Election

[Wickerman]

Israel is illegally occupying Gaza. That is a fact.

Israel abandoned Gaza in 2005.

With the implementation of the plan, IDF installations and forces were removed and over 9000 Israeli citizens living in 25 settlements were evicted. By 22 September 2005, Israel's withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip to the 1967 Green Line, and the eviction of the four settlements in Samaria, was completed.

https://embassies.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/Israels%20Disengagement%20Plan-%202005.aspx

Conflict in Gaza has always gone both ways. That is also a fact.

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.

And god almighty, it isn't Hamas that gives us the numbers of casualties!

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.

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

And in what way does Hamas confiscate humanitarian aid... for military purposes?

"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...

GAZA, February 7, 2009 (WAFA)- The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) suspended, Friday, all imports of desperately needed aid after Hamas militias confiscated hundreds of tons of food, the second such seizure in three days, the UN news service reported.

https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/107518

Educate yourself.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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. 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.)

My point was to show, even though I didn’t think that I needed to, that not all Muslim’s are sitting around having deep theological discussions as Tab seems to believe. For most Muslims, your average man and woman that you meet everyday, it’s black and white. The Quran is perfect and shouldn’t be questioned. Their lives are run along these lines. And THIS is where I stated that a problem exists - naturally though Karl and Tab went up in arms as per usual. The point I am making AGAIN is that unless steps are taken then we are left with a percentage (and I’m certain a large one) of religionists who believe that none of the detrimental and dangerous things written in their holy books are challengeable. If only one person commits a violent atrocity because he misunderstood his own religion (one that he’d had drilled into him since birth) then it’s an issue. So how big an issue do we have with the atrocity’s that have resulted from Islamic extremism? How many Buddhist extremism attacks to we see, or Sikh, or Jain, or Christian or Hindu? 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. So this is where danger lies and before you begin weeping this applies to all religions. Fundamentalist Christian’s are a danger too. In fact of course people of any unbending, self-isolating belief system are a potential problem.

The issue at this point in our history is that the main threat comes from Islam (or at least from some of its adherents) If we had gone back in time then other religions would have been the ‘current’ problem. If those on one side feel the need to keep shutting down debate by the usual tactic of name calling then no progress will ever occur. 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. I don’t claim to have all of the answers because, of course, things aren’t always black and white. I have, on here, accepted that certain parts of the Press can of course be guilty of fanning the flames of discontent but 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. I used to think like that in my younger days (I’m 59 this year btw and a lifelong Labour voter - and yes, I voted for Starmer) but I’ve seen how the ‘new’ Left works and it stinks.

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.

I am f*****g sick and tired of being labelled purely because my opinion doesn’t tally with the current Leftist ideology. I am of the Left but this new Left is one that I don’t recognise or like. It appears to be full of people who's only real desire is to make themselves look good by making others look bad. If some would step outside of the cozy little middle class bubbles then they might see reality; they might see something that shocks them - 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. So that’s a hell of a lot of name calling that you are required to do. Walk along my street, a very normal street, and every single person without fail will agree with me on these topics. And the next street, and the next. How many are you willing to keep labelling? How much crap in the world will happen before someone thinks “hey, maybe we should have done something about this after all.”

So I’m going to stick to true crime issues on here. This has been the most depressing thread that I’ve ever posted on in my time here. And now that we have people who are apparently terrorists sympathisers posting I think it’s definitely time to move on. F**k it.

[Karl]

It may have escaped your attention, but laws are not written to protect you from the majority of people, they are written to protect you from the exception.
Not everyone carries a gun, but in rare cases, someone will.
Not everyone races around at 100 MPH, occasionally, someone will.
Not everyone forces a juvenile to have sex, but occasionally, someone will.
Laws are put in place to protect the individual from the unexpected.

Now there's a disconnect I haven't encountered before. It sounds like you're saying "ethnic/sexual minorities are in the minority; criminals are in the minority. Eeeeergoooo..."

[Karl]

One thing you cannot do is argue with historical fact.

You spelled "fiction" wrong. Israel is illegally occupying Gaza. That is a fact.
Conflict in Gaza has always gone both ways. That is also a fact.
And god almighty, it isn't Hamas that gives us the numbers of casualties!
And in what way does Hamas confiscate humanitarian aid... for military purposes?
As for the standard of living, pretty fresh to expect Hamas to do anything when all is rubble, courtesy of the IDF. And the crippling embargo which has been in place since 2007.
And what assistance, pray tell, is Hamas receiving from "western leftist sympathizers"? This is where I get to call you names and they will all be justified.

Also, of course Palestinians voted Hamas in. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. They have good cause to hate Israel. Hamas was born out of Israeli oppression.

I list what I see with my own eyes.

You list what you actively look for with your own eyes. Conveniently ignoring all else, and focusing on solitary examples from which you generalise across the whole field. "Death to Jews", indeed. I found one hear-say reference to someone having allegedly shouted it in a Berlin pro-Palestine rally. But you portray it as if it is commonplace. I get to call you more names now.

So many 'nice people' are afflicted with denial.

I never called you nice.

The rest are likely out of touch with what is taking place in the outside world.

You're in a glass house - leave those stones alone.

[Wickerman]

... They are only placed at risk of being raped or leered at, if a rare type of sexual predator poses as a trans woman to get access to them. That is not the fault of trans women.

It may have escaped your attention, but laws are not written to protect you from the majority of people, they are written to protect you from the exception.
Not everyone carries a gun, but in rare cases, someone will.
Not everyone races around at 100 MPH, occasionally, someone will.
Not everyone forces a juvenile to have sex, but occasionally, someone will.
Laws are put in place to protect the individual from the unexpected.

[Wickerman]

Holy crap. You actually believe this?

One thing you cannot do is argue with historical fact.

Holy crap a deux. Is this Crowder speaking, or Shapiro? Alex Jones, perhaps?

I list what I see with my own eyes.

So many 'nice people' are afflicted with denial.
The rest are likely out of touch with what is taking place in the outside world.

[Karl]

It is Hamas who occupies Gaza, not Israel.
It is Hamas who instigate conflict with Israel.
It is Hamas who provide distorted casualty numbers for media publication.
It is Hamas who confiscate western humanity aid for military purposes.
It is Hamas who fail to provide the citizens of Gaza with an acceptable standard of living.
Hamas are being assisted by western leftist sympathizers to continue all of the above.

Holy crap. You actually believe this?

But how can that be, these people view themselves as the 'nice people'.
And, as such we all know 'nice people' don't throw insults.
'Nice people' would not use words like Islamophobic.
'Nice people' wouldn't smash windows and set fire to the streets of Paris.
'Nice people' wouldn't lay siege to universities in UK, Canada & the U.S.
All the while shouting "death to Jews", and "From the River to the Sea", and other obnoxious, ill-informed rhetoric.

Those who want secure borders are 'bad people'.

Holy crap a deux. Is this Crowder speaking, or Shapiro? Alex Jones, perhaps?

[Wickerman]

.....Again not making much sense. My issue was being labelled a racist and xenophobic by simply making an observation about a High Street in the Capital City of England. Now it gets better the word 'bigot' is thrown in.
...

But how can that be, these people view themselves as the 'nice people'.
And, as such we all know 'nice people' don't throw insults.
'Nice people' would not use words like Islamophobic.
'Nice people' wouldn't smash windows and set fire to the streets of Paris.
'Nice people' wouldn't lay siege to universities in UK, Canada & the U.S.
All the while shouting "death to Jews", and "From the River to the Sea", and other obnoxious, ill-informed rhetoric.

Those who want secure borders are 'bad people'.

[caz]

Caz.
If you look back you will see I have no problem with Transgender themselves, by that I mean no problem associating with them.

Good for you. I trust they have no problem associating with you, or with anyone else who posts on a message board that they have a mental problem. You have told them, haven't you?

Some can be quite funny to talk with, they have a vocabulary that sets them apart from others - a conversation can be quite amusing.

You don't say. You mean, some of them can actually behave like regular human beings? Who knew?

The problem begins when they want to change rules or laws that effect others, to benefit only them.
An example is their desire to dismiss 'the fact of only two sexes' being taught in schools, and books that teach the same factual information being removed from school libraries.

As plenty of women have also complained about transgender men being assigned to women's toilets & change rooms, then it must be a problem for regular females.
The reasoning put forward was the govt. don't want to endanger Transgender men by putting them in men's washrooms for fear of physical harm. So, they put them in women's washrooms where biological females are placed at risk by men posing as women, where the female is open to risk of being raped if alone, or leered at while changing.
The complaint originated with women, so don't tell me it is not a valid complaint.

Right, so any complaint originating with women must be a valid one?

Well, I was a woman when I last checked, and I have a complaint - which doesn't require cream. My complaint is that biological females are not placed at risk by the amusing trans people you condescend to associate with. They are only placed at risk of being raped or leered at, if a rare type of sexual predator poses as a trans woman to get access to them. That is not the fault of trans women.

And I think you have it the wrong way round. Trans men are born female, while trans women are born male. I don't envy either, when they need to use a public convenience.

[Svensson]

I have run out of popcorn. brb.

[Wickerman]

... I was responding to Jon, who had previously expressed an insulting and out of touch belief that trans women have issues 'upstairs'. I was suggesting that if Jon thinks he has a handle on 'upstairs' issues in general, he might like to consider what the problem is with anyone who - unlike yourself - is riddled with Islamophobia....

I missed it, slap my wrist.

I can only speculate that we are talking cross purposes. You appear to be telling me a biological male who thinks he is female is quite normal. Whereas, anyone who calls 'a spade, a spade', must have issues of their own?

I don't particularly believe you think that, perhaps your defense mechanism is complicating your response.

It can only be stated that it is a matter of fact, that if anyone thinks they are something other than what they truly are, they have a distorted view of reality, and that distorted view stems from the brain.

The facts of the matter is science has long taught that biology (male or female) is determined by the number of 'X' and 'Y' chromosomes in the human body.
School books only need to reflect that reality, and not the distorted reality of dozens of genders determining the sex of a person.

Facts, are not an insult.
Whether some may feel insulted when faced with facts, is an internal issue for the one who feels offended, it is not an issue for society.

Regardless what any transgender woman (biological male), thinks he is, does not give him the right to enter a female toilet or change room.
That my dear, is back to school basics.

[caz]

This Labor govt. need to tread lightly, they were not elected by an overwhelming majority of Labor supporters.
They were elected by an overwhelming dissatisfaction with the Cons. Party.

That is correct - up to a point, Lord Copper.

Labour would have lost votes from their own supporters due to tactical voting in constituencies where Labour had zero chance of winning and the Lib Dems, for example, had a sporting chance of beating the Conservatives. Labour votes went to the Lib Dems in a bid to make that happen. It was successful in my neck of the woods.

[caz]

Can your points get weaker Karl. It’s the woke who are the arch-labellers. I’ve never said that someone is wrong just because they are a Muslim. But I’ll say that jihadist Muslims was wrong to fly planes into the World Trade Centre or are you one of those who say that the USA were somehow to blame? You seem to believe that any word of criticism constitutes some kind of hate crime. THIS is the problem. The phrase “you can’t say that.” And not enough people standing up to say “no, you can’t do that.”

It seems from reading this thread that the ones who complain the loudest, that they 'can't say that', can and do say it! They just don't like it when others beg to differ, or when the facts prove them wrong.

As for more people standing up to say "no, you can't do that", doesn't it rather depend on which 'people' you mean, and what you think they should be telling everyone else they can't do? I thought the problem was too many people dictating to others what they can't do: you must not follow that religion, you must only follow this one; if you are dying for some KFC you can't send your chicken to Switzerland for help with ending its life; you can't wave the Union Flag anywhere unless you want the council to send the Muslims round to cut off your bollocks. And on and on and on it goes.

We already enjoy the freedom in our country to do whatever we like within the law, so what fundamental changes should 'people' be standing up for today, which would retain their own freedom in the future, but deny it to other groups or individuals, who are currently subject to the same laws? What are they getting away with that you would like to get away with, but can't?

I'm genuinely concerned, Herlock, because we so rarely rub each up the wrong way. I'd like to understand what has led you down such a depressing path. If you are a Daily Mail reader, say no more. That rag should have a warning label on it and a helpline number.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

Ultimately, nobody likes or trusts Iran, even the more moderate Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia.

Which, RD, if you look back, is what I said - generally speaking.
Saudi Arabia (Egypt, Turkey, of those in the region), are more moderate.
That is not to say they do not contain terrorist elements.

But its important to note that the majority of Islamic extremist terrorists are Sunni and not Shia.

Right, but when we dig deeper we see the Sunni terrorists are a radical element of Sunni who align with Shia beliefs. Rather like Christian Fundamentalists are radical Christians.
Fundamentalist views in any religion is bad news.

People do ask, quite rightly, if Palestinians feel so displaced, then why don't they cross the border to live in the next Muslim country, where they have the same language, same culture, same lifestyle.
Instead of migrating to the west?

The reply from neighboring Muslim countries - for public consumption as always - 'if we do give refuge to our brother Muslims from Palestine we would be viewed as cowing down to western views'. (paraphrasing)
The true reason - off camera - is the local Muslim neighbors view Palestinians as trouble, they are even too radical for their Muslim neighbors.

While Palestinian citizens have been known to be more complacent, they did vote Hamas into power and it is Hamas (radical Sunni) who cause the trouble.
It is Hamas who occupies Gaza, not Israel.
It is Hamas who instigate conflict with Israel.
It is Hamas who provide distorted casualty numbers for media publication.
It is Hamas who confiscate western humanity aid for military purposes.
It is Hamas who fail to provide the citizens of Gaza with an acceptable standard of living.
Hamas are being assisted by western leftist sympathizers to continue all of the above.

[Geddy2112]

I apologise for getting it all wrong, Geddy, and will try again:

Geddy wouldn't literally burst into tears if someone were to accuse him of being Islamophobic [which is what the discussion was about at the time, but okay, let's add 'or xenophobic or racist']; he just wouldn't like it because he insists he is not.

It actually was the discussion at the time. I was branded racist and xenophobic for making an observation which clearly shows the people throwing the branding about do not know what the words mean. The Islamophobic came later in the piece, same problem though.

I too would dislike being accused of something I'm not, if I have given no indication of it. If Geddy wants to make observations about Whitechapel, London, Leeds, Bradford, Halifax, Liverpool, Cardiff or Durham - or indeed about being the only white face on the street and some of the signs being in an unfamiliar foreign language - then he can do so in safety, without fear of being called racist, xenophobic or Islamophobic, as long as none of those observations are in any way racist, xenophobic or Islamophobic in nature.

Did you read what you wrote here as it makes no sense. Apologies.

In case I was too subtle - or sarcastic - for you, Geddy, I was responding to Jon, who had previously expressed an insulting and out of touch belief that trans women have issues 'upstairs'. I was suggesting that if Jon thinks he has a handle on 'upstairs' issues in general, he might like to consider what the problem is with anyone who - unlike yourself - is riddled with Islamophobia. Would you like to take a stab at it? If that word isn't to your taste, even though it doesn't apply to yourself, you could call it something else, such as: anti-Muslimism, intolerance against Muslims, anti-Muslim prejudice, anti-Muslim bigotry, hatred of Muslims, anti-Islamism, Muslimophobia, demonisation of Islam... take your pick.

Responding to Jon by quoting me and not mentioning Jon at all, okay I'm sorry for not following, my bad

But seriously, you don't need to worry if you are not trans or an anti-Muslim bigot yourself. If people who really are bigots get stick for 'coming out' and speaking their mind - or even have the state of their mind questioned - why is it any skin off your nose, if you are nothing like them and don't want to be associated with them?

Again not making much sense. My issue was being labelled a racist and xenophobic by simply making an observation about a High Street in the Capital City of England. Now it gets better the word 'bigot' is thrown in.

If I'd I said and come to think about it, it may have been true 'I was the only bald man in the street' what would that make me? Baldist? Folicallychallengedophobic? What would you have called me if I'd said 'I was the only person in the street who had Crocs on?' What real difference is there is making these three observations?

I think you should stop throwing words around that you obviously have no idea what they mean. Making a simple observation is not being racist etc.