Liverpool FC Forum

by **LFC2007** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:32 am

Then there's no more I can do.

I keep it civil, yet you continue to cast aspersions on my character arguing that I'm keeping my views 'sedated and hidden from view'. I attempt to resolve any antipathy by offering to dispell those mistaken suggestions, then you decline.

You've been pretty obsessed with my apparent reluctance to 'show' emotion in this thread (feck knows why), well at the moment they're telling me you're a bit of a c....

Colours. Nailed. Mast.

by **redbeergoggles** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:48 am

Finally a show of colourful emotion ,even this morsel is enough to give credence to the fact you may be more than an automated machine ,a small chink of light getting through your chintz curtains

by **Kharhaz** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:59 am

s@int wrote:I personally think it is good to critique and analyse important issues such as this. We're never going to make an impact on our football team by sitting around and airing our views on here. So what is the difference here, I think most people on here realise this. However there is nothing wrong with the discussions these notions bring. Not until people are labelled 'racist' because one does not share ones view with something else.

I agree. It shows that people are aware of what is going on. My main gripe is with the government(s). Over the years its a case of same ole same ole. Theres never a fine balance is there? look at our current government. The most inept money grabbing power hungry bunch of wasters but look at our options come the next election. The only real party to look to is the conservative party, and that carries the same doubt as this current lot in charge. For years its been about 3 parties, Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats. Our options are limited. Whoever we choose of them three, its going to be a rough ride. We need a party of normal people who are realists and can and will make a change. We need a party that will break this cycle that we are on to genuinely make a change for the better.

As things are standing, because of the people currently in government and the worst thing they had to suffer as a kid was which upper class school they ended up in, they have no idea of what is going on. As things stand, they are as ignorant as they can get. As things stand here are the rules:

Human Rights - they apply to everybody except the victims. It is not their human right to have a life and if somebody kills them and takes it away, it is their human right to do so. Now its not nice, and they will get a form of punishment. But that punishment will be reduced as it is their human right to have freedom and its unfair to keep them locked up.

Prisons - Prisons are full. Full of hardcore criminals. You know the kind, OAP's unable to pay council tax as they have had to use what little pention they get to pay for daft things like heat or food. Criminals of the kind who, because they battered a burglar who broke into their house carrying a weapon, assaulted them without giving the burglar a chance to hit them first. See what im saying? real criminals are keeping the petty ones on the street.

Immigrants - How often do you hear stories about immigrants, living with the basics of what they are given by the social? For me, not very often. Most immigrants are given a good start, and many make the most of it and contribute to society. They dont want or cause trouble, and in many cases have a great effect on the community. And its this that got the ball rolling. Now they are flooding in. Its a generalisation, sounding in bad taste, but its a fact. Fortunately its not just the UK who made this mistake. With the good intentions raised by the immigrants who want a better life, they have encouraged the government(s) to allow the gates to be opened. And now we are very vulnerable. The government have tried to explain this by saying "The immigrants will do the work many british are not willing to do". What a load of tripe. Throughout all of our lives and our relatives, we each have had many jobs. Some cushy, some not so cushy and some just downright horrible, but they have been done so thats a poor excuse from the government.

Education - Kids are getting dumber, but the grades they are receiving are better than ever. All you ever hear about are unruly kids wandering the streets causing trouble and in the next breath "but they received all A's on their exams". Right, so they know what they are doing and can be punished right? Wrong, they are still just kids. Look on TV, any program. Of all the people you see on the screen, how many would you say are the pinnacle of talent? We have had Jade Goody, Paris Hilton, Davina McCall, David Beckham, The Spice Girls, Graham Norton, Jeremy Kyle, The Loose Women. The general state of play, with regards to education is this. Be ignorant, annoying, dumb, talentless and you have the basics of a top career.

Workforce - Short and simple this one, try not to be a British White Male. Doesnt matter what education you have (unless your goal is to be a politician) if you are competing against women or ethnic minorities, give it up. It wasnt long ago A female member of the Labour Party wanted to give more rights to companies to ensure that they employ women or ethnic minorities over white british males.

To break this cycle we need people in charge who are real, who have some sort of backbone. We need to go back to giving the kids knowledge so when they grow up, they can make a difference, we need the rules back where unruly children can be punished by the teachers and the police to bring them back into line. We need to scrap this Human Rights law and employ a simple Common Sense law. We need to ship out the immigrants who are here to seed discontent amongst the public and to cause havoc. We need people in charge who are looking out for the people, the people they grew up with, the people that make britain.

What we dont need is a bunch of useless retards in charge giving up on the people and who are simply sitting back and watching this country being torn apart, not from themselves, but by people who dont respect this country. And that can range from extremists to our politicians. We need some kind of leadership, and currently and for the future, its not looking good, on so many fronts, our future is looking pretty grim.

by **redbeergoggles** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:47 am

Risking inflaming what has been such a controversial and equally volatile issue,I would like to put forward the following statements made by Lord Phillips in which he stated that Muslims in Britain should be able to use sharia to decide financial and marital disputes.

If this isnt the most potentially damning indictment of the them and us scenario ,then I fail to see what is
the judge then continued to express his misguided beliefs ( and I am quoting now so as not to provide people with the vehicle for over analysis )

In a speech at the East London Muslim Centre, Lord Phillips said it was "not very radical" for Dr Williams to argue that sharia can be used to help govern issues like family disputes and the sale of financial products.
Lord Phillips said: "It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by law other than English law."
Therefore, he said, he could see no reason why sharia should not be used to settle disputes in this country.
He said: "There is no reason why principles of sharia, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution."
He added: "It must be recognised however that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales."
Sharia suffered from "widespread misunderstanding" in Britain, Lord Phillips said. "There is no reason why principles of sharia, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution."
He added: "It must be recognised however that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales."
Sharia suffered from "widespread misunderstanding" in Britain, Lord Phillips said.

I may be jumping to conclusions here ,but wouldn't that principle be akin to a kangaroo court ?

by **Bad Bob** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:15 am

bigmick wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
redbeergoggles wrote:whereas your responses have been equally enthralling ,perhaps if you showed a little emotion and dropped your mask ,instead of reverting to type by dragging up past threads .
If I wanted to listen to your perspective on relevant issues I would simply pick up a paper after all it seems that's where you accumulate most of the sh*te you spout ,what gives you the slightest inkling I would want to enter into serious political debate with a drone like you ,when I can have much more fun getting under your skin

Not going to interfere here so long as all stays civil etc. but I'm curious what 'showing emotion' has to do with the issue? It would seem that honest, rational, sensible discussion of such a complex and multifaceted issue would benefit most from setting some of the emotional stuff to one side. IMHO, discussions such as these are fundamentally derailed rather than advanced when hearts are worn on proverbial sleeves.

I'm not sure I agree with you Bob to be honest, and I think I know where Red's coming from. LFC makes plenty of sense in his lawyerish kind of way (because Ii have long since concluded that he must surely be involved in something like that), but Red is kind of trying to just tell it like it is.

Quite often, the lawyerish types can bamboozle all and sundry with more body swerves than Ronaldo on speed, but sometimes what you see is actually what you get and no amount of shimmying can disguise it. Just sometimes, the prosaic, ugly centre halfish debating style of your average Joe Soap can't be squashed, simply because he's right (even though he maybe doesn't explain it quite as well).

I'm a little bit surprised to read this from you, Mick, given how frequently you're on the other side of this very fence when it comes to footy chat. "Boring," "write another book," etc. etc. You get it in the neck all the time from people who want to stifle nuanced discussion and keep it nice and simple. Surely, as someone who clearly feels that frustration on the footy side of the ledger, you can appreciate how those who might want to address an issue as multi-faceted as immigration/islamicization in a country like England with a little bit of subtlety might be annoyed to hear that simple, emotional responses are the only acceptable way to approach the topic? Hell, I'm not even in the argument and I'm cheesed off (genuinely emotional and all that) by the idea that thinking carefully and speaking intelligently about a subject should be frowned upon. Passion is a pale substitute for reason.

by **bigmick** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:57 am

I didn't explain myself very well Bob. I don't mean "keeping it simple" doesn't mean you don't give things lots of thought, it simply means that you don't get embroiled into a debate about the finer points of feck all which deflects you from what the real issues are. A classic example is the intricacies of the Muslim faith, raamadan and all that stuff. I personally don't care about all that, nor do I care overly for Yon Kippur or Easter Sunday.

The issues here are quite simple, that is basically what I mean mate. People should not be able to campaign on the streets openly urging others to kill British soldiers, and all that goes with it. People shouldn't be able to turn up in a caravan and terrorise your village without any interference from the law of the land, people shouldn't be able to desecrate war memorials, and paedo's should stay wghere they fecking belong. All that "but prison doesn't work" stuff doesn't cut any ice with me to be honest. It works while the feckers are still in there right enough. It's letting the c...s out which is flawed from where I'm sitting :laugh:

.

The point about the football discussions is not valid, because that's different. I don't know why, it just is

.

by **Bad Bob** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:04 am

bigmick wrote:I didn't explain myself very well Bob. I don't mean "keeping it simple" doesn't mean you don't give things lots of thought, it simply means that you don't get embroiled into a debate about the finer points of feck all which deflects you from what the real issues are. A classic example is the intricacies of the Muslim faith, raamadan and all that stuff. I personally don't care about all that, nor do I care overly for Yon Kippur or Easter Sunday.

The issues here are quite simple, that is basically what I mean mate. People should not be able to campaign on the streets openly urging others to kill British soldiers, and all that goes with it. People shouldn't be able to turn up in a caravan and terrorise your village without any interference from the law of the land, people shouldn't be able to desecrate war memorials, and paedo's should stay wghere they fecking belong. All that "but prison doesn't work" stuff doesn't cut any ice with me to be honest. It works while the feckers are still in there right enough. It's letting the c...s out which is flawed from where I'm sitting .

The point about the football discussions is not valid, because that's different. I don't know why, it just is .

Fair play, Mick, I get your drift now and, FWIW, I agree broadly with all the prohibitions you've outlined above and I think you'd find most people doing so as well. As for the intricacies of the Muslim faith being kind of beside the point in this case, you're right on that one too. Unfortunately, it got dragged into the mix early on and was addressed, IMHO, rather ham-handedly to say the least. Nothing gets the 'clever lawyerly' types out of the woodwork faster than some rather sweeping, ill-conceived and fairly self-serving generalizations about a vast swath of humanity and it's off down the rabbit hole we go. :upside:

by **LFC2007** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:51 pm

by **redbeergoggles** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:54 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
redbeergoggles wrote:whereas your responses have been equally enthralling ,perhaps if you showed a little emotion and dropped your mask ,instead of reverting to type by dragging up past threads .
If I wanted to listen to your perspective on relevant issues I would simply pick up a paper after all it seems that's where you accumulate most of the sh*te you spout ,what gives you the slightest inkling I would want to enter into serious political debate with a drone like you ,when I can have much more fun getting under your skin

Not going to interfere here so long as all stays civil etc. but I'm curious what 'showing emotion' has to do with the issue? It would seem that honest, rational, sensible discussion of such a complex and multifaceted issue would benefit most from setting some of the emotional stuff to one side. IMHO, discussions such as these are fundamentally derailed rather than advanced when hearts are worn on proverbial sleeves.

In that sense I agree ,but when you make a generalization such as : [/quote] It's been configured so as to associate the terrorist acts of 9/11 with the Muslim community in general.

Two simple facts that; i) The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, and ii) Some of the victims of the 9/11 attacks were Muslims, lead me to believe that those protesting are indeed ignorant c...ts.

I on the other hand have kept it civil with regards to typecasting Muslims ,I would never adhere to the practice of hurling expletives when describing people who practice the Muslim faith ,so why should I be expected to stand idle when a fellow poster deems it necessary to slur the deeds and actions of the protesters.

I would never profess to being learned when it comes to the intricacies of the Muslim faith ,and with that in mind I would never cast aspersions that their beliefs are indeed wrong ,so why would anyone have the sheer arrogance to pour scorn on other peoples beliefs ,I find that condescending to say the least

by **redbeergoggles** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:04 pm

This thread was always going to make enemies of posters its subject matter was always going to tempt the highly opinionated ,and for that reason alone ,I am willing to draw a line under the whole distasteful episode ,but to make the implication that emotion has no place in Religion is slightly ridiculous ,without emotion on opposing sides we would have no wars to write about .

by **Igor Zidane** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:21 pm

Religion has no place on this God's good earth. Peace out.

by **LFC2007** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:24 pm

If you researched the organisation in question, you would see that statement number one is not a generalisation, it's a statement of my beliefs premised on what I know of the group and their views. SIOE don't make any bones about it - they despise Islam, they consider it wholly incompatible with Western democracy, and they 'do not care about Muslim sensibilities' - and that's straight from the horses mouth. To them, there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, and they want to disseminate their anti-Islamisation message to as many people as they can. The date they choose to hold their annual demonstration (9/11) best serves this goal, and this they do not deny.

From my perspective, they are making the greatest generalisations of all; they make no effort to distinguish between extremists or moderates because of the strength of their Anti-Islamic views (to give you an idea; they liken Islam to Nazism). Those who are not known to be extremists (the peaceful majority) are considered to be tacit approvers of extremist behaviour - which, in the context of this forum, would be to argue that Metalhead is an extremist sympathiser.

In my opinion, that makes them ignorant c...ts. If you disagree, I'm all ears.

by **LFC2007** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:30 pm

I'd also just add that I've never advocated that the protest should have been prevented because of the nature of their views. They were within their rights to demonstrate - and that's a right I will defend - but by the same token I'm perfectly within my rights to express my own views to the contrary, which I have done.

by **LFC2007** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:51 pm

bigmick wrote:I didn't explain myself very well Bob. I don't mean "keeping it simple" doesn't mean you don't give things lots of thought, it simply means that you don't get embroiled into a debate about the finer points of feck all which deflects you from what the real issues are. A classic example is the intricacies of the Muslim faith, raamadan and all that stuff. I personally don't care about all that, nor do I care overly for Yon Kippur or Easter Sunday.

The issues here are quite simple, that is basically what I mean mate. People should not be able to campaign on the streets openly urging others to kill British soldiers, and all that goes with it. People shouldn't be able to turn up in a caravan and terrorise your village without any interference from the law of the land, people shouldn't be able to desecrate war memorials, and paedo's should stay wghere they fecking belong. All that "but prison doesn't work" stuff doesn't cut any ice with me to be honest. It works while the feckers are still in there right enough. It's letting the c...s out which is flawed from where I'm sitting .

The debate originally centred around the protests of SIOE. You and a few others switched the focus to a few extraneous elements, which nobody - in actual fact - has really disagreed with. You basically posted up a few 'givens'.

But, just like those givens addressed 'real issues' so to do the 'finer points of feck all'. They were introduced because it gets to the heart of the topic - the compatibility of Islam in Western democracies - the very debate SIOE are trying to stoke up.

by **redbeergoggles** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:20 am

Straight from the horses mouth so to speak .

Stop Islamisation Of Europe 04.09.2009

Firstly, thanks for your balanced reports.

With reference to the Stop Islamisation Of Europe (SIOE) arranged demonstration on 11th September and some observations made by our opponents.

Firstly, this is an annual SIOE event, the inaugural one being outside the Brussels Parliament in 2007 and last year outside Lambeth Palace.

We do not change the date and it is purely a feature of the calendar that it falls on a Friday in 2009. The 11th September was chosen by Al-Qaeda in 2001 in retaliation for the Muslim hordes being thrown back from the gates of Vienna in 1683, on that date.

We have been assured that groups attending our demonstration will protest within the law. Anything to the contrary will result in guilty parties being ejected from the protest.

Sarah Cox, spokesperson for Unite Against Fascism (UAF), seemingly intimated that SIOE is covertly racist (Harrow Times 26/08/2009) which is patently absurd. SIOE was the only organisation that demonstrated in Denmark against Muslim racism against non-Muslim Inuits, who originate from Greenland. Muslims intimidated and persecuted Greenlanders to such a degree in their hometown of Gellerup, that they were removed from their homes by the authorities.

Perhaps the fiercest opponents of Islam are ex-Muslims and obviously they are from many different races. People do not have to take our word for it about how bad Islam is to live under. The ex-Muslim, ex-Palestinian terrorist, Walid Shoebat, is most condemnatory about Islam and may be seen on the video “Islam: What the West needs to know”, the full version of which may be seen on Google videos and accessed through SIOE’s website.

Other prominent ex-Muslims, who oppose Islam, are Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish and Wafa Sultan. All of these people have received death threats from Muslims and some live in hiding, even in the West.

Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese-born Christian was hounded out of her home by Muslims, along with so many others that Christians, once having comprised the majority in Lebanon, now form only about 25%. Her story and views on Islam may be seen on YouTube.

We have support from communities persecuted by Muslims in Islamic countries, such as Hindus and Copts.

So for Sarah Cox to describe our demonstration, as “irrational discrimination” is entirely inaccurate.

The hackneyed accusation of racism is deliberately hurled, to quell all opposition. It has become so overused, that people are now dangerously becoming immune to it.

Sarah Cox also described anti-Islam demonstrators as “thugs” and that she “would not like to take them on” as she is 72 years old.

I enclose two photographs of SIOE supporters, the first of a woman in her seventies beaten down with iron bars while on her way to a Stop Islamisation demonstration in Copenhagen 2007. The second is of a woman in her thirties attacked with a bottle at the same time.

My colleague Anders Gravers fought the attackers and was stabbed, only his security vest saving his life. Two other SIOE supporters were beaten with iron bars also.

The attack was perpetrated by self-styled anti-fascists who boasted about it on their websites. These “anti-fascists” are in reality the most violent fascists resorting to thuggery at the first opportunity. In this they emulate Muslims, as evidenced by the latter’s response to the Danish cartoons, just one of thousands of examples.

So based solely on this statement ,its a constant source of amazement were people gleam their information from .

Liverpool FC Forum

Its all kicking off in my hood!

Who is online