Contributor Leaderboard

Here we are back to the indirect ad hominem. The reason you won't answer any clarifying questions is "because I don't think you're really interested in my answers; you're right, and everybody else is wrong, and that will always be the case". i.e. I'm badly motivated, so that apparently justifies the refusal to examine your own highly inconsistent ideas. Yes, I do think there aren't irredeemable people, but if we aren't vigilant and challenge evil belief sets we can easily get into a situation where there is no practical alternative to eliminating the people and not the ideas. That's why apologists for such belief sets are themselves dangerous to society, and need to be challenged. If you do find the time to reply in a spirit of free discussion and not personal attack, then I'm happy to resume a friendly discussion.

I'm simply curious to examine your ideas of good and evil. You tell us "some people are evil." I want to know who those evil people are. You see I don't believe there are any irredeemable people, only irredeemable ideas. Islam is one of those irredeemable ideas, and has no place in a modern civilised society. I want to examine exactly why you are an apologist for it. How is determining what you believe is evil "introducing something that is of no relevance" in a discussion about evil? I answer your questions directly, but you seek to dodge mine.

Pigeonholing people is what the left do, and certainly not me! Because of this they do exactly what you do above: rather than tackling ideas which they can't handle they go in for ad hominem attacks. You are telling us that Islam is not an evil. So what in your book is an evil? Let's take Naziism and its own manual Hitler's Mein Kampf - simple question: are those evils? Keep you answer short and straightforward, so's not to muddy the waters please?

He was blamed for the highly controversial leaks from a Downing Street dinner between Mrs May and Mr Juncker that caused a diplomatic storm last year. A German who forces his views on all around him, where have I heard that before

We've just suffered an event very close to the election of a new President of the US of A. In fact it's more relevant than that as last time I looked we were still an EU vassal state; so he's our president (or at least the principal one). Tuning in to the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation Thursday morning, I confidently expected Martin Selmayr to be headline news. If his "appointment" was ever even mentioned in the morning program I must have dozed off again. Ever expectant I tuned in to every BBC news bulletin throughout the day without any mention of the great event. OK, this is sure to be featured on the in-depth Newsnight, I told myself. Nope, not a proverbial dickey! This adds to the long catalogue of the bias by omission and editorial selection that has characterised BBC coverage over the last decade or two, and which gets progressively worse. To make up for the BBC's shyness in covering the event let me report second hand what one "highly surprised" EUrocrat is now on record as saying: That's an interesting observation in respect of an organisation which is prefaced on taking power and holding on to it, no matter what!

Martin who? Well the surname is Selmayr, and he's a 47-year-old German lawyer known as a "monster eurocrat", and the "Rasputin of Brussels". Nothing to do with me you say... well, not quite. By some mysterious process he just became "Secretary General of the European Commission". Still nothing to do with me you say, as he's not even in the European Parliament. You'd be right there, as he's now the guy that heads the junta that hands down law for the European Parliament to rubber stamp - law which our great and good have "wisely" made transcendent to English law. Understand why he's got a smirk on his face, and old Juncks is looking like... well... am I going to get away with this? Why was this professional lawyer appointed by the Brussels mafia? Well... "Mr Selmayr, who was previously Mr Juncker's chief of staff, is a vocal supporter of European federalism and one of the EU's most vehement opponents of Brexit." Getting the plot now?

To be fair chocolate eggs have b*gger all to do with Easter really.

Well we cant upset the snowflakes and the ethnic minority can we......They'd cancel Easter & Christmas given half a chance

Moe: My guess - and it's simply a guess - that Merc's position on a lot of things is the same as the much of today's extreme left (and indeed what little there is of today's extreme right) that My enemy's enemy is my friend, and that's why he supports Islam and really wants to treat it like any other religion. But.. he tells us we can't "pigeonhole" him as a leftie, yet he walks like a Corbynista leftie and quacks like a Corbynista leftie, and tells us he's proud to hold left wing views. That's why I am very interested in "his answers". Corbyn's new kind of politics seems rather like an old kind of politics to me; but as you can't get any sort of rational discussion with a Corbynista (hello Mr Lavery!) I was rather hoping he could pretend he's one for the purposes of debate. Lots of local people will be voting for Corbyn and McDonnell in future it seems, so think of explaining their mysterious policies to these voters as a public service.

Amen to that brother

You placed single quotes around the words sleeper and activist. Please point out where I ever used either of those words, or apologise for the misquote. That's not how I see the evil of Islam. How I see Islam is in the terms radical Islamists mockingly tell us to see. They mock because they can see our weakness, and realise - as many in the West do - that our so-called liberalism makes many of us blind to their strategy. They also rejoice in the fact that in current times those liberal values mitigate against basic common sense. Read the Quran, and don't for one second believe that it is equivalent to the Christian Bible in its current relevance. If you've any doubts listen to what reformed Muslims have to say. Which TV show do you suppose I imagine?