Morrisey's at it again :clap:

[Sir C]

Honestly, he's more entertaining now than he ever was in his pomp.

http://www.nme.com/news/music/morrissey-talks-racism-left-wing-hitler-says-sadiq-khan-can-not-talk-properly-2295226

[Peter]

Honestly, he's more entertaining now than he ever was in his pomp.

http://www.nme.com/news/music/morrissey-talks-racism-left-wing-hitler-says-sadiq-khan-can-not-talk-properly-2295226

Talking total and utter ****

[Monty92]

Talking total and utter ****

Man who's not shy about throwing accusations of bigotry around says man having a go at people for throwing accusations of bigotry around is "talking total shíte" :rolleyes:

[Sir C]

Talking total and utter ****

Which bit is the utter ****?

[Luis Anaconda]

Honestly, he's more entertaining now than he ever was in his pomp.

http://www.nme.com/news/music/morrissey-talks-racism-left-wing-hitler-says-sadiq-khan-can-not-talk-properly-2295226
To be honest, anyone in any doubts to his men'elness just needs to read this sentence: "in which he discussed preferring his solo work to his former band"

[Peter]

Man who's not shy about throwing accusations of bigotry around says man having a go at people for throwing accusations of bigotry around is "talking total shíte" :rolleyes:

I think we have learned from the last week or so that none of us are shy about throwing accusations of bigotry around.

I have only ever accused you of castigating Islam and I have only ever done it when you have specifically castigated Islam.

Now you are throwing around accusations about throwing around accusations about bigotry. Shame on you.

[Peter]

Which bit is the utter ****?

Hitler was left wing (yaaaaawn)........

His particular brand of 'racism' is too enlightened for people to understand..... (dear God).....

Civilisation is over because the Mayor of London doesn't sufficiently pronounce the letter t..........

I mean, he always talked **** but his music used to be good.

[IUFG]

I mean, he always talked **** but his music used to be good.

you're half right there, p

[Peter]

you're half right there, p

Nice little Smiths quote there- well done :)

[Monty92]

You literally said Burney hates Muslims. Now you say you only claimed he hates Islam.

You’re welcome to adjust your position to the much more acceptable one you’re now claiming. But first you’ll have to apologise for the original smear.




I think we have learned from the last week or so that none of us are shy about throwing accusations of bigotry around.

I have only ever accused you of castigating Islam and I have only ever done it when you have specifically castigated Islam.

Now you are throwing around accusations about throwing around accusations about bigotry. Shame on you.

[Sir C]

Hitler was left wing (yaaaaawn)........

His particular brand of 'racism' is too enlightened for people to understand..... (dear God).....

Civilisation is over because the Mayor of London doesn't sufficiently pronounce the letter t..........

I mean, he always talked **** but his music used to be good.

1. Whether or not the truth bores you, Hitler was a National Socialist who described himself as a socialist and behaved like a socialist.

2. Just calling him a racist doesn't make him so, which is kind of his point.

3. That the mayor of the world's greatest city is an ignorant pygmy of the calibre of that man is quite a damning indictment, isn't it?

[Peter]

You literally said Burney hates Muslims. Now you say you only claimed he hates Islam.

You’re welcome to adjust your position to the much more acceptable one you’re now claiming. But first you’ll have to apologise for the original smear.

"I have only ever accused YOU of castigating Islam". The word YOU is significant here, in that I was talking to YOU.

Yes, I did suggest that Burney had 'paraded his hatred of muslims' on here. We had a long conversation where both of you went to great lengths to explain that you merely hated their beliefs, which were totally separate from their 'race' and were entirely optional on their part. You dont hate the people at all- oh no, you are more or less great supporters. No matter that you count them, calculate their breeding rates and consider the volume as an existential threat to Britain. none of this matters- it is merely a theological dispute, nothing more. The Labour Party, on the other hand, are vile and vicious racists. I understand all of this now.

THe other important thing to stress here was that this was in the context of my comparison between your islamophobia and the Labour Party's anti-semitism. Therefore important to note that the conversation did not start bymethrowing accusations of bigotry but by me responding to them.

However, for the record, yes I do consider your views on Islam to be a form of bigotry. By any dictionary definition, it is.

[Peter]

1. Whether or not the truth bores you, Hitler was a National Socialist who described himself as a socialist and behaved like a socialist.

2. Just calling him a racist doesn't make him so, which is kind of his point.

3. That the mayor of the world's greatest city is an ignorant pygmy of the calibre of that man is quite a damning indictment, isn't it?

1. Hitler called himself a lot of things. Are we now defining him in his own words?

2. THat isnt what he said.

3. No, it isnt. His predecessor was a buffoon who could barely tie his own laces without instructions. Am I expected to believe that civilisation hinges on his accent?

[Sir C]

1. Hitler called himself a lot of things. Are we now defining him in his own words?

2. THat isnt what he said.

3. No, it isnt. His predecessor was a buffoon who could barely tie his own laces without instructions. Am I expected to believe that civilisation hinges on his accent?

1. Hitler has no right to self-define? What if he had self-defined as a woman, would you misgender him, you monster?

2. Semantics.

3. You are referring to our esteemed foreign secretary. A little respect wouldn't go amiss.

[Peter]

1. Hitler has no right to self-define? What if he had self-defined as a woman, would you misgender him, you monster?

2. Semantics.

3. You are referring to our esteemed foreign secretary. A little respect wouldn't go amiss.

1. It is nonsensical, not to mention extremely offensive, to equate modern left wing people with Hitler. As it is with pretty much anyone. It is also facile and childish. Any view of National Socialism that considers it left wing is the work of an idiot.

2. I thought we had established that I was anti-semantic, like the rest of the Labour Party.

3. My respect is ex officio. It does not extend to the incumbent.

[7sisters]

To be honest, anyone in any doubts to his men'elness just needs to read this sentence: "in which he discussed preferring his solo work to his former band"

He was wrong about the acid attacks too. That scumbag who went away for 20 odd years for throwing acid about in an east end nightclub was very definitely, a whitey.

[Monty92]

"I have only ever accused YOU of castigating Islam". The word YOU is significant here, in that I was talking to YOU.

Yes, I did suggest that Burney had 'paraded his hatred of muslims' on here. We had a long conversation where both of you went to great lengths to explain that you merely hated their beliefs, which were totally separate from their 'race' and were entirely optional on their part. You dont hate the people at all- oh no, you are more or less great supporters. No matter that you count them, calculate their breeding rates and consider the volume as an existential threat to Britain. none of this matters- it is merely a theological dispute, nothing more. The Labour Party, on the other hand, are vile and vicious racists. I understand all of this now.

THe other important thing to stress here was that this was in the context of my comparison between your islamophobia and the Labour Party's anti-semitism. Therefore important to note that the conversation did not start bymethrowing accusations of bigotry but by me responding to them.

However, for the record, yes I do consider your views on Islam to be a form of bigotry. By any dictionary definition, it is.

I think there has been a communication breakdown here. Frankly, you seem totally confused. I don’t believe Burney or I have ever said we hate the BELIEFS of ALL Muslims.

There are millions upon millions of Muslims around the world who follow a benign form of Islam. And while I may consider them any number of things such as naïve, foolish or deluded, they give me no reason at all to hate them.

Alas, we also know there to be millions upon millions of Muslims around the world who believe in the less benign tenets of Islam. And it is these Muslims that I have no problem hating – both them individually AND their beliefs - and I consider this no more controversial than saying I hate Nazis as individuals and that I hate their beliefs too.

In fact, saying I hate Islam is in no way substantively different to saying I hate Nazism. And just as saying I hate Nazism is very different to saying I hate people who believe in tenets of Nazism such as economic self-sufficiency and a strong national identity, saying I hate Islam is also different to saying I hate Muslims who believe in the benign tenets of Islam.

But as soon as I learn that someone endorses the less benign tenets of Islam, then I have an entirely legitimate reason to hate them. Just as if I find out that someone who believes in the values of a strong national identity also believes in a form of Social Darwinism, then I have legitimate reason to hate them too.

And if Nazis were breeding like rabbits, proliferating in number, growing in power and influence, and had killed more than 400 innocent people on European streets in a handful of years, I’d be obsessively counting and calculating them too.

Do you actually disagree with any of this? And given how I've laid out my position, would you really describe my views on Islam to be "bigoted"?

And if so, are you able to explain why you wouldn't also say someone who hates Nazis is also bigoted?

[Peter]

I think there has been a communication breakdown here. Frankly, you seem totally confused. I don’t believe Burney or I have ever said we hate the BELIEFS of ALL Muslims.

There are millions upon millions of Muslims around the world who follow a benign form of Islam. And while I may consider them any number of things such as naïve, foolish or deluded, they give me no reason at all to hate them.

Alas, we also know there to be millions upon millions of Muslims around the world who believe in the less benign tenets of Islam. And it is these Muslims that I have no problem hating – both them individually AND their beliefs - and I consider this no more controversial than saying I hate Nazis as individuals and that I hate their beliefs too.

In fact, saying I hate Islam is in no way substantively different to saying I hate Nazism. And just as saying I hate Nazism is very different to saying I hate people who believe in tenets of Nazism such as economic self-sufficiency and a strong national identity, saying I hate Islam is also different to saying I hate Muslims who believe in the benign tenets of Islam.

But as soon as I learn that someone endorses the less benign tenets of Islam, then I have an entirely legitimate reason to hate them. Just as if I find out that someone who believes in the values of a strong national identity also believes in a form of Social Darwinism, then I have legitimate reason to hate them too.

And if Nazis were breeding like rabbits, proliferating in number, growing in power and influence, and had killed more than 400 innocent people on European streets in a handful of years, I’d be obsessively counting and calculating them too.

Do you actually disagree with any of this? And given how I've laid out my position, would you really describe my views on Islam to be "bigoted"?

And if so, are you able to explain why you wouldn't also say someone who hates Nazis is also bigoted?


There has indeed been a major breakdown of communication. Throughout our conversations about thisyoudescribedanyattempt on my part to distinguish between interpretations of Islam as a 'straw man' or a red herring. My point from the start was that Ibelievedthat the problem was with a strict, medieval interpretation of Islam which was (a) relatively recent in its popularity and (b) a clear response to the Muslim diaspora through the western world. THis was a significant aspect of my argument that attempting to blame the entire religion was wrong and ignored other hugely significant factors. You never, at any point, allowed this argument.

Now you are distinguishing between the benign and the non-benign and accepting that ISlam can, in many,many instances, be harmless

If you do indeed accept this, then we can leave it there. Well, lets face it, it is going to keep coming up again in different forms but we can certainly leave this specific part of the conversation.

I dont think anybody finds the radical fundamental form of Islam acceptable or appropriate, particularly in Britain.

Based on the above, I hereby formally withdraw my accusation of bigotry and I thank you for your time.

[Luis Anaconda]

There has indeed been a major breakdown of communication. Throughout our conversations about thisyoudescribedanyattempt on my part to distinguish between interpretations of Islam as a 'straw man' or a red herring. My point from the start was that Ibelievedthat the problem was with a strict, medieval interpretation of Islam which was (a) relatively recent in its popularity and (b) a clear response to the Muslim diaspora through the western world. THis was a significant aspect of my argument that attempting to blame the entire religion was wrong and ignored other hugely significant factors. You never, at any point, allowed this argument.

Now you are distinguishing between the benign and the non-benign and accepting that ISlam can, in many,many instances, be harmless

If you do indeed accept this, then we can leave it there. Well, lets face it, it is going to keep coming up again in different forms but we can certainly leave this specific part of the conversation.

I dont think anybody finds the radical fundamental form of Islam acceptable or appropriate, particularly in Britain.

Based on the above, I hereby formally withdraw my accusation of bigotry and I thank you for your time.

Has the vowel thief become a space thief? Whereiscurlywhenyouneedhim?

[Peter]

Has the vowel thief become a space thief? Whereiscurlywhenyouneedhim?

THe space bar on my iPad keyboard doesn't respond well. It is a ****, in other words.

[Monty92]

My point whenever you attempted to draw that distinction was that you seemed to neglect the fact that a strict, medieval interpretation of Islam is the MOST CREDIBLE interpretation of the religion.

Again, I draw the comparison with Nazism. Mein Kampf has many passages that could easily be interpreted as benign, legitimate polemic on the best way for societies and nation states to be organised. And there are many people around the world who share the same views but who would not hesitate in denouncing the more nefarious parts of the book. We may have political disagreements with such people but we would not claim to hate them.

And yet I don’t think I can imagine you standing up for Nazism as a broad ideology in the same way you do for Islam. And for me that's a double standard, Clive.




There has indeed been a major breakdown of communication. Throughout our conversations about thisyoudescribedanyattempt on my part to distinguish between interpretations of Islam as a 'straw man' or a red herring. My point from the start was that Ibelievedthat the problem was with a strict, medieval interpretation of Islam which was (a) relatively recent in its popularity and (b) a clear response to the Muslim diaspora through the western world. THis was a significant aspect of my argument that attempting to blame the entire religion was wrong and ignored other hugely significant factors. You never, at any point, allowed this argument.

Now you are distinguishing between the benign and the non-benign and accepting that ISlam can, in many,many instances, be harmless

If you do indeed accept this, then we can leave it there. Well, lets face it, it is going to keep coming up again in different forms but we can certainly leave this specific part of the conversation.

I dont think anybody finds the radical fundamental form of Islam acceptable or appropriate, particularly in Britain.

Based on the above, I hereby formally withdraw my accusation of bigotry and I thank you for your time.

[Peter]

My point whenever you attempted to draw that distinction was that you seemed to neglect the fact that a strict, medieval interpretation of Islam is the MOST CREDIBLE interpretation of the religion.

Again, I draw the comparison with Nazism. Mein Kampf has many passages that could easily be interpreted as benign, legitimate polemic on the best way for societies and nation states to be organised. And there are many people around the world who share the same views but who would not hesitate in denouncing the more nefarious parts of the book. We may have political disagreements with such people but we would not claim to hate them.

And yet I don’t think I can imagine you standing up for Nazism as a broad ideology in the same way you do for Islam. And for me that's a double standard, Clive.

The MOST CREDIBLE argument is a theological debate. One could argue that the original form of any religion is the most credible. Why do you give a **** about theological credibility? You think the whole thing is *******s, so do I.

Neither of us are really talking about religion here, we are talking about behaviours. THe strict interpretation is the most dangerous and is the one we all want to avoid. The ultimate test of a religious faith is its ability to stay socially and morally relevant within the broadest confines of its main tenets. Credibility doesnt mend the roof.

The challenge for Islam in the rest of the world is how deeply it is woven into the fabric of economics, politics and law in the states it dominates, most obviously Pakistan. That doesn't have to be a challenge here.

[Burney]

Honestly, he's more entertaining now than he ever was in his pomp.

http://www.nme.com/news/music/morrissey-talks-racism-left-wing-hitler-says-sadiq-khan-can-not-talk-properly-2295226

He's a sound chap.

Hates: The Guardian; The Independent; socialists; Islam; unchecked immigration; left-wing tories; Sadiq Khan; Halal.
Loves: Ickle baby animals, England and himself.

If it weren't for his rather silly views on meat-eating, he would be in receipt of my wholehearted support.

[Monty92]

The MOST CREDIBLE argument is a theological debate. One could argue that the original form of any religion is the most credible. Why do you give a **** about theological credibility? You think the whole thing is *******s, so do I.

Neither of us are really talking about religion here, we are talking about behaviours. THe strict interpretation is the most dangerous and is the one we all want to avoid. The ultimate test of a religious faith is its ability to stay socially and morally relevant within the broadest confines of its main tenets. Credibility doesnt mend the roof.

The challenge for Islam in the rest of the world is how deeply it is woven into the fabric of economics, politics and law in the states it dominates, most obviously Pakistan. That doesn't have to be a challenge here.

No comment on the comparison between Nazism and Islam? Can you explain the substantive difference between the two ideologies and why you defend one but not the other?

[Sir C]

No comment on the comparison between Nazism and Islam? Can you explain the substantive difference between the two ideologies and why you defend one but not the other?

Well, one is a medieval, brutal, authoritarian belief system determined to wipe out all the jews, and the other is...

Oh.

[Peter]

No comment on the comparison between Nazism and Islam? Can you explain the substantive difference between the two ideologies and why you defend one but not the other?

You dont really want me to answer that, do you?

[Sir C]

He's a sound chap.

Hates: The Guardian; The Independent; socialists; Islam; unchecked immigration; left-wing tories; Sadiq Khan; Halal.
Loves: Ickle baby animals, England and himself.

If it weren't for his rather silly views on meat-eating, he would be in receipt of my wholehearted support.

How does he feel about Her Majesty these days? I seem to recall he wasn't so keen on her.

[Monty92]

You dont really want me to answer that, do you?

Yep.......

[Burney]

The MOST CREDIBLE argument is a theological debate. One could argue that the original form of any religion is the most credible. Why do you give a **** about theological credibility? You think the whole thing is *******s, so do I.

Neither of us are really talking about religion here, we are talking about behaviours. THe strict interpretation is the most dangerous and is the one we all want to avoid. The ultimate test of a religious faith is its ability to stay socially and morally relevant within the broadest confines of its main tenets. Credibility doesnt mend the roof.

The challenge for Islam in the rest of the world is how deeply it is woven into the fabric of economics, politics and law in the states it dominates, most obviously Pakistan. That doesn't have to be a challenge here.


Well we don't seem to be doing a very good job of that, since we are encouraging faith schools that propagate precisely that strain of Islam, are allowing that form of Islam to build Mosques and 'cultural centres' in which individuals are indoctrinated with that form of Islam to hate this country, the west and perpetrate acts of terror against their fellow countrymen.

Meanwhile, we are also refusing to crack down on the manifestations of exactly that barbaric form of Islam in the name of 'diversity': celebrating the hijab as a feminist symbol; turning a blind eye to muslim hatred of Jews and homosexuals and their systematic oppression of women; refusing to treat Muslim preaching as the hate speech that it is; ignoring rape gangs (or, where they are finally prosecuted, refusing to mention the fact that almost all the perpetrators are muslim); not prosecuting for FGM etc, etc.

And, of course, we are busy importing more people who hold these views. And if you criticise this stance or point these things out, you are labelled a racist, an Islamophobe or threatened with prosecution for hate speech.

This is a profoundly damaging and unhappy situation. It has been brought about by weakness and hyper-sensitivity about racism to the detriment of the operation of a safe, law-abiding and functioning society. It has become clear to millions that you and your ilk are prepared to sacrifice pretty much everything and everybody to your specious notions of 'diversity' and anti-racism and are reaching a point where they are prepared to stand up and tell the truth rather than cower for fear of being called 'racist'.

[Peter]

Yep.......

I'm sorry, I simply wouldnt know where to begin.

Somebody else has asked me to lay out the principal differences between radical dissent in British foreign policy in the 19th century and a pork pie. To be fair, they did ask first.....

[Peter]

Well we don't seem to be doing a very good job of that, since we are encouraging faith schools that propagate precisely that strain of Islam, are allowing that form of Islam to build Mosques and 'cultural centres' in which individuals are indoctrinated with that form of Islam to hate this country, the west and perpetrate acts of terror against their fellow countrymen.

Meanwhile, we are also refusing to crack down on the manifestations of exactly that barbaric form of Islam in the name of 'diversity': celebrating the hijab as a feminist symbol; turning a blind eye to muslim hatred of Jews and homosexuals and their systematic oppression of women; refusing to treat Muslim preaching as the hate speech that it is; ignoring rape gangs (or, where they are finally prosecuted, refusing to mention the fact that almost all the perpetrators are muslim); not prosecuting for FGM etc, etc.

And, of course, we are busy importing more people who hold these views. And if you criticise this stance or point these things out, you are labelled a racist, an Islamophobe or threatened with prosecution for hate speech.

This is a profoundly damaging and unhappy situation. It has been brought about by weakness and hyper-sensitivity about racism to the detriment of the operation of a safe, law-abiding and functioning society. It has become clear to millions that you and your ilk are prepared to sacrifice pretty much everything and everybody to your specious notions of 'diversity' and anti-racism and are reaching a point where they are prepared to stand up and tell the truth rather than cower for fear of being called 'racist'.

You and Monty have perfected your good cop/bad cop routine.......

Ok. If you genuinely believe the problem is of that scale then I get why you are worried.

[Pokster]

Yep.......

How about you PM each other rather than taking over a thread every week or 2 to go over the same points yet again...just a thought

[Sir C]

How about you PM each other rather than taking over a thread every week or 2 to go over the same points yet again...just a thought

I agree. Having discussions on a messageboard? Outrageous! It would be far better if everyone communicated solely by email, then there would be no need to look at awimb to see if anyone had said anything intersting, amusing, or thought-provoking.

Let's all move to Yorkshire and calcify our fúcking brains. Would that make you happy?

[Peter]

I agree. Having discussions on a messageboard? Outrageous! It would be far better if everyone communicated solely by email, then there would be no need to look at awimb to see if anyone had said anything intersting, amusing, or thought-provoking.

Let's all move to Yorkshire and calcify our fúcking brains. Would that make you happy?


Every time :)

Me and Monty drone on for a day, Pokster says its boring, you defend us

[Sir C]

Every time :)

Me and Monty drone on for a day, Pokster says its boring, you defend us

It's just a bit odd. It's not as if we're overwhelmed with material these days. Discouraging posting on this board is a bit fúcking strange. I'd have thought that if you object to the material on a messageboard but wish to remain reading it, your best course of action would be start a new, interesting and thought-provoking thread, rather than just telling others to shut up.

I'm not defending you anyway. I'm defending your right to drone on and on and on.

[Pokster]

I agree. Having discussions on a messageboard? Outrageous! It would be far better if everyone communicated solely by email, then there would be no need to look at awimb to see if anyone had said anything intersting, amusing, or thought-provoking.

Let's all move to Yorkshire and calcify our fúcking brains. Would that make you happy?

Not like you to twist someone's commments... what i am saying is that we have been over this many times, never have a final answer and then start all over again a few weeks later, it is, excuse my french, ****ing boring now

[Monty92]

Not like you to twist someone's commments... what i am saying is that we have been over this many times, never have a final answer and then start all over again a few weeks later, it is, excuse my french, ****ing boring now

Actually, you may have noticed that Peter offered me a grovelling apology earlier for calling me a bigot. That's progress.

[Peter]

Actually, you may have noticed that Peter offered me a grovelling apology earlier for calling me a bigot. That's progress.

Not biting, but your lack of class (and goalpost changing) has been noted.