Boris and Trump

Yes, but you seem to have a skewed view of what is happening. We are clearly NOT under greater threat from right wing extremism. It is nonsense to say that @YungNath

And if you look at the stats globally there is NOT as much 'nasty shit' going on in the name of God. Again, that is completely nonsense. Where are you getting these crazy statistics from? They're not just slightly inaccurate they're a million miles off the mark and are completely untrue. Whatever sites you are getting this nonsense from you need to stop visiting them as they're filling you full of BS.

I think you must be equating the stupid wars in the Middle East (Iraq, Syria, etc) as wars in the name of 'God'. They're not. Any fighting the West have done their has NOT been in the name of 'God'. It is not some kind of Christian jihad. Alas, it seems some people, with ulterior motives, like to twist these figures and create statistics based on this.

The reality is that for decades you have been able to count the number of wars fought in the name of Christianity on one hand, whereas the wars fought in the name of Islam and to further the spread of Islam, is in high double digits.

As you say, all violence is bad, but don't believe the PR that Islam is a peaceful religion. It isn't. Here's a great video to watch that explains the numbers:



That video is produced by a very clever Muslim woman who is (understandably) concerned as to how blind some people are to the truth about radical Islam. Amazingly, and worryingly, Youtube puts a warning up saying "The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences". How bad is it when an educated Muslim women can't even talk about her religion without having a warning put up. Scary!

Watch it @YungNath

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5373525/Tony-Blair-believed-God-wanted-him-to-go-to-war-to-fight-evil-claims-his-mentor.html

You were saying?

We in the west have tried to invade the Middle East countless times for literally thousands of years (crusades for starters) and it has never ever worked. Go have a look at Manifest Destiny in the US as well because that was all in the name of God. Then look at people like Cecil Rhodes in Africa, from the glory days of the British Empire.

The reality is that you're blind to the horrible things that have been done in God's name just like Islam. My aunt's a follower of Islam and I've sat and discussed the Quran and various hadiths with her several times to gain greater insight into the religion. As per, its the man made distortions of the word of God that cause all the violence i.e Wahhabism, same as Christianity. As I posted earlier, places like Saudi Arabia adhere to this form of Islam which is where a lot of the repressive traits of the faith stem from as the guy that came up with it was a certified nutter. It's also why they're forever scrapping with places like Iran, who follow a different and ironically slightly more moderate doctrine. Both religions have the potential for peace but some of the worst atrocities ever committed have been done in the name of God, Allah, whatever you want to call it. They're the same thing anyway and there's a lot of crossover in both of their principal religious texts. As I said above, my beef is with organised religion as a whole because that's what kills people regardless of which deity they say they're doing it for.

A little read on wahhabism which also explains my distaste for Saudi Arabia to some extent

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

 

You really need to read up on your history. The Crusades were organized by western European Christians after centuries of Muslim wars of expansion.

As for crossover in religious texts, that is just on a very superficial level. If you read the Hadith I think you'll realise the beliefs of Christians and Muslims are poles apart.

You do have a point regarding Wahhabism, but it isn't just that group that is a concern. It is the Islamic ideology in general as followed in its true form Islam is clearly NOT compatible with any other religion, which is why there are so few countries in the world where Muslims are integrating into the host culture without major issues.

Trust me, I've always wanted to live in a world where we could live together as one. I think that is what most people want worldwide.

As for mentioning that horrible Tony Blair and the British Empire, come on. That's a low blow. You'll be blaming us all for the slave trade next and wanting us to pay compensation.

You can't win an argument by dredging up things from centuries ago, otherwise we'll have to be bringing up the Roman Empire, and the Ottoman Empire, Alexander the Great, the Apaches, the Aztecs, and don't forget all the raping and pillaging by the Vikings

It's been fun debating, but we'll just have to agree to disagree my friend. I think we both want the same thing - world peace - which is admirable. Hopefully future generations will choose to follow Bob's version of God or become Buddhists, as there aren't many troubles in the world caused by the Buddhists, bless 'em.

 

Aye mate we see the world differently but that's no bad thing, and we do want the same goal so it's nice to hear that from someone with an different opinion.Hard to disagree on things without one side getting personal these days so this is quite refreshing.

It was as much about politics and uniting western europe which was riven by internal conflicts at the time of the first crusade. If it hadn't been the Muslims, they'd have started a crusade and said the Christians living there weren't proper Christians because it was always about the land, the wealth and the politics and not God. Evidenced by the treatment of the Governor of Edessa and some of its outlying villages during the First Crusade. God was just a convenient plot device to many involved, although some were genuinely motivated by religion.

Which hadith as there's a few, both in terms of collections and individual teachings.

You said the Iraq war and our adventures in the Middle East weren't religiously motivated, I simply provided evidence to show that the ones starting wars were very much religiously motivated. I only went so far back because the pattern of us fecking about in the Middle East goes that far back. If we'd have only been doing it decades I'd have only gone back decades, but we've legitimately been at it for something like 1500 years at this point. It also doesn't make much sense to me to debate the finer points of a religion and not look at it in its entirety, rather than just a few decades.


As you said though, fun debate but we agree to disagree.

 

He gets hate from the left of the party because he got in to power and did hell of a lot of good for people, He took action when others wanted endless meetings not to offend anyone,
The Balkans was relevant because while the world looked on BLAIR PERSONALLY took the decision not to wait for the massacres to end while endless meetings took place he acted to stop it and save what would have been genocide,
As for Corbyn who cares what he thinks? He is at best a dangerous looney and will never be in power, The next Labour leader Kier Starmer already has knives in his hands and sharpened waiting

 

When has anyone on the left said we hate Blair for the good that he did. Come on man seriously. Please provide evidence for that or I'll call it out for the BS I believe it to be. I've literally just posted an article above that describes how bloody God told Blair to do all this stuff. as much as we're a nominally Christian country I would rather have an evidence based approach to foreign policy instead of a large, possibly fictitious man in the sky. They've had knives in his back and his front (Jess Phillips has actually said that before) on a daily basis since he was elected. And guess what, he's still here and half the bellends who keep trying to get him out are nowhere (Hi Owen Smith!).If you think a man that keeps an allotment and has a cat called El Gato is a dangerous looney then I'll have what you're smoking. As it happens, I think Keir Starmer would make a good leader but I'm not familiar enough with his policies to say much on that front.

What I will say is that I don't think he should be leader for the simple fact that the media has it in for him big style (there's been peer reviewed research into this which I recommend you read) and will never give him a fair hearing. He doesn't have the nous or charisma to really get around that so its just endless pelters for him and the party.

 

[

You were right with one of your comments you made earlier and i'll allude to that.

Religion sucks. It doesn't bring people together it divides and conquers, which is its primary aim.

 

Absolutely mate. Some of the worst horrors in the world have been committed in the name of religion.

 

2 mass shootings in the US in the space of hours. The people of free world need not worry though, the Pres sends his thoughts and prayers.

 

Yes like every one of his predecessors when this has happened, Like it or not the people of the USA believe in the freedom to bear arms and will not allow gun laws no matter what a President wants, Trump will do the same as Obama, Nothing

 

Oh. That’s alright then. All perfectly normal.

 

Nothing to do with the people of the USA who appear to be sick of being shot at by mental racist weirdos, and everything to do with the lobbying power of the NRA. Fortunately the NRA is on it's arse at the moment so we should see some kind of progress on policy for once.

Also, what is wrong with Trump :
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tweet-el-paso-dayton-shooting-attack-latest-gun-control-law-immigration-reform-a9039651.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3pmcmg5cuSkDFtIRRxSyqbNB03AjtngSOHL3axZpbnawSAtHk1jzlnBOk#Echobox=1565003611

Doesn't even mention white nationalism and far right extremism, which is the overwhelming majority cause behind these shootings. Wouldn't expect anything else from a man who with his father, refused to rent property to black people for being black.

 

Yet very few if any politicians are calling for gun control, Even the Democrats are shying away from doing anything that would stop the freedom to own guns, Like it or not the vast majority of Americans will not vote for a politician who stood on gun control it is so entrenched in their beliefs.
Not even the sainted Obama after Sandy Hook where 28 was shot dead did anything about controlling guns blaming the gunman and not the gun.
Common sense would say that strong gun control would help stop these attacks but while the vast majority of citizens believe that freedom equates to owning a gun little will change and we will be back in the future with another massacre no matter who is in control of the White House

 

Back to topic

It seems that the country is now being led by an unelected defacto PM and im not talking about Boris. Personally i think this talk from Mr Cummings and Boris about ignoring the constitution and essentially forming a dictatorship is really quite dangerous.

I ask everyone, is this really what you voted for? Is this mess worth it? are you happy if you voted leave or are you slightly ashamed about how you voted for us to become the laughing stock of the world? I know I would be. Its a disgrace.

 

To answer your question. I voted leave. I'm not ashamed, not one little bit. Hth.

 

hth?

 

No matter which way you voted nobody should be ashamed of exercising their right to take part in democracy. And it’s poor form from you to try say people should, it was a yes no vote. You go on about how dangerous talk of dictatorship is then try shame anyone who votes different to you.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Well that is a typical question from a remainer, if ever the country was a laughing stock it was under Prime Minister Theresa Mays pathetic attempt to get a deal, not mentioned her "no deal" card once to Barnier &Co, after the second time of going back and groveling for a better deal because MPs wouldn't accept her deal she should have told the EU negotiators if her deal was voted down again (which was always going to be the case) that would suggest to most it was a bad deal and she would implement no deal.
I'm far from ashamed or embarrassed, that should be left for the remainers who believe we should have another vote, now that is embarrassing, the mother of Parliament having to go back to the country try and get a deal they accept.

We put a tick in the box that said Leave the European Union, Cameron had said stood on the steps of Downing Street and said leave would mean to leave the European Union the Single Market and the Customs Union

Said at the dispatch box https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/david-camerons-full-statement-on-the-eu-deal/
Final decision, an idea has been put forward that if the country votes to leave we could have a second negotiation and perhaps another referendum, such an approach also ignores profound points about democracy, diplomacy and legality. Shame on you remainers.


As you can see from the actual voting paper there were only the two choices remain or Leave, and if the Tory government had really taken the vote seriously they would have had contingency plans ongoing, but as they though the great unwashed would never dare vote to leave they hadn't bothered, Cameron actually said if the vote went to leave he would continue to be the Prime Minister and take us out of the EU, Single Market & Customs Union, then the very next day resigned, maybe your asking the wrong people if they are ashamed.

 

Im not trying to shame anyone im saying I would be. Its an opinion, dont be so precious.