Sir Ralph

I think you need to firstly differentiate the deaths of civilians in a war, compared to the deaths of people in a country who is not at war. Having said that civilians should never be targets and the death of civilians in war is terrible. I don't know enough about the Israel and Palestinian conflict to know the rights and wrongs of land ownership and the detail of the conflict. If the Israeli's were targeting citizens on purpose then that is terrible and politicians should be held accountable. The deaths of children in particular in war is very upsetting and sad. My problem with having a view on this is that a lot of people profess to understand this conflict but I dont believe they do. Its incredibly complicated and has a long history. I know a lot of people who get very passionate about it but when I ask for an explanation of their knowledge and background it all goes rather quiet. The only person that I know who has been there was a nurse who was helping injured Palestinians. What she said is that a lot of the locals hate Hamas as they make up their military bases within civilian areas and facilities (e.g. hospitals) so that the Israeli's have causalities on their hands as a result of targeting military operations (the human shield tactic). So what I cant differentiate is how purposeful the targeting and deaths of civilians is, bearing in mind the relevant person is the only one who I would say has first hand experience and is relatively impartial. Having said that, having seen the devastation in parts of Gaza, I dont believe that all Israeli attacks are necessary and some of it maybe purposefully destructive. I'm sure that, despite my attempt at a measured post you are going to get all excited and tell me that I support the deaths of children. I could also ask you why you arent commenting about the deaths of Christians in Nigeria (50,000 since 2009). These people werent at war but have been killed by radicals.

I agree with you on this. I think Trump has contradicted himself. You cant have free speech and then apply this.

Have a good day.

As I said above, comments relate to an extreme portion of people who believe in an ideology, not a whole religion. Unfortunately you have conflated my criticism of radicalised people with everyone who believes in that religion. I dont think I have ever said what you have suggested and that is not my belief. The comments on this post were about the Bondi killings and the types of radicalised people that would do this type of stuff to innocent civilians. I'm glad we agree this is wrong.

Jesus had liberal virtues like helping the poor and needy and the sick. He also had more conservative values, such as being pro-life and supporting the nuclear family. I think it would be difficult to pigeon hole. I think there is a difference between being tolerant and not being clear that some radical ideologies are bad for mankind and being clear about this. I dont think anyone has tarred a whole religious group with the same brush. The comments made here are referring to the extreme sect of a religion.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Last time I checked the Ten Commandments said thou shalt not murder.I'm pretty sure Christianity starting point is one of tolerance towards people but you can call out ideologies or concept that are harmful to fellow humans.

But the liberals can't or won't see it. They are too worried about the optics rather than facts.

You mean, I've pointed out how twisted and bizarre your logic is. Otherwise you would have a response. Basically, you are making a point that we cant ever understand the crimes that anyone ever commits 'cause we dont know the 100% that that was their full motivation'. What a load of utter BS.

Lets apply this weird logic....noting that the killers have been reported as having ISIS affiliation. So people on a far right protest attacking people of colour innocently standing by, its not necessarily cause they are racist. That's an assumption right, there might be outside factors which contribute to them doing this.

A bizarre response in the 1st para. This shows your absolute and complete lack of understanding on this issue. Its probably best you dont talk about it anymore.

Just a reminder (slightly worrying one) that Jewish people are part of our western society. Its worrying that you are playing semantics again.

The words I used were no other religion. The killings in the US you are referring to are not religiously motivated. I’m not sure what you would deflect on this. Anyway it’s very sad. People just going about their daily lives pointlessly killed by fanatics who misguidedly think that God wants them to kill others. Unfortunately there will be people in this country who won’t bat an eyelid about this because they have been indoctrinated against Jews, yet that same group call others facists and Nazis.

You’ll resist expressing an opinion but are highlighting the point anyway. So if you have an issue with today’s terrorist attack but haven’t commented on Palestine then your opinion has limited weight.

Some of them are pretty disgusting

This is essentially softening or seeking to justify the attacks. This is frankly unbelievable. In modern times no other religion has individuals shooting innocent civilians in cold blood. Wake up you idiot. It’s people like you who discourage real debate about this issue. I take it back, you are an extremist yourself.

Is he describing SoG? Peterson is a legend

Well that’s wrong. I explained what I believed was far left (or looney left as you call it) and it isn’t close to the way you have defined it. My definition of far left is much narrower than your definition of far right. You don’t know what you are talking about and are trying to drag me into your broad definitions by misquoting me on what I define as far left. Also it’s not me that think Maitlis has been biased, there are a number of different groups and media outlets that have accused her of this. Please get your facts right next time.

Everyone is entitled to their own views and if you think increasing taxes and expanding the state is the way forward, that’s fine. I understand what you are saying but don’t agree with your view as increased day to day state spending has never got a country out of a hole that I know off. However, I think my point is these aren’t conservative views. im not saying that their voting patterns would all be right of centre (although a good proportion I suspect would). What I am saying is that when it comes to economic policy people I deal with day to day wants pro business policies which reduce obligation / restriction and cost for business and policies which encourage innovation and growth and reward. They never want higher taxes personally or for business and increase in state intervention because it often causes bureaucracy which stifles business. The tend to want less government intervention, other than maybe state intervention for capital projects which improve infrastructure. This includes a range of people including larger corporates, foreign investors, uk investors and SMEs. You and I have had this discussion before so happy to agree to disagree before we start going round in circles

So you would know then that Maitlis is one of the worst examples of a mainstream political commentator to use in this context as she has been caught in the crossfire of allegations of anti Tory bias, being a strong Remainer (whilst at the BBC when she should have been impartial) and left leaning bias. Whilst you say im so biased I can’t see the wood for the trees the below articles prove that other people have this view in relation to Maitlis (and there is plenty more on this topic). Therefore a bad example of a journalist to use for their definition of what is right wing. They do know more about politics than me but in principle it wouldn’t stop them being biased, which is the point being made. A suggestion, when you start talking aggressively about a subject, be sure to understand it first. Own it.😆 https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/emily-maitlis-wants-a-remainer-bbc/#:~:text=There was her infamous Dominic,close to being over it. https://commentcentral.co.uk/one-rule-for-emily-maitlis-and-another-for-the-rest-of-us

Im saying that I wouldnt use Maitlis in particular in the context of this discussion. She has been accused by those on the centre right of bias more than once. Other journalists yes but not ones accused of bias to then define what is far right. Thats my point.

Thats fine, its obviously me that doesnt understand any of this but have a good day.

Great statement. I'm looking forward to your explanation of conservatism but somebody who wants to increase taxes for people and expand the state, which is constantly thrown by the relevant poster, is not a conservative. Its probably you that dont understand these terms but enlighten me

I dont think you're a lunatic lefite. I think you are somebody who says they have conservative values but have views that are closer to a socialist than a conservative. No conservative or business man I have ever met or worked with has the views you have. My issue with you is that you think you continue to say you have Conservative views but you constantly argue against them.

.

Emily Maitlis - yes she is really balanced, no agenda whatsoever! Spend the last few years having to defend her 'non-bias' BBC position on various matters. Jon Sopel is left of centre. Again read about their backgrounds before suggesting they are sufficiently balanced to be able to give reasonable views on such matters. Its quite impressive that most posters on here have barely any idea about the background of the people they post about or ask articles for.