Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Zooropa wrote:The term "final solution" was used by the Nazi's in reference to their policy on Jews.
That was over half a century ago and i think its time we stopped using it as an opportunity to throw slime over people who's opinions we don't like when they use those words, she was foolish to have done so because of the reaction it was always going to provoke, but it doesnt mean what you want it to mean - sorry to disappoint you.
You seem to know very well what she meant with the "final solution" which you didnt like and presumably felt offended by but you have no idea what she meant when she changed it to "true solution".
I think you must have been in on A-Four's brain swap deal!
Intellectually dishonest.
I'll put my hands up....I doubt even someone as odious as Katie meant gassing all UK muslims.
What she meant...what the edited version of "true solution" means...I don't know. But , given her views generally, it's unlikely to mean anything pleasant as far as wider muslim community is concerned. Maybe she'll elucidate in the next day or so.
But I suspect she's fervently hoping the whole matter will go away.
Zooropa wrote:You like to use numbers when they suit you Newcastle but are quite happy to park that methodology when it works against you. The guardian's numbers are shrinking as we speak and they are no longer, and have not been for a while a financially viable entity - they are kept afloat by a few left wing donors. Your opinion that people listen to Hopkins for reasons other than her popularity is complete conjecture and something that your scientific background would not give any credence to normally, are you going to park that philosophy here as well?
In the absence of reliable surveys on the popularity of Ms Hopkins I am free to conjecture as to why people would listen to her or read her journalistic output. You only have to read the comments that follow many of her utterances to see she's a "love her or hate her " type.
Whilst I do not listen to LBC I do , occasionally, have a gander at the MailOnline and thus to Ms Hopkins' output.
I can assure you that the fact that you could add me to her readership in no way conveys appreciation, or admiration of her views...on anything I've read. If I read her at all it's only to see what absurd , easily mockable, bit of tripe she's come up with this time.
Mmm yes, much like you are in relation to these incidents, rather than offer up any "true solutions" to the problem.
One thing, obviously, that we must not do is inconvenience or upset anyone.
That would never wash.
OK...my turn.
Let's forget about Katie...who cares what she meant.
What is your "solution" to the problem of terrorist attacks in UK. I won't hold you to "solution"...a bit unfair....so let's hear what you would do - given a free hand - to lessen, if not eliminate, the chances of the Manchester atrocity being repeated.
newcastle wrote:No thanks. Apart from being totally impracticable, as a cure it would be worse than the problem. In fact it would exacerbate the problem by creating even more disenchanted muslims - IMHO. Creating a draconian divided society plays right into ISIS's hands.
Hang on, im not having this anymore. We keep being told than almost all Muslims hate ISIS as much as the rest of us.
Im sure thats true, but that being the case you cant claim a fear that we will force more of them to their banner if we **** them off with extra attention/stop and search/vetting/questioning etc.
I hated football violence in the eighties, the extra BS i had to go through that cost me time and a lot of money in no way, even though it ****** me off, made me want to become a football thug.
Mmm yes, much like you are in relation to these incidents, rather than offer up any "true solutions" to the problem.
One thing, obviously, that we must not do is inconvenience or upset anyone.
That would never wash.
OK...my turn.
Let's forget about Katie...who cares what she meant.
What is your "solution" to the problem of terrorist attacks in UK. I won't hold you to "solution"...a bit unfair....so let's hear what you would do - given a free hand - to lessen, if not eliminate, the chances of the Manchester atrocity being repeated.
Challenge accepted - however, you will have to be patient my dear Newcastle, My good friend Dusak messaged me to wish me well and his hopes that my brother had not burned the house down during my absence.
Well, he very nearly did!
I currently have a decorator painting the kitchen and fitting new worktops/cupboards and i have to go out now to buy a new cooker.
So whilst in that process i shall give some thought to this issue.
newcastle wrote:No thanks. Apart from being totally impracticable, as a cure it would be worse than the problem. In fact it would exacerbate the problem by creating even more disenchanted muslims - IMHO. Creating a draconian divided society plays right into ISIS's hands.
Hang on, im not having this anymore. We keep being told than almost all Muslims hate ISIS as much as the rest of us.
Im sure thats true, but that being the case you cant claim a fear that we will force more of them to their banner if we **** them off with extra attention/stop and search/vetting/questioning etc.
I hated football violence in the eighties, the extra BS i had to go through that cost me time and a lot of money in no way, even though it ****** me off, made me want to become a football thug.
What king of nonsense is that suggestion?
You cant have it both ways.
Why do you thinks it's nonsense?
The majority of UK muslims have no truck with the ISIS ideology and get on with their lives.
There will, however, be some who might not need much persuasion or grooming to be enticed into the ISIS mindset. One of the recognised factors in those muslims who have been recruited is a dissatisfaction with their circumstances in UK...and particularly a sense of being regarded as inferior or unwelcome. ISIS regularly plays into this with its propaganda.
The intention of ISIS with its terrorism attacks is to create an atmosphere where all muslims are regarded with distrust etc. and to set the wider public against the muslim community, so that they can increase the chances of recruiting on the fringes those (usually young) muslims who feel they have no future in UK.
They are not converted and radicalised instantly into bombers...they are persuaded to go to Syria, to join the caliphate and be a regular soldier of islam against their oppressors in the middle east. Some are then radicalised and return with murderous intent.
newcastle wrote:No thanks. Apart from being totally impracticable, as a cure it would be worse than the problem. In fact it would exacerbate the problem by creating even more disenchanted muslims - IMHO. Creating a draconian divided society plays right into ISIS's hands.
Hang on, im not having this anymore. We keep being told than almost all Muslims hate ISIS as much as the rest of us.
Im sure thats true, but that being the case you cant claim a fear that we will force more of them to their banner if we **** them off with extra attention/stop and search/vetting/questioning etc.
I hated football violence in the eighties, the extra BS i had to go through that cost me time and a lot of money in no way, even though it ****** me off, made me want to become a football thug.
What king of nonsense is that suggestion?
You cant have it both ways.
Why do you thinks it's nonsense?
The majority of UK muslims have no truck with the ISIS ideology and get on with their lives.
There will, however, be some who might not need much persuasion or grooming to be enticed into the ISIS mindset. One of the recognised factors in those muslims who have been recruited is a dissatisfaction with their circumstances in UK...and particularly a sense of being regarded as inferior or unwelcome. ISIS regularly plays into this with its propaganda.
The intention of ISIS with its terrorism attacks is to create an atmosphere where all muslims are regarded with distrust etc. and to set the wider public against the muslim community, so that they can increase the chances of recruiting on the fringes those (usually young) muslims who feel they have no future in UK.
They are not converted and radicalised instantly into bombers...they are persuaded to go to Syria, to join the caliphate and be a regular soldier of islam against their oppressors in the middle east. Some are then radicalised and return with murderous intent.
Not too different to my and other's situ in the eighties then.
"Come and join the Baby Squad mate, show these pigs that we cant be treated this way, bloody coppers treating us like dirt, they are the enemy"
"Nope, not interested mate, i dont like the coppers doing this either but im not gonna cave their skull in or the skulls of other people who happen to wear a different colored scarf to me, jog on son"
Yes the majority, a poll carried out by C4 which was used for a documentary by Trevor Phillips the former head of the Equalities commission found that
32% of Muslims refuse to condemn those who take part in violence against those who mock the Prophet.
34% would inform the police if they thought somebody they knew was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria. (only 34%!)
52% do not believe that homosexuality should be legal in Britain.
4% sympathise with people who take part in suicide bombings.
Current estimates of the Muslim population of the UK from some sources is around 4 million, the sensus of 2011 had it at around 2.7 million based on that figure then potentially upto 108,000 support in some way the idea of suicide bombings.
This is disturbing, very disturbing, what i perhaps find most disturbing is that people actually feel emboldened enough to admit that in a major survey - this illustrates part of the problem in our refusal to call out such opinions for fear of reprisal/smearing.
Zooropa wrote:You like to use numbers when they suit you Newcastle but are quite happy to park that methodology when it works against you. The guardian's numbers are shrinking as we speak and they are no longer, and have not been for a while a financially viable entity - they are kept afloat by a few left wing donors. Your opinion that people listen to Hopkins for reasons other than her popularity is complete conjecture and something that your scientific background would not give any credence to normally, are you going to park that philosophy here as well?
In the absence of reliable surveys on the popularity of Ms Hopkins I am free to conjecture as to why people would listen to her or read her journalistic output. You only have to read the comments that follow many of her utterances to see she's a "love her or hate her " type.
Whilst I do not listen to LBC I do , occasionally, have a gander at the MailOnline and thus to Ms Hopkins' output.
I can assure you that the fact that you could add me to her readership in no way conveys appreciation, or admiration of her views...on anything I've read. If I read her at all it's only to see what absurd , easily mockable, bit of tripe she's come up with this time.
Ok, thats accounts for the reason why you tune in.
You now have to account for several tens of thousands of others.
All articles from all hacks have loads of negative comments, doesnt add to your case at all.
You are always free to conjecture on anything, doesnt mean you have to be taken seriously on it though and in no way provides that thing you love - evidence.
I sense there is some more parking of your principles again here, how much weight would you give to someone who in the absence of any empirical data conjectured on the existence of god?
Yet more insults and jibes rather than facts to try and belittle your opponents Newcastle? We are not far from the ‘Nazi’ jibe which is usually considered to be the last resort when someone is losing an argument. As to more paragraphs, well at least I do write using my own words and not ‘Copy & Paste’ my opponents work and then use one liner responses after dissecting them for the most trivial of errors. (I could add a paragraph here, but I wont, just to **** *** the grammar Nazi’s, Oops I have just used the word Nazi) However I do find it incredulous that someone who spends most of their life living under one of the most oppressive regimes when it comes to human right and religious freedom when applied to none muslims and which takes draconian action when dealing with their own terrorists and internal dissent from any quarter, can deign to lecture those of us living in the UK as to how we should behave towards this home grown threat to our security, “do as I say and not as I do” seems to be your mantra. If you have a solution then voice it, but do try and refrain from just rubbishing your opponents views because they do not agree with your own and even worst contriving insults in the hope of getting the upper hand, so far you have failed miserably.
Horus wrote:Yet more insults and jibes rather than facts to try and belittle your opponents Newcastle? We are not far from the ‘Nazi’ jibe which is usually considered to be the last resort when someone is losing an argument. As to more paragraphs, well at least I do write using my own words and not ‘Copy & Paste’ my opponents work and then use one liner responses after dissecting them for the most trivial of errors. (I could add a paragraph here, but I wont, just to **** *** the grammar Nazi’s, Oops I have just used the word Nazi) However I do find it incredulous that someone who spends most of their life living under one of the most oppressive regimes when it comes to human right and religious freedom when applied to none muslims and which takes draconian action when dealing with their own terrorists and internal dissent from any quarter, can deign to lecture those of us living in the UK as to how we should behave towards this home grown threat to our security, “do as I say and not as I do” seems to be your mantra. If you have a solution then voice it, but do try and refrain from just rubbishing your opponents views because they do not agree with your own and even worst contriving insults in the hope of getting the upper hand, so far you have failed miserably.
You haven't found that mysterious MIC speech yet then?
Maybe it's a figment of your imagination - like so many of the comments and opinions you ascribe to me?
Last edited by newcastle on Thu May 25, 2017 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zooropa wrote:You like to use numbers when they suit you Newcastle but are quite happy to park that methodology when it works against you. The guardian's numbers are shrinking as we speak and they are no longer, and have not been for a while a financially viable entity - they are kept afloat by a few left wing donors. Your opinion that people listen to Hopkins for reasons other than her popularity is complete conjecture and something that your scientific background would not give any credence to normally, are you going to park that philosophy here as well?
In the absence of reliable surveys on the popularity of Ms Hopkins I am free to conjecture as to why people would listen to her or read her journalistic output. You only have to read the comments that follow many of her utterances to see she's a "love her or hate her " type.
Whilst I do not listen to LBC I do , occasionally, have a gander at the MailOnline and thus to Ms Hopkins' output.
I can assure you that the fact that you could add me to her readership in no way conveys appreciation, or admiration of her views...on anything I've read. If I read her at all it's only to see what absurd , easily mockable, bit of tripe she's come up with this time.
Ok, thats accounts for the reason why you tune in.
You now have to account for several tens of thousands of others.
All articles from all hacks have loads of negative comments, doesnt add to your case at all.
You are always free to conjecture on anything, doesnt mean you have to be taken seriously on it though and in no way provides that thing you love - evidence.
I sense there is some more parking of your principles again here, how much weight would you give to someone who in the absence of any empirical data conjectured on the existence of god?
I think we're giving Ms Hopkins too much air time....but maybe that answers your question as to why she gets so much attention. The fascination of the truly awful. If she's ever said anything that wasn't controversial (in the negative sense) or just downright obnoxious, I must have missed it. Likewise if she's ever said anything interesting or stimulating.
But then again, not being a KH groupie, it's perfectly possible I've missed any number of bon mots...some of which, conceivably, I might have sympathised with.
"I think she’s probably quite an individual case," says Karen Niven, a senior lecturer in organisational psychology at Manchester Business School. "She's able to forge a career out of being controversial which is not something most of us can do or would want to do."
Oh dear,
Sad and desperate stuff. Typical of the left im afraid, identity politics. KH is horrible, nasty, bigoted blah blah blah.
If you agree with her you are too!
Im afraid that only works on the feeble minded and those who feel cowed enough or lack the confidence to express their opinion, it has worked to a degree but a few more Manchester's will blast a hole in that.
So desperate that your now quoting shrinks who have psycho analysed her in a bid to trash her even more.
I really couldnt care less what you or anyone else thinks of me for agreeing with a lot of what she says.
At the start of this debate you saw fit to advise me that im entitled to my opinion - do you really thinkj i needed you to advise me of that fact.
Quite often the unspoken corroboration of that statement is, i shouldnt really express it because i dont like it and its not what i want to hear.
I make it a principle not to debate people that play the man and not the ball for the "crime" of disagreeing, something that left is doing increasingly, that being the case i have no further interest in this debate, il find something else and someone else to debate about/with who isnt going to play this silly game.
Zooropa wrote:Oh dear,
Sad and desperate stuff. Typical of the left im afraid, identity politics. KH is horrible, nasty, bigoted blah blah blah.
If you agree with her you are too!
Im afraid that only works on the feeble minded and those who feel cowed enough or lack the confidence to express their opinion, it has worked to a degree but a few more Manchester's will blast a hole in that.
So desperate that your now quoting shrinks who have psycho analysed her in a bid to trash her even more.
I really couldnt care less what you or anyone else thinks of me for agreeing with a lot of what she says.
At the start of this debate you saw fit to advise me that im entitled to my opinion - do you really thinkj i needed you to advise me of that fact.
Quite often the unspoken corroboration of that statement is, i shouldnt really express it because i dont like it and its not what i want to hear.
I make it a principle not to debate people that play the man and not the ball for the "crime" of disagreeing, something that left is doing increasingly, that being the case i have no further interest in this debate, il find something else and someone else to debate about/with who isnt going to play this silly game.
Oh....and I was looking forward to hearing how you would propose we dealt with radical islamic terrorism.
I think I will join in with your exit stage left Zooropa, there is little point in prolonging a debate with an opponent whose only position of strength is to attempt to assassinate your own views by mocking them or name calling in order to gain the high ground simply because they disagree with your own. Lots of talk about what we cannot do, but no answers as to what we should do other than the appeasement and acceptance of radical Islam as a part of our lives. End of paragraph, I’m out.
