with Emperor Constantine.

The Catholic Church is now of course the last remnant of the Roman Empire (Eastern)

In direct opposition of course to many non-Christian British tribes (like the Iceni) who had women as the head ruler. In Britain some women were seen as Goddesses; a concept completely alien to the Christians and Muslims.


Religion has raped the world.


And continues to do so.


RD

[Wickerman]

Hi RD.

...
At the time Muhammed and his followers were persecuted and oppressed by their pre-Islamic Arab rulers. Muhammed rose up and chose to fight, and was a man who people listened to and who believed in him; a worthy attribute in any man....

I assume you intentionally left out the bit where Muhammed marries a 7 year old girl named Aisha, this chivalrous individual waited a whole 2 years before he raped her, at the age of 9.
Unless we accept a 9 year old understands what consent is?
There is a reason young Muslim men across Europe are raping juveniles, it was condoned by Muhammed.
But, on reflection, perhaps we should leave that out.

With the help of various smaller tribes, including a JEWISH tribe, Muhammed and his followers adopting Green and White, rose up and eventually conquered the Arabs and thus the religion of Islam was born, and is the reason why the flag of Saudi Arabia (the geographical birthplace of Islam) is Green and white; the colors of Muhammed.
The Jewish tribe who were essential in helping to overthrow the Arabs were subsequently conquered by the followers of Muhammed and Islam,...

This is actually important, in the 70's when the Islamic Revolution decided to overthrow the Shah of Iran, they allied with Russian Communists. Once the overthrow was complete, the Islamic Republic, now in power, turned on the Communists and wiped them out.

If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Today we see western University students throwing their support behind Palestine, being indoctrinated by Hamas and Palestinian supporters. We even see 'Gays for Palestine' they have no clue Muslims execute gays, these fools are so misguided.
Western students are the same, likely bored, ill-informed, looking for a meaning in their lives, they are game for Palestine sympathizers. They also have no clue what they are talking about.

If the radical Islamists are successful, all these western leftist idiots will be victimized by the Regime, they don't see it because they are ignorant over what they are injecting themselves into.
They are all being used and the Islamists know they are too stupid to see it.

If those misguided western do-gooders had any idea how females are treated in Palestine, and parts of Iran, Syria, Iraq, etc. they wouldn't be so enthusiastic with their support of Palestine.

I was last in the middle-east in Oct. '22, so its not like I have only read books. I've met and talked with a lot of Muslims, both male and female and learned something about their culture & values. We can read websites & books about Islam, theirs no substitute for person to person conversations.

[The Rookie Detective]

The irony being that the Quran "purists" are an oppressed minority in the Muslim world and disliked by the 2 main sects; the Sunni Islam and Shia Islam; who make up around 98% of all Muslims.

The Quranist movement believes solely in the words of the Quran and dismisses all words and preachings in the Hadith.

The Hadith are a series of various writings, scriptures and stories passed down orally from generation to generation and are adopted into the Islamic faith as the addition and extension ot the Quran.

The problem is that some sects of Islam embrace some Hadith; while others dismiss some and accept some others; ergo, they all believe in different things.

All sects of Islam (except the quranists) choose to accept and follow different Hadith, and this causes particular unease and conflict between various factions.

The irony comes from the fact that one the most Moderately thinking sects of Islam; namely the Quranists, choose to accept, believe and follow the Quran ONLY and openly reject everything that came AFTER the original holy book of Islam.

This makes the Quran "purists" open targets for persecution, violence, and imprisonment, from those who believe that by rejecting ALL Hadith; they are betraying their faith.
The overwhelming majority of Muslims are Sunni Islam, and they choose to believe in several Hadith that can sometimes works in contrast with the teachings of the original Quran.

It is therefore important to recognise that the Muslims who choose to be faithful to the authentic and original book of Islam; the Quran, are not a faction of Islam who one should consider as extremist or radical. The Quran purists are arguably the most moderately thinking Muslims in the world, and it is often misplaced belief in various different Hadith that are the cause of much discourse and conflict within the Islamic faith.

In summary; the Muslims who choose to reject the Haidth and have the courage to stay loyal only to the original book of Islam in the Quran; are not to be tarnished with the same brush as those areas of Islam who choose to adopt some of the Hadith, that is then in turn perceived incorrectly and leads to individuals becoming misguided and manipulated, and then going down the path of extremism.

The vast majority of Islamic extremists and terrorists know very little about their own religion because they are often young men who are brainwashed into believing in something that does not truly represent their religion.

It is a fact that the religion of Islam was founded on war and conflict born out of oppression, but the context of which is important to understand.
At the time Muhammed and his followers were persecuted and oppressed by their pre-Islamic Arab rulers. Muhammed rose up and chose to fight, and was a man who people listened to and who believed in him; a worthy attribute in any man.
With the help of various smaller tribes, including a JEWISH tribe, Muhammed and his followers adopting Green and White, rose up and eventually conquered the Arabs and thus the religion of Islam was born, and is the reason why the flag of Saudi Arabia (the geographical birthplace of Islam) is Green and white; the colors of Muhammed.
The Jewish tribe who were essential in helping to overthrow the Arabs were subsequently conquered by the followers of Muhammed and Islam, but it is true to state that without the help of the Jews; Islam may never have come to fruition.

Muhammed went on to become the most important person in the Islamic world and he was a hero for saving his people from Arabic oppression. He may have used war to achieve his goals, but he saved himself and his followers from an Arabic regime that has suppressed him for so long.
He chose to fight for his freedom, and won.

interestingly...
We now use the word Arab in conjunction with Muslims; but they are actually different; in that Arabs existed long before the birth of Islam in 610 AD.

just fascinating



RD