CHAPEL END CHARLIE

If you are capable of even elementary maths then you should know that the 'balance sheet' of terror shows that many more European Muslims have been murdered by so called Christians than vice versa. For example, the Srebanica massacre alone (8,000 defenceless Muslim men and boys murdered) was many times more bloody than the Paris and Brussels atrocities combined. So your first sentence here is inaccurate. As for your opinion that poverty and injustice in the world apparently does not generate all kinds of violence and criminality everywhere ... well I can only put this down to sheer ignorance on your part. Which is about 'Par for the course' when it comes to your various contributions to this thread.

It all depends upon your perspective in life. If you happen to find yourself lucky enough to be living in Brussels, Paris or London at this time then I suppose you would almost certainly see the (obviously very real) threat of extreme ISIS inspired terrorism as your primary security concern. On the other hand if you are a Muslim living in the remains of Srebrenica then you could be forgiven for looking upon your "Christian" neighbours with a equal sense of dread. Ultimately your (and others) attempt on here to blame religion for the behaviour of fanatics is about as convincing as those criminals who blame their childhood for their subsequent criminality and put that forward in a attempt to avoid any personal responsibility for their actions. All religious texts are open to interpritation of course, but surely no reasonable person would conclude that Jesus Christ was somehow responsible for the Srebrenica atrocity. Neither do the teachings of the Prophet Muhammed justify what we saw in Brussels for that matter - the central message of the Christian faith is in fact one of forgiveness and compassion while (I understand) the Qur'an specifically forbids the murder of women and children. So you could well argue that those who commit these terrible crimes are as much the perverters of religion as it adherants - more sacriligious than religious. It seems to me that on a deeper level the real "driver" behind terrorism has rather more to do with the percieved injustices of the modern world, and the huge gulf that exists between those regions that have prospered and those that have not, rather than scripture.

Well Wes, being a helpful type and knowing how determined you are to seek the truth I'll grant you another opportunity to comment on how you think your man performed before a house committee in parliment last week: Boris Johnson v Andrew Tyrie on EU coffin and lorry claims - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35887003 For those who have yet to see this, first off on this so called "eurocoffin" nonsense Boris appears to confuse what was an obscure Council of Europe matter with the EU - two quite separate organisations by the way. Undeterred by this characteristic blunder, your man then goes on to complain that the EU is apparently blocking his efforts to introduce new style lorry cabs that he - in his expert opinion - feels might improve road safty. When it is pointed out to him that such decisions MUST be agreed to at EU level (the Mayor of London banning trucks he doesn't approve of would cause chaos and represent a serious restraint of trade) Boris blames Swedish and French instransigence - only to be informed that the Swedes have nothing to do with it! He also then goes on to ignore the obvious point here that it is only via the form of international regulation offered by transborder organisations (such as the EU for example) that the improvements he is arguing for might be widely introduced - i.e. if we left the EU we would have next to no influence on international vehicle design. I'll be generous and rate that as a 3 out of 10 performance - which is about two more methinks than he earned when Andrew Marr grilled him the other week.

The Human abilty to comprehend lanaguge - both the actual words people write or say and then that which they wish to imply "between the lines" as it were - is indeed key to all successful communication. With that in mind, I take it that you will have little trouble detecting the racist (or at least islamaphobic) intend behind post #2344 for example.

You imagine that the prospect of a long stretch in one of our prisons would represent some kind of trivial inconvenience?

I have grown up watching F1. I don't think there is a single Grand Prix that has taken place since the glory days of the Hunt and Lauda era that I haven't seen broadcasted free, live to air, if at all possible. Yes I am one of those sad types who would wake themselves up at some God forsaken hour of the night to watch the BBC show a race live that was taking place on the other side of the world. Delayed broadcast races are very much 'second best' as far as I am concerned and edited highlight packages hardly worth watching. But now it seems that future generations of motorsport fans - or rather those who are too poor to afford pay TV - will be denied that opportunity to immerse themselves in the sport thanks to Bernie Ecclestone and his relentless determination to extract every last drop of financial blood from the sport. How this man (that's face it a crook who would have fitted in well in Blatter's FIFA) is still in a position of such power is both astonishing and disgraceful. The UK is obviously just one (small) TV market amongst many. However, for a sport that is already suffering from falling audience numbers and declining levels of interest, denying many fans the opportunity to see the sport they still adore live can only make a bad situation even worse.

It's good that a man should have a ambition, but I fear you may have set your sights rather high here ...

But there is no need for anyone to "make things up" about the nature of your contributions to this thread because they are a matter of record now and there for all to see. You might also research the subtle difference that exists between a thing being clearly stated and then something that is clearly implied. The very fact that you have opted to question whether Muslims have made any worthwhile contribution to European society is indicative that you don't see the members of this societal group as a collection of many millions of induviduals, each just as capable of good and evil as any other, but rather as some kind of collective mass. In other words a; "they're all the same" type mentality. Now, to save you the trouble, I know that your (only) defence will be to argue that as Muslims are not a 'race' - as the term is commonly understood - so your rampant Islamophobia cannot be definded as true racism then? The problem there is that if Muslims are not a race, than which group is? Some people might immediately point to Black people, and say, “that is definitely a race, look at their skin color.” But, to be exact, Black people are not a race either. Neither, for that matter, are White people. Okay, now you might wonder about Jewish people? Certainly they are a race, right? Science proves they, like White and Blacks, are not a race either. Racism is not really about about the dubious concept of 'race' but culture. People are "othered" and discriminated against not simply because of the colour of their skin but because of the assumed beliefs and practices associated with some “imagined culture.” Whether you are capable of comprehending the point here or not, the evidence does show I think that you fit into this "culteral racist" pattern very snugly.

Considering the fact that many of these these immigrants are still only first or second generation citizens here, then the scale of their contribution seems a highly respectable one a I think. I would also expect to see the contributon Muslims make to our economy to increase further over time.

It is not what others say, but rather your own posts that condemn you as a racist. Of course no one can prove what our society would be like today without immigratation because the point is entirely speculative/hypothetical one and therefore lacking in any evidential basis. You can suppose this and suppose that, but it can never be proved objectively. As for your asinine claim that we "allowed" Muslim immigratation into Europe, anyone with even a smattering of real historical knowledge should know that Muslims have in fact been living here in Europe for centuries - mostly as a result of the colonial past of France and Great Britian rather than any connection to current EU policy. In fact immigration from the sub-continent, and other areas of the Commonwealth, was positivily encourged in post war Britain because we required a ready supply of cheap labour at the time. Think of all those stereotype Pakistani shopkeepers if you will ... who by the way most certainly did contribute to British society. You might also consider the Balkens and how Muslims in Bosnia were treated by those describing themselves as "Christians" from Serbia and then come back on here and imply that the followers of Islam hold some monopoly on terror.

So the forum will see then that basically there is NO actual evidence that can be presented to you that you would consider to be satisfactory. I must inform you now that normal Human behaviour when asking questions is to elicit a reply. You on the other hand seem to ask questions that you would really rather not have answered for some reason. Surely there must be some Klan or National Front forum that will have you because you are making a complete arse of yourself on here.

Explain the above post as it makes no sense.

Did you even bother to read the link provided?

Well I think your recent contributions to this thread do ammount to hard evidence of a innately racist attitude - I see that I'm not the only person on here to come to that conclusion. But if you still want to imply that British Muslims (4.5% of our population) make little or no positive contribution to society then you can address the evidence provided in this link: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/29/uk-muslims-economy_n_4170781.html I awaite your reply with interest.

The record shows that your little question has recieved a number of pretty conclusive replies. Your problem - apart from being a racist that is - is that you don't happen to like the answers you have received.

I make nothing up - there's no need to when the truth is so very obvious. The record shows that many British Muslims today can trace their roots here back to the post war period when our economy required a supply of cheap labour from the Commonwealth to exploit. That is not exactly ancient history is it? Before that, Muslim man power was required to fight for this nation during both WWI and II - as a ex serviceman you should know that already. Therefore, it is clearly idiotic to suggest that Muslims have made no worthwhile contribution to our society because the record does not support any such assertion.

Where do you want to start? I suppose if you really do seek the truth then the 11th century would be a good place to go because there you would learn of the profound role Islamic science and learning played in laying the foundation stones for the later Renaissance period in Europe. If that is going back too far for your tastes - as I suspect - then how about all the Muslim soldiers who fought and died for this country (and France by the way) in both the first and second world wars? When you swatted up on those two subjects come back and I'll soon find you some more homework to do.

I'm more than happy to answer your question. My - very white Anglo-Saxon English - nephew has married a lovely Muslim girl of Pakistani origin and they are together now bringing up two beautiful young children. I do realise of course that the happiness of one little family may not ammount to a great deal in the grand sheme of things, but this nation's future will increasingly be a multi cultural one I think - whether you happen to approve of that or not. If you understood the first thing about this naton's long history then you would also know that was equally true of our past.

Before we get into full "bomb the bastards mode" here I will point out that the two fanatics who murdered poor Lee Rigby were born in the UK, never fought with ISIS and needed to cross no international border in order to commit their appalling crime.

Boris Johnson - rather amusingly I think - caught out telling silly lies about the EU: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson/12202541/EU-referendum-Boris-Johnson-and-the-mystery-of-the-missing-tea-bags.html

Is it the Hoovers then?

I have predicted on here before that the era when our police can routinely go about their work unarmed is drawing to a close. I stand by that. But to illustrate the scale of the problem, there are apparently 366 passenger train stations in and around the London area. Our capital city also boasts some 6,800 buses operating over 700 routes and let's not even bother to count the number of supermarkets and cinemas etc. If we were to set up security check points at the entrance to every airport, then it may well be that those queuing outside might become the target rather than passengers on the inside. So a problem moved rather than solved then. If we somehow were to turn our capital city into a veritable fortress, then what is to stop terrorists from simply shifting their aim to the regions where security can never be so tight? We have little choice but to do the best that we can of course, but security is perhaps a illusion we sell to ourselves in order to make our day seem less scary than it really is.

I guess he is still upset about the lightbulbs.

If you really want to debate the thorny problem of predicting our econmic future, then surely the best place to start from is the known ground of where we now stand in the EU, rather than this unknowable future on our lonesome you are arguing for. The record shows that we have been relativly successful economically in the EU for some time now. Indeed, it seems that the UK has at long last found something of a 'sweet spot' - i.e. inside the EU but outside of the single currancy - where it may well prosper for generations to come. Our economy is far from perfect of course and has problems that require urgent action, principly surrounding our public finances and poor productivity record. However, we do now have record high levels of employment, decreasing unemployment, a growth rate that is the envey of many other states and remarkably low inflation too. So hardly a picture of some EU sponsered hell hole that we must escape at all costs is it? It is simply not true to equate the risks of our staying within the EU with the risks of leaving because the two situations are far from analogous. For example, we can predict with some degree of confidence the trading environment our economy will face within the EU in the decades to come, while outside no one can say what would happen because there is simply no relevant precedent to base a judgment on. A leap of faith. Why on earth any responsible person would want to risk what we have now for the "pocket full of promises" on offer from europhobes such as yourself remains something of a mystery to this observer of events.

You seem to be struggling to comprehend what is I think eminently straightforward and reasonable point. So I'll try again to explain it to you in as simple a way as I can. No one - neither you nor me - can possibly PROVE what would have occured in our economy had we never joined, or indeed have exited, the EU at some point in the unspecified past. The (rather obvious) reason that cannot be proved is that the proposition is an entirly hypothetical one at this time. What we do know for a hard FACT that our economy has performed relatively well within the EU. So we have that factual record of relative economic success in the EU pitted against a Britex hypothesis that we could somehow do even better on our own for some reason. If you don't like my trial analogy then I'll try a scientific one one and see if you like that more. Before any hypothesis can become excepted then those proposing it have to show why it is correct. The 'Stay' campaign does not have to prove how our economy has actually performed within the single market because that is a matter ot record anyone can check for themselves - so not at all your "wild speculaton" then. The Britex campaign on the other hand do have to show to the British people why we would do better outside of the EU, and its huge single market, because that - unlike the opposit case - remains a highly speculative argument. That persuasive case has yet to be presented by the Britex campaign in my opinion. Now I'm prepared to go over these same points with you from now to kingdom come if you like. However, one suspects that is unlikely to be a very profitable use of time for either of us because we are clearly never going to agree.