So. We finally have someone who has enough money that they can say what they bloody well like - and not fear the financial consequences.
Other career politicians shut up, as their backers might pull the plug otherwise.
The thing that gets me is the way that Free Speech is suspended as soon as someone says something “unrestrained” that is unpopular - not with the masses, but with the corridors of power.
The biggest thing I fear politically in this country at present - isn’t “Muslims” like Trump thinks though - it’s the “Momentum” Nationalist Socialist on-line wing of Labour, supposedly loyal to Corbyn.
Like the ■■■■ party though, I fear that “Momentum” might morph into something that came up with those murdering and warmongering policies that to this day - Hitler gets blamed for, rather than the underlying “■■■■ Machine”. It took a lot of organization, efficiency, and paperwork - to send millions of people to their deaths using industrialized murder as the ■■■■ machine did.
Interestingly, this Momentum far from being “communist-supporting” - is actually Communist HATING - the same as the ■■■■ party was. They hate Putin’s Russia, and Kingpin’s China. What a far cry we are from the 1970’s when card-carrying Labourites were referred to as “Comrades”…
Does Corbyn realize what a monster he’s barely got on a leash behind him in Cyberspace I wonder?
Right now, the worst thing that can happen to a driver is NOT “losing their job” or “getting a pay cut”.
It’s being forced to do something plain dangerous, - such as run the gauntlet across to the continent.
Listening to Osbourne standing in for PM in PMQs - it’s frightening how clueless our so-called “Elected Government” are right now.
Although I dont like to denounce Donalds comments without more insight into context etc, one cant help feel he was mistaking a recorded statement for an anonymous drunken forum post.
However he knows that Americans are in a state of fear so in order to appeal to the masses in his future presidential candicy a controversial stance is needed, sure theres a lot of clevererer folks than me who have the numbers and have weighed up the risk vs reward of this statement.
Donald didnt get where he is by not taking risks.
To the layperson though he might has well just asked for everyone with a beard to be arrested. Especially as we all know the majority of ISIS fighters are already well placed in their target countries anyway.
So at first glance Donald appears to be trying to shag the horse after it has left the stable but on closer inspection his comments resonate with a lot of American voters, even if they wont admit it.
I’m partial to a crispy puff.
In me locker I have, weetabix, sugar puffs and frosties always a tricky choice so have all 3 in one bowl, not the worst menage et tois to be fair.
Have to use loads of milk though to keep it all moist, apparently Donald Trump likes Koran Flakes for his morning nibble.
[Look at me staying on topic].
There’s no way that Corbyn’s mob are Nationalists just as Hitler’s lot weren’t.They are just another deluded idealistic Socialist group like all the rest.As for China they are actually that type of extreme militaristic ■■■■ Socialist nutters that we really should be worried about.
As for Trump his stance on the Islamic immigration issue is reasonable although ironically not enough.Although it seems to be more a case of taking advantage of a real and serious issue for his own political ends.On that note Le Pen’s FN and the growing German Pegida movement,not Trump,are the real deal.
Dipper_Dave:
To the layperson though he might has well just asked for everyone with a beard to be arrested. Especially as we all know the majority of ISIS fighters are already well placed in their target countries anyway.
Which would obviously depend on conveniently ignoring the historic Jihadist tactic of demographic takeover not just violent military attack.On that note the issue isn’t ‘detention’ it’s repatriation of a problem that never should have been allowed to grow in Europe or the west.
He says what he thinks people want to hear, I read that in 2014 there were 23 people killed as part of a Terrorist ’ Incident ’ in the USA. In the same year there were 141 Shooting ’ Incidents ’ per DAY of which 35 people were killed per DAY but no mention of banning guns.
mac12:
He says what he thinks people want to hear, I read that in 2014 there were 23 people killed as part of a Terrorist ’ Incident ’ in the USA. In the same year there were 141 Shooting ’ Incidents ’ per DAY of which 35 people were killed per DAY but no mention of banning guns.
The fact is there are good reasons for the 2nd amendment.While bringing in gun laws there would just mean that only the criminals are armed because they obviously don’t give a zb about gun laws by definition.
I see the odd Sikh driving a truck, but don’t particularly think there are many Muslims driving trucks in the UK, so from the ‘more jobs’ perspective, it would be unlikely to have any impact on the UK trucking industry.
Having said that though, many UK truckers have to deliver to busy UK city centres and recent events in France have highlighted the fact that mindless terrorism against civilians (of all faiths) can spring up in any city, with no warning at all. When a similar incident happens in a UK location, I am sure many people’s views will change, but you can’t victimise a whole section of society for a few bad apples…
mac12:
He says what he thinks people want to hear, I read that in 2014 there were 23 people killed as part of a Terrorist ’ Incident ’ in the USA. In the same year there were 141 Shooting ’ Incidents ’ per DAY of which 35 people were killed per DAY but no mention of banning guns.
The fact is there are good reasons for the 2nd amendment.While bringing in gun laws there would just mean that only the criminals are armed because they obviously don’t give a zb about gun laws by definition.
This is what I don’t understand they say they want more guns so people can fight back but I have never heard of and member of the public shooting a gunman
Dipper_Dave:
To the layperson though he might has well just asked for everyone with a beard to be arrested. Especially as we all know the majority of ISIS fighters are already well placed in their target countries anyway.
Which would obviously depend on conveniently ignoring the historic Jihadist tactic of demographic takeover not just violent military attack.On that note the issue isn’t ‘detention’ it’s repatriation of a problem that never should have been allowed to grow in Europe or the west.
Which would convieniently ignore the historic fact that fanatics infiltrate by infection finding like minded individuals who don’t need much of a push to come round to their way of thinking. With the internet mass corruption and propaganda spreading to create terrorist cells is not as difficult as it once was. At this point I have no clue as to what I’m talking about so will stick to ■■■■.
mac12:
He says what he thinks people want to hear, I read that in 2014 there were 23 people killed as part of a Terrorist ’ Incident ’ in the USA. In the same year there were 141 Shooting ’ Incidents ’ per DAY of which 35 people were killed per DAY but no mention of banning guns.
The fact is there are good reasons for the 2nd amendment.While bringing in gun laws there would just mean that only the criminals are armed because they obviously don’t give a zb about gun laws by definition.
Quite so: as they say, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Gun crime here has increased since Blair and Major “made the streets safe” by banning handguns here.
(As a statistical point, if 141 shootings only result in 35 deaths per day in the US, either their medical services work miracles or the standards of marksmanship are really poor, I believe it is the latter.)
The fact is there are good reasons for the 2nd amendment.While bringing in gun laws there would just mean that only the criminals are armed because they obviously don’t give a zb about gun laws by definition.
[/quote]
This is what I don’t understand they say they want more guns so people can fight back but I have never heard of and member of the public shooting a gunman
[/quote]
Here is a link to 10 instances of this happening: tinyurl.com/okmpabp
mac12:
He says what he thinks people want to hear, I read that in 2014 there were 23 people killed as part of a Terrorist ’ Incident ’ in the USA. In the same year there were 141 Shooting ’ Incidents ’ per DAY of which 35 people were killed per DAY but no mention of banning guns.
The fact is there are good reasons for the 2nd amendment.While bringing in gun laws there would just mean that only the criminals are armed because they obviously don’t give a zb about gun laws by definition.
This is what I don’t understand they say they want more guns so people can fight back but I have never heard of and member of the public shooting a gunman
The relevant question is how many crimes were ‘deterred’ by the fact that armed criminals face a potentially armed opposition.Bearing in mind that many of the US statistics are made up of criminal against criminal gun crime.
On that note we are a ‘good’ example of the issue of the downsides of a society which crminalises gun use.IE the criminals then have the monoply on arms use.As opposed to somewhere like Switzerland.
Added to which Americans view the 2nd amendment as a matter of civil defence against any potential enemy ‘including’ distrust of their own government.In which case trying to impose gun controls there would probably be counterproductive in just destabilising the place as opposed to the status quo of the deterrent value of an armed population.
Carryfast:
Which would obviously depend on conveniently ignoring the historic Jihadist tactic of demographic takeover not just violent military attack.On that note the issue isn’t ‘detention’ it’s repatriation of a problem that never should have been allowed to grow in Europe or the west.
Which would convieniently ignore the historic fact that fanatics infiltrate by infection finding like minded individuals who don’t need much of a push to come round to their way of thinking. With the internet mass corruption and propaganda spreading to create terrorist cells is not as difficult as it once was.
The issue in this case being the default setting of Jihad and Sharia contained in their point of reference ( Koran ).IE it isn’t a case of minority radicalisation.It’s more a case of minority de radicalisation in that the idea of de radical peaceful Islam is a contradiction and at odds with what the Koran actually says in Jihad and Sharia being a duty on its followers.On that note the idea of de radicalising Islam would take something like their chief Immams in Saudi and Iran to officially renounce and tear up the offending parts of the Koran thereby removing both the issues of Jihad and Sharia from Islam.On that note I won’t be holding my breath waiting to see it happen.
Don’t know if you are aware of this website Zengardner.com,but theres a pretty amazing article concerning the Syrian geopolitical situation that is pretty damned good.
Carryfast:
Which would obviously depend on conveniently ignoring the historic Jihadist tactic of demographic takeover not just violent military attack.On that note the issue isn’t ‘detention’ it’s repatriation of a problem that never should have been allowed to grow in Europe or the west.
Which would convieniently ignore the historic fact that fanatics infiltrate by infection finding like minded individuals who don’t need much of a push to come round to their way of thinking. With the internet mass corruption and propaganda spreading to create terrorist cells is not as difficult as it once was.
The issue in this case being the default setting of Jihad and Sharia contained in their point of reference ( Koran ).IE it isn’t a case of minority radicalisation.It’s more a case of minority de radicalisation in that the idea of de radical peaceful Islam is a contradiction and at odds with what the Koran actually says in Jihad and Sharia being a duty on its followers.On that note the idea of de radicalising Islam would take something like their chief Immams in Saudi and Iran to officially renounce and tear up the offending parts of the Koran thereby removing both the issues of Jihad and Sharia from Islam.On that note I won’t be holding my breath waiting to see it happen.
Ahhh but isnt that the first misstake everyone makes to believe this whole issue has anything to do with religion.
Terror in itself is a great weapon and how better to make the civilised world live in fear than to believe theres a terrorist hiding behind every beard or every burka.
Donald is using this against them and by reading between the lines a bit its easy to see that he is playing the ‘Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims’ card. Now in order to be elected what he needs is for a majority of Americans to feel the same way. Donald is gambling a bit on another 911 or similar American tragerdy to solidify his position and win him votes. But he is a clever man and realises a couple of nutters killing 14 people isnt enough to win the election but its a start.
Carryfast:
The issue in this case being the default setting of Jihad and Sharia contained in their point of reference ( Koran ).IE it isn’t a case of minority radicalisation.It’s more a case of minority de radicalisation in that the idea of de radical peaceful Islam is a contradiction and at odds with what the Koran actually says in Jihad and Sharia being a duty on its followers.On that note the idea of de radicalising Islam would take something like their chief Immams in Saudi and Iran to officially renounce and tear up the offending parts of the Koran thereby removing both the issues of Jihad and Sharia from Islam.On that note I won’t be holding my breath waiting to see it happen.
Ahhh but isnt that the first misstake everyone makes to believe this whole issue has anything to do with religion.
Terror in itself is a great weapon and how better to make the civilised world live in fear than to believe theres a terrorist hiding behind every beard or every burka.
Donald is using this against them and by reading between the lines a bit its easy to see that he is playing the ‘Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims’ card. Now in order to be elected what he needs is for a majority of Americans to feel the same way. Donald is gambling a bit on another 911 or similar American tragerdy to solidify his position and win him votes. But he is a clever man and realises a couple of nutters killing 14 people isnt enough to win the election but its a start.
It seems clear enough that the issue in this case is all about the unarguable unbreakable link between Jihadist and Sharia content in the Koran and the motivation for the issues we’re seeing specifically related to that.That applies whether it’s the savagery of the Islamic Iranian and Saudi sharia regimes or that of IS and Al Queda etc etc.
All of which suggests something much bigger than just the idea of a few bad people motivated by criminality.As opposed to state sponsored Iranian and Saudi instigated Jihad that’s totally in keeping with their own radical Islamic agendas.With it being difficult to see how Islam can be anything other than ‘radical’ bearing in mind the content of the book and the teachings it’s based on.Which probably explains why we’ve seen no mass boycott of the Hajj for example,by the so called peaceful Islamic majority, calling for reform and rejection of the Koran’s content related to Jihad and Saudi Wahhabiist and Iranian type Sharia societal regimes at least.Nor do we see any questions raised among that ‘peaceful’ Islamic ‘majority’ concerning as to why the Saudi supported mass movement and distribution of so called Islamic ‘refugees’ throughout the alien cultures of Europe and the West.As opposed to them being taken in by their own Middle Eastern cultures.
In which case no Trump’s obvious political opportunism,in calling for just one small part of what’s needed,won’t cut it among anyone who thinks that it’s the policies of those like Le Pen and Pegida,not Trump,that are the minimum required to sort out this dangerous mess.In which we’re facing a similar threat to that of Hitler’s nazis.But one in which,unlike the nazis,has a much bigger amoury in the form of Jihadist tactics of demographic infiltration and deceit which can make a most dangerous enemy look like a best friend until they show their true colours.
