One for those who say I only post from The Daily Mail

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.newstatesm...on-clegg-muslim-blair

Would we have been better off by having a Tory/Labour coalition, taking into account their "hardline approach to tackling Islamist extremism"?

This approach, if it comes to fruition has "quashed Nick Clegg's argument for a more tolerant attitude to Muslim groups".

But it would seem it is a pity that Blair did not implement these measures when he was in power.

Alright just to keep you happy, you would not find these fact in the Guardian, now would you?

http://www.dailymail....rs-admit-I-right.html

[Answerprancer]

We all know you shove in a few token anger headlines from other publications when you feel the need arises.
I think you probably *would* find stories like this in the Guardian. "Hand wringing" or otherwise, I think you'll find it is less biased and definitely less manipulative than some publications.

[Bobbisox]

AOG I don't see why you should have to keep anyone happy, this is News and you are entitled to an opinion.
I never like Tony Blair when he was in office and he seems to slither in and out of situations, I have yet to see him apologize for the Iraq war through the two inquiries they had, so to answer your OP, I doubt he would of then but it suits him to make such comments now

[mike11111]

Come one AP, fair's fair. The DM has its agenda and so has the Guardian. Each are equally biased and manipulative in their own way. I'm still waiting for the day when the Daily Mirror advises its readers to vote Tory.

[emmie]

Blair has largely got us into this mess, and as someone else had posted a similar question, i suggested he should stand trial for war crimes, it won't happen of course, but the less we see of his smirking face the better.

[anotheoldgit]

Any comments on Melanie Philips's excellent column?

And I repeat 'you would not find these fact in the Guardian, now would you'?

[Answerprancer]

Sorry, what was that Mike ? I was too busy TRAINSPOTTING ! (harrumph)

[Zeuhl]

<<you would not find these fact in the Guardian, now would you? >>

Like most columns in The Daily Mail this is extremely short of facts.

Mainly, it condemns organisations that have received some government money because of momentary association with individuals whose beliefs are at worst questionable.

For example, giving money to a Muslim debating society in order to engage with people, it is hardly surprising that they might invite someone with extreme views to take part in one of those debates - by definition, if it was a debate then there will have been conflicting views put forward also.

Anyone who expects Melanie Phillips to put forward a reasonable and rational view on muslims is a fool. The woman is an hysterical Zionist who once famously accused Will Self (also jewish) of being 'anti semitic' because he dared to criticise an aspect of Israeli policy.
.

[mike11111]

Did you have your station master's hat on at the time?

[emmie]

AOG i have, she was castigated for her book, and the articles she has written since , but has been proved right in most respects. There is so much hand wringing over race, religion in this country now.

[emmie]

If there were balanced debates, for example if Muslim extremists are allowed to put their views, and they have, on mainstream TV, radio, and in newspapers, then surely the same accord should be given to others who hold opposing views, such as the BNP and EDL, also the likes of Geert Wilders who was initially banned from entering Britain. I believe he did put his case to a selection of MP's at some later stage but very little was in the papers about it.

[Zeuhl]

Thanks Old Git for posting this excellent example of why The Daily Mail is so despicable.

Melanie Phillips opening para states that

<<Govt Ministers now tellus>> but provides no evidence or source references for these alleged announcements

that <<hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money that was supposed to be spent on countering Islamic extremism has gone to groups or individuals actually promoting Islamic extremism.>>

The examples then given show nothing of the sort. Generally, the groups cited (who might have been doing lots to counter extremism - we're not told about that) had some flimsy association with some individuals with questionable views.

The Muslim Council is always vocal in its condemnation of terrorism but not a big fan of Israel - so no surprise then that Ms Phillips has an axe to grind there.

Not honest. Not journalism. Propoganda. And despicable .
.

[Answerprancer]

I think it's very telling that staunch DM readers are so protective of their daily anger fix.
It's a publication written BY the intolerant FOR the intolerant IMO.

[emmie]

Ap
i see very little tolerance on this site, people sniping at one another, after all you do not seem particularly tolerant yourself, of people who read the mail, nor Zuele who said the same, and in another post slammed the Archbishop of Canterbury for being a fraud and wearing a silly costume, very balanced i must say.

[Zeuhl]

<<slammed the Archbishop of Canterbury for being a fraud and wearing a silly costume, very balanced i must say.>>

There is a difference you know between tolerance and balnce.

I am tolerant of the AofC. Mostly I leave him to carry on with whatever he does. However, when asked for my opinions on his political declarations I see no reason why my views should be balanced.

He is the leader of a large enterprise in the Christian church; and as such propogates nonsense ideas and dangerous delusions among the gullible and deluded.

I did not accuse him of being a fraud as you state. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that he actually believes he can communicate with supernatural beings.

But yes, he does wear silly costumes. Even Elvis - if he was resurrected from the dead - and wore the AoC's get-up in concert, would be laughed off stage; and he wasn't known for his dress sense let's face it.
.

[emmie]

your words
Zeuhl
Someone in his line of work is already either deranged or a fraud.

And he wears silly costumes.

So why should his views on anything be given any credence?

[Zeuhl]

Yes em .... Let me explain

<<deranged OR a fraud>>

If he believes in the religious mumbo-jumbo he spouts he is deranged

If, like a good many clerics, he doesn't believe in it then he is a fraud.

As I stated above, I am prepered to give him the benefit of th e doubt and assume he does believe in the fairy stories.

OK?
.

[emmie]

I don't care about the Archbishop, i think he is an old duffer who shouldn't meddle, i have no religious leanings whatsoever, having come to the conclusion long ago that its all nonsense. But that's not to say i haven't read the bible, or been to church and tried to understand what its all about.

[anotheoldgit]

Zeuhl

/// and as such propogates (propagates, even) nonsense ideas and dangerous delusions among the gullible and deluded. ///

Are you quite aware that his ideas and dangerous delusions, are fostered from his 'Labour' leanings?

[Answerprancer]

Em - I only react when DM readers thrust their intolerance in my face as they often do here. I have yet to see readers of other publications publish their views so rabidy here.
As for "sniping" and intolerance generally, it looks as though you might be focussing too much on this and ignoring other posts - it's not ALL bad, infact I believe most posts here are interesting informative and friendly.

[Zeuhl]

Fair does em.

I agree with you. That's why I won't be balanced about someone who makes a living from either propogating 'nonsense' (as you rightly say) or is cynically peddling what he knows to be 'nonsense' because people will buy it.

He has a seat in the House of Lords for goodness sake, and the CofE is still a privileged organisation within our society with assumptions made that we are a 'Christian Country' when most of us are not practising christians at all.
.