snafuSnafu – what a crass response. Of course my comments only apply to the extremists – that’s who we are discussing in this thread isn’t it?
A fair few have not made that distinction, and 1batfastard did not make that distinction either; that was why I made my ‘crass response’.
And comparing the actions of ISIS with fox hunters is bizarre beyond belief.
Oh I’m not sure I was comparing actions, just demonstrating that the description you gave was applicable to more than just one crazy Islamic faction – my brother is a train spotter, for example, and fits that description of yours perfectly.
I’m reluctant to condemn someone as an idiot but in this case I’ll make a rare exception. His ‘arguments’ are contradictory and threadbare.
Indeed. And your arguments are straight forward and as plush as a Hilton wedding suite, right?
Except…except we never get to see your arguments since as soon as someone questions your view you clam up. Point a finger at me for asking questions, John, call me an idiot but you still have three more fingers pointing back at silent old you. Strange that the ‘rare exceptions’ are both users here who have seemingly contrary view to yours; so while we – sorry, while I – am the idiot who doesn’t bow down to every post you make and is therefore ignored, you can go back to believing that with no dissention to your post then everybody obviously agrees with you.
He is primarily a troll, looking to create opportunities for mischief. This persons comments discredits all notions of civilised discourse.
I pose questions or query your view and you decide that I am a troll whose comments oppose discussion? Would I not be a troll if I didn’t keep posting threads discussing where UKIP members keep inserting their feet firmly in their mouths; would that work with you?
What is it you want exactly – to be able to state your view and not have anyone pose an opposite opinion? Is it that you are unable to discuss why you believe what you think or that you cannot believe some might think differently to you? Not responding doesn’t mean that your view is carried through, just that you will appear to have surrendered, to not debate, to not undertake the simple notion of civilised discourse, in fact.
IGNORE
But I’m still here. You are the one who fails to understand the meaning of a word in the forums name: Discussion.
snafuI don’t know. I’m being called a troll by John and (I guess) Charlie since I counter their views; is there a rule against that in the forum code of conduct?
snafuIf enough of the electorate vote for Nigel, UKIP will form the next Govt.
A very deep and thoughtful statement from John that I really cannot disagree with.
Anyone listening to Dead Ringers on Radio 4 on Wednesdays, 18:30? There is a marvellous parody of Farage by Lewis MacLeod as a man pontificating from his bar stool in a pub, this week rambling about encouraging healthy eating by replacing the peanuts behind the bar with fruit so that the picture of the hidden topless model will slowly be revealed and bananas eaten, or something. Also William Hague ringing up a bakery, trying to order an oblong cake with a file in it to be delivered to Andy Coulson, with the woman on the phone informing him that she didn’t think it would be wise to do that, or something.
Very funny.
snafuYou are quite correct about the sausages but the Pakistani-PaIci for short! Before anybody calls racist I refer to Aussie short for Australian,Brit for British
and if a Chinaman is from China,Irish from Ireland why the hell can’t we say a P A K I is from Pakistan without it being termed as racist ? .
Since the term was used as a lazy and offensive reference to all peoples from the Indian subcontinent, and others besides – it is regarded as racist because it is associated with being used in a racist fashion. If you hear someone using that term as a casual reference about somebody, in general conversation, the chances are that one of the first things to come into your mind is a lowering of your opinion about that person; if you use it (or other, similar terms) to the police then you are more likely to encounter a reluctance to pursue your cause (I forget who did the research and when, but the findings apparently demonstrated that it didn’t matter whether the officer was latently racist or not, and was lumped in with a similar reluctance in inner city officers to assist black males making a civil complaint or when they had requested the police to attend an incident).
When Bernard Manning died I clicked on an online video of him performing in a nightclub during, maybe, the early 1970’s and he was almost spraying that word – and others – around in an aggressive and very deliberate way; there was nothing ironic or knowing about it, his use of such language was derogatory and meant as an insult to people from those cultures.
I dare say there will be a deputation along shortly insisting that the word has honourable origins (maybe it has) and should be rehabilitated (um, yeah, good luck with that), but then some people will still define the Chinese as Chinks, every Irishman as Paddy, every Scotsman as Jock, the Germans as Krauts, the Japanese as Nips, etc; you get the picture?
snafuBat, guess this was the important part of the post:
All put to the bench by somebody who speaks their language.
The funny handshake and the correct lodge phrase worked into the plea always works wonders, I believe…!;o)
snafuThe knighthood gets my vote
A moderator advocating rewarding an alleged criminal assault?
So it’s okay to assault someone if you happen to disagree with them? :
Oh, come on – surely you know they believe that battered wives also deserve to be beaten, for burning the dinner or looking at them funnily… (Of course in the real world they’d run away from the incident with the ‘nasty’ man beating up the other ‘nasty’ man…)
snafuIt reminds me of that time there were British Army Scorpion tanks driving round Heathrow Airport…
…I never did understand what ‘threat’ they were supposed to counter? But it was just before Gulf War Two.
Remember, the first job before going to war is to ‘sell’ it to your own people.
Silly – they were there in case Saddam… um, did something? Flying the flag, I suppose; making everyone feel that much more secure.
Has having the threat level raised sold anything to you, CD?
ANYTHING which is likely to increase the safety of this country and it’s citizens is to be welcomed and is indeed the first priority of its government.
Indeed, but will the entire UK see it that way? Do you feel safer now, Charlie, than you did before we became severe?
If just raising the threat level one notch increases the safety of this country then why have they waited so long, and why not go all the way to the top? Because, on the whole, raising the threat level does precisely nothing; a few more security people deployed at entry points like airports and ferry ports, a few more armed police, some posters up at railway stations and maybe an advertising campaign to raise awareness and scare a few more people, and more suits scratching their heads, wondering what will happen and where, and worrying about the extra expenditure.
Charlie, you will believe I am trolling – but, seriously, I am not. They have raised the threat level – why? What made them choose now rather than just after the Foley video was publicised, say, or why not wait for something tangible to be found (which they won’t tell us about for security reasons; of course, they might already have that info but, understandably, they won’t tell us that although if this is the case is it fair to lead us all into a false sense of security by telling us there is nothing to worry about?). Just saying that it is a good thing for the security of the country when there is little reason other than vague supposition is doing a small part of the terrorists job for them.
It might, just might, be more to do with the rise of Ebola and they are trying not to let the country panic over that by scaring us with ‘yet another’ terrorist scare…
snafuNot too sure about the split vote benefitting Miliband – his charisma will just soak that up – but it might help rehabilitate the Liberals.
snafuI am sorry Moggy but I have to agree with Charlie.
Me too.
Maybe you can afford to live off one tin of supermarket value baked beans a day for a year so that a wealthy – sorry! expensive barrister can get you off (or as near as, damnit!) a speeding charge but that just smacks of not playing fair. Elitist, maybe, and legal too, but not fair.
snafuThen I guess it is all down to whether you feel confident enough in yourself and in the understanding of others of any such word when you use it!
Were I on the mean streets of Brixton or Handsworth where it is probably the norm then I might feel comfortable, but elsewhere it would be another matter (and I live elsewhere!).
snafuGood question…..who is the threat level for? Why make it so public?
Is is normal to let your enemies know that you ‘know’? Is it deterrence? Surely you don’t need a public announcement to let your own security services know the threat level has increased?
Or is it something more sinister; is it to control the way your own population feels about the threat? Of course, if there is a genuine threat at all.
EXACTLY!
Nothing new.
A few years back an moderator here said something basically wishing Maggie Thatcher ill.
There is, I suspect, a world of difference between wishing ill of somebody, actually inflicting injury on somebody, and effectively congratulating someone for administering a beating.
Yes, you can do two of the above on a forum without having to actually meet anybody, which I guess makes it alright, but when the strong arm of the forum – yes, a moderator – makes such comments isn’t that a little…off?
That said he probably did it when he wasn’t being a moderator…;o)
I know these comment are made “in jest” but such comments basically condone lawlessness, and basically make us no better that those we oppose.
“It’s shocking that ISIS kills a hostage…”but in the next breath..”It’s okay to beat up someone I disagree with”. I’m not sure adding a smiley face lessens the intent.
Maybe they include the smiley to show they’d enjoy carrying out the beating?
Surely they teach logic (or just comic irony) in schools?
Ah, but even if they did today it wouldn’t make any difference to us on this forum now – I doubt anybody here has been involved in the learning side of education in many a year…
snafuThe only point that can forwarded, is that the instructor broke rules of safety and paid the price for ignoring safety.
One safety rule ignored – were there others?
Had the instructor not been standing there to take the bullet, was the range’s design such that it could have travelled into any spectators behind her and to her left?
snafuI think you’ll find it went a little something like this…
Question:- How do you plead ?
Answer :- …
Barrister (rolls up left trouser leg to the knee revealing a single red sock with garter, puts right hand behind head with forearm horizontal but gently rotating his arm in a circular motion, anticlockwise, before winking with both eyes, one after the other, beginning with his left one): Milud, my client pleads guilty.
Judge (peers myopically through glasses at barrister; recognition slowly creeps in): Ah yes, mmm, I see. Well, I believe this fine, upstanding member of the community has shown that he deeply regrets his poor judgement in doing… (consults notes)…mmm, one hundred and ninety seven miles an hour through the village on market day, narrowly missing the local primary school children on a field trip and managing to jump the canal whilst reading a newspaper and conversing on his mobile telephone device. But since he has been shown to be an honest, mmm, and law abiding member of society I feel it is only right, not just right but also sensible to free this man into the loving arms of his wife, his two mistress’s and his bank manager; there would be no purpose served by depriving him of his driving licence since he would loose his job, mmm, and thereby not be able to give recompense to his law team. Case dismissed!
Barrister: My lord!
Judge: Oh alright. Ban him for twenty eight days…
snafuWell, you could always go by the results of an IQ test; that should cut the possible ownership pool down considerably.
snafuWith reports of another hostage sadly meeting his fate at the hands of IS and almost daily pronouncements from deluded British women out in Syria its time there was any pretence this threat is going away !
And, I ask again, how do you propose to do that?
Its time that NATO views this as incredibly serious and let the A-10’s -Apaches and Tornados loose to hunt at will !
Are you saying we should have boots on the ground? You want aircraft there, but how would they be directed (we all know how successful air strikes are, such a shame the locals in Afghanistan, for example, ruefully believe different) unless there are people on the ground – which both Britain and the US have seemingly ruled out.
And let us look at the big picture: what happens when (if?) IS is eventually obliterated – do we leave it for the Iraqi government to make the big decisions until the next bunch of fundamentalists walk in? Do we let the Iraqi military have the keys to the toy box again – I mean, they have shown us that they are not totally sold on the idea that they need to stand and fight for their country, although one way or another they have happily supplied IS with weapons and ammunition. But the US and Britain had withdrawn all (or near enough all) troops before IS walked in and the public has no interest in maintaining a presence in Iraq nor loosing troops at the rate of one or two a week (if we are lucky), so what happens?
Iraq’s neighbours aren’t interested; maybe Iran, undoubtedly with their own agenda, but who else? The Kurds are doing a magnificent job, but they will want something at the end of it – a homeland that some of the neighbours will fight tooth and nail against. BUT Iraq’s neighbours need to be involved, they need to make a decision about where their own best interests lay, because IS doesn’t need to halt at Iraq’s borders.
Is it really a NATO thing? Might it not be a UN thing? Shouldn’t we go by the book this time and not go play Rambo in someone else’s country by our collective selves, bullying others into either being with us or against us?
Sign In
