|
Marvelously absurd!
Nothing's happened to you (yet?) so all the efforts spent on stopping that were a waste?
Like vaccinations: OK - everyone gets vaccinated. You didn't catch that disease so you whine the vaccination was a waste. And - if it didn't take on one-in-a-million then you consider it all a waste because it didn't meet your view of perfection.
Better to just whine that the government's trying to keep tabs on these should-have-been-still-born filth.
So - after a paragraph of attempting to ridicule a sad reality you complain the money spent stopping those that didn't occur (and thus, didn't make big news headlines) is all a waste.
Sounds to me like you'd like to open the field wide for your buddies-with-the-knives, and hope there is only one nutter every few years. Rectal Orifice.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't know the difference between an accident involving a car and intentional murder using a car as a weapon hen you are a bigger idiot than you appear.
Oh, and as for surveillance, it has foiled many terrorist attacks over the years. If you don't know how hen you really are ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: I am a troll
Really?
We'd never have guessed.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Media tells us he is working alone; seven arrests made and six properties raided. Media won't disclose any information about attacker but raids are in Birmingham where there are huge enclaves of Muslim communities. Apologists already out in force to plead that not all Muslims are terrorists. When the media can no longer withhold information that the attacker is a Muslim already known to the police we'll be told they have a mental illness. Then next month the attacks will be coming to a town near you.
What a tedious treadmill we all find ourselves on.....
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: we'll be told they have a mental illness
Fanatism should be recognized as such.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
A tedious treadmill of gutter press miss-information being passed off as valid comment we find ourselves having to listen to you mean?
|
|
|
|
|
No, that's not what I meant but thanks for taking part 
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: Apologists already out in force to plead that not all Muslims are terrorists.
Yeah, same as the "apologists" who "plead" that not all Christians are paedophiles. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Don't recall seeing much of that at all. In fact probably the exact opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
My point still stands: the vast majority of Christians aren't paedophiles, just as the vast majority of Muslims aren't terrorists.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where it's necessary to regularly point that out to the crowds of rabid morons who think that the entire group is responsible for the actions of a tiny minority. It won't stop the hard-core wuckfits from blaming every member of the group, but it might help the borderline imbeciles stop and think before they launch an attack on innocent members.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
The point is that the vast majority of Christians aren't paedophiles, don't support paedophiles, would report paedophiles to the police, and when paedophiles are discovered they focus on showing their disgust for the individual rather than trying to diminish the crime and take attention away from the crime by focusing on the fact that not all Christians are paedos. When paedophiles are discovered the media likewise fully reports on the matter and condemnation is public and widespread and that is how societal attitudes are formed.
On the other hand when Muslim terror attacks happen the media spends most of its energy apologising and diminishing the crimes, dragging focus onto how not all Muslims are like this etc, despite many recent polls showing that many Muslims (all Muslims) sympathise with terrorist attacks and actually support them. They think these attacks are justified. Show me a poll where 50% of Christians think the victims of paedophilia deserve it.....
That's the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: many Muslims (all Muslims) sympathise with terrorist attacks and actually support them
Thank you for proving my point so clearly. Whilst there are still wuckfits who believe that "many" or "all" Muslims "support terrorist attacks", it is still necessary to remind people that that this is not the case.
Not to "diminish the crime", or "take attention away from the crime". Just to stop bigoted arseholes from attacking an entire community for the actions of a tiny number of its members.
The whole point of Islamist terrorism is to turn the rest of the world against all Muslims. If you're using a terrorist attack to demonize all Muslims, then you're a "useful idiot" doing the terrorists' job for them.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
That's what polls say, if you choose to ignore polls simply because they don't agree with your conceptions of people then maybe you're the wuckfit and this is why we're sleepwalking into a barbaric, backwards world - people like you refuse to wake up and see what's really happening.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: That's what polls say,
What, the polls which were so accurate at predicting Brexit?
Or the polls which accurately predicted the results of the US presidential election?
F-ES Sitecore wrote: if you choose to ignore polls
I notice you haven't provided a link to a single poll, let alone one from a reputable source with figures to back up your "all Muslims support terrorists" claims.
Meanwhile, the MCB have issued a statement[^] condemning yesterday's attack. Quite an odd thing to do if, as you claim, every Muslim "supports terrorist attacks".
F-ES Sitecore wrote: this is why we're sleepwalking into a barbaric, backwards world
We're sleepwalking into a barbaric, backwards world because some scumbags take every opportunity to exploit a tragedy to push their own bigoted agenda. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: What, the polls which were so accurate at predicting Brexit?
You're talking about predicting the result of a poll, that's a different thing.
Richard Deeming wrote: I notice you haven't provided a link to a single poll, let alone one from a reputable source with figures to back up your "all Muslims support terrorists" claims.
I didn't claim all Muslims support terrorism. Do you really think I would say something like that? Credit me with some intelligence please. When I said the poll was Muslims (all Muslims) I meant that all Muslims were polled, not just those in Guantanamo Bay for example, ie that is was as fair a representation as you're likely to get.
Richard Deeming wrote: We're sleepwalking into a barbaric, backwards world because some scumbags take every opportunity to exploit a tragedy to push their own bigoted agenda.
No, we're sleepwalking into a barbaric state because we're taken on an ever expanding Muslim population where half of which think homosexuality should be illegal, half think homosexuals should not be teachers, a third think the wife is less equal than the husband and so....yet people like yourself simply dismiss these things as "racist" and "bigoted agenda".
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: When I said the poll was Muslims (all Muslims) I meant that all Muslims were polled, not just those in Guantanamo Bay for example, ie that is was as fair a representation as you're likely to get.
OK, that's a better explanation. 
(If you re-read your previous post, I'm sure you can see how I came to the wrong conclusion about what you were saying.)
F-ES Sitecore wrote: half of which think homosexuality should be illegal, half think homosexuals should not be teachers
Sorry, are we back to talking about Christians again? 
F-ES Sitecore wrote: yet people like yourself simply dismiss these things as "racist" and "bigoted agenda".
No, what I'm dismissing is the people who actually do think or claim that most (or all) Muslims "support terrorism". The homophobic and misogynistic attitudes which are prevalent in some communities are totally unacceptable.
But this is a distraction from the original point: the need to remind some people that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
It would be nice to live in a world where that wasn't necessary. Where everyone understood that the actions of a tiny minority do not reflect the intentions of the entire group. But that's not the world we live in (yet).
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: I'm sure you can see how I came to the wrong conclusion about what you were saying
I fully agree it was badly worded...I even contemplated editing it after I posted it but CBA
Richard Deeming wrote: But this is a distraction from the original point: the need to remind some people that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
But an unacceptably large number support or sympathise with terrorism, and that's a big issue as going from supporting to doing is far easier than going from condemning to doing. Add to that their other prevalent attitudes that are not compatible with a free society like ours and there are huge issues ahead that no-one is facing up to.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: But an unacceptably large number support or sympathise with terrorism,
Well, one would be an unacceptably large number.
But we're not going to change their minds by demonising or ostracising the entire group every time some nutcase attacks us.
After all, we didn't tell all the Irish people to "feck off" every time some nutter from one of their US-funded terrorist organisations called in a bomb threat.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Well, one would be an unacceptably large number.
Not really, no. You are always going to get variation in a population and there are always going to be a proportion of "bad actors", that is unavoidable. There will always be Christians that support paedophilia, Irish that support paramilitary action, no-one is saying the number of bad actors should be zero, that's just another straw-man argument the left cling to, Muslim terrorist apologisers constantly harping on about paedophiles, Irish terrorists and the Crusades as if the fact that 1% of the population are paedophiles means that 25-50% of Muslims supporting terror is no big deal.
It's not the fact that there *are* Muslim sympathisers, it's the fact that there are *so many*. Why are Muslims so disproportionately sympathetic toward violence in the name of religion? Why are they so disproportionately against homosexuals? Why are they so disproportionately in favour of violence, subjugation, intolerance and hatred? There is surely only one answer? What is the common denominator amongst this group? The religion they follow, a religion that preaches hatred and intolerance. Do the maths, it's not that hard.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: as if the fact that 1% of the population are paedophiles means that 25-50% of Muslims supporting terror is no big deal.
You're missing the point.
A small number of Christians are paedophiles.
Whenever a "paedophile priest" story comes out, nobody jumps on their soapbox to denounce all Christians as child-molesting scumbags.
You don't get Christians being stopped in the street and asked, "how many of you people support paedophillia?"
You don't get people suggesting we round up all the Christians and deport them to Vatican City, where they can get on with their choir-boy-bum-fest without bothering decent people like us.
You just get straight condemnation of the criminals, and those involved in covering up the crime.
Compare and contrast:
A small number of Muslims are terrorists.
When a Muslim commits a terrorist attack, lots of people start loudly claiming that all Muslims, or at least the majority of them, are terrorists, or supporters of terrorism.
Reporters and pollsters randomly stop anyone who looks a bit Muslim-y to ask them whether they support terrorism.
Any poll of Muslims that shows less than 100% condemnation of terrorism is taken as "proof" that they're all out to get you.
Xenophobic idiots start suggesting we "send them all back", even when the attacker was born in the country where the attack took place.
Reminding people that Muslims are human beings too, that the majority are not terrorists, and the majority do not support terrorism, is unfortunately still necessary.
That doesn't mean that the "apologists" are any less appalled by the crime than you are, or are trying to come up with excuses for the terrorists' behaviour.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Whenever a "paedophile priest" story comes out, nobody jumps on their soapbox to denounce all Christians as child-molesting scumbags.
They don't have to because everyone denounces that behaviour and everyone speaks out against it. It is made abundantly clear that such behaviour is not acceptable and won't be tolerated. Contrast that with the current threat of Islam where there is never any real condemnation, coupled with the fact that sane people accept that many of these Muslims actually support these attacks. That's why Muslims get more grief. There is always going to be "lone wolf" nutters, you can't stop them, but when a priest or teacher turns out to be a paedophile it is probably because they always were one and that drew them to careers that brought them in contact with vulnerable children. Here we have an ideology who is all about hate and it is teaching that hate, spreading it. That's the difference. As much as we have to simply tolerate your Jimmy Savils, your Breviks etc as there will also be evil people in the world, here we have a religion actively spreading hate to people who probably wouldn't otherwise be hateful and intolerant. Why do 5% of Western people think homosexuality is wrong yet 50% of Muslims do? Because the Muslims are taught it actively and aggressively, and they will continue to do so when people like yourself turn a blind eye for fear of offending or appearing Islamophobic.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: They don't have to because everyone denounces that behaviour and everyone speaks out against it.
That's not the point.
Everyone agrees the behaviour is unacceptable in both cases. But only in the "Muslim terrorist" case do people try to tar the entire group with the same brush.
People are able to condemn the priest who is a paedophile without claiming that all Christians/Catholics/priests are paedophiles.
So why do they find it impossible to condemn the Muslim who is a terrorist without claiming that all Muslims must be terrorists?
F-ES Sitecore wrote: Why do 5% of Western people think homosexuality is wrong yet 50% of Muslims do?
Because almost every religion teaches that.
How many Christians think homosexuality is wrong? I'm betting it's much higher than 5%.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Everyone agrees the behaviour is unacceptable in both cases.
I say again, a large percentage of Muslims agree with terrorism so it's not unacceptable in both cases, that's the whole point.
Richard Deeming wrote: Because almost every religion teaches that.
The Bible doesn't really preach against Homosexuality at all expect Leviticus which isn't instruction for the people. The Church now accepts gay priests, gay marriage etc (obviously not everyone in Christianity, no).
Richard Deeming wrote: How many Christians think homosexuality is wrong? I'm betting it's much higher than 5%.
Not that homosexuality is *wrong*, but that it should be *illegal*, that you should be punished for it. How many Christian think homosexuals should be tied to chairs and thrown to their death? 0%? Somewhere around there? Thinking something is wrong is fine, it takes all sorts, but thinking others should be punished because they do things you don't agree with is when it crosses the line and *that* is exactly what Islam preaches.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: despite many recent polls showing that many Muslims (all Muslims) sympathise with terrorist attacks and actually support them
Do you have any links to these recent polls?
Slogans aren't solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
I do but if I posted them people wouldn't simply try to discredit the poll rather than admit that it might be accurate, so I'll leave you to do your own googling.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
