Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Imreoir2

Anteayer wrote: »

Well he's claimed to be anyway in the sense that even at that age he didn't have much English.

There are older people in the Gaeltacht who don't have great English today.

I am not disputing the wider point you were making, just pointing out that sweeping statements like "There are no monolingual Irish speakers" are usually wrong.

From an EU perspective we should be declaring Ireland bilingual officially at EU level.

This is unnecessary, the only way English stops being an official language of the EU is if all EU member states decide to remove official status from English. I don't see this happening any time soon, and if it were to happen then Ireland could veto it regardless of English being declared an official language of Ireland within the EU or not.

Enzokk

briany wrote: »

I would argue that Mair's actions point to a fairly dark psyche because, in the case of the speeder, irrationality can be brought about by a sudden and frightening scenario that you're not psychologically prepared to deal with. In the case of burglars, their irrationality can be brought about by poor upbringing and drug abuse which clouds their judgement.

Thomas Mair obviously planned his attack to some extent. It's not that he was just out on a routine walk with his knife and shotgun and had a moment of irrationality. I'm not saying he was insane - after all, plenty of serial killers are not found to be insane, but that doesn't mean they're well-adjusted either.

Sure, for me his actions also shout out that he was insane. But I am not qualified to make that assessment so my personal opinion is not worth much. The argument that I have seen recently is that he has a mental illness and the UK State has deliberately hid this from the jury during his trial. That is where I am commenting on it from, if it is just a coincidence that you are commenting on it at the same time then I hope you are not seeing it as me taking on your point of view.

Here is a link to his sentencing from the judge, where the Judge remarked that he researched all aspects of this crime. He researched the weapon he bought, he researched his victim and he planned an escape as well. I would say even if he has some mental illness, that amount of planning does not scream out someone that is not aware of what he is doing and aware of the impact.

Thomas Mair

Sentencing Remarks of Mr Justice Wilkie

jochenstacker

briany wrote: »

The guy who killed Jo Cox had a history of mental illness. I would certainly put his murderous tendencies more down to that than his Brexit beliefs, in the same way I would say Mark Chapman's decision to kill John Lennon was driven much more by his mental illness than reading Catcher in the Rye. It's important to delineate fringe groups and individuals from the mainstream because it's usually taken as an insult and furthers division. If somebody goes out and kills Jacob Rees Mogg, shouting "The future is Europe", we'd all be quick to dismiss the guy as a fringe lunatic.

"History of mental illness" always gets wheeled out when the assailant is native, white and Christian. Had he been a darker skinned Muslim, I'm sure people would have an entirely different viewpoint of his deed, "...all Muslims are... religion of peace... terrorists... they're all the same...".
Thomas Alexander Mair is the result of right wing rhetoric and propaganda and brainwashing by the English media, he may be nuts, but he's the ultimate result of a climate of fear and hate that has been stoked for decades.

Peregrinus

jochenstacker wrote: »

"History of mental illness" always gets wheeled out when the assailant is native, white and Christian. Had he been a darker skinned Muslim, I'm sure people would have an entirely different viewpoint of his deed, "...all Muslims are... religion of peace... terrorists... they're all the same...".
Thomas Alexander Mair is the result of right wing rhetoric and propaganda and brainwashing by the English media, he may be nuts, but he's the ultimate result of a climate of fear and hate that has been stoked for decades.

This.

There's no evidence at all that Mair's crime was the result of mental illness. It may or may not be true that Mair had a history of poor mental health, but poor mental health does not make you a murderer. Mair's crime was motivated by fear, hate, bigotry and fascism. None of these are mental illnesses.

McGiver

I've had a listen to Brexitcast for the first time and probably the last! I didn't know this podcast is actually Laura and Katya talking over each other. If I knew it I wouldn't listen to it. It's probably as accurate as their tweets.

I'm not sure if I'm the only one thinking this but they sound to me as a) slightly to moderately delusional, b) slightly arrogant/exceptionalist and c) mostly speculative. They don't seem to understand how the EU works despite actually spending time in Brussels, shocking journalism given they are BBC.

They described the last weeks summit result as a fudge which to me means they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject. European Council decides by unanimity and the only way to reach a conclusion in this system is to compromise. The word compromise has a generally a positive connotation, whilst the word fudge is pejorative. Do these English folk really think that a compromise equals a fudge? Is compromise considered something wrong in the English psyche and culture?

Furthermore, they basically suggested that the Germans and the French control the EU and the evidence of that is that Macron wanted a short extension and Merkel wanted a long one so they met in the middle. Just failed to notice that there were 25 other countries with range of opinions falling from harder than France up to the German position, so surprise surprise the compromise of 31 October is something everyone can generally accept. This is such a poor understanding of the situation and dynamics combined with basically making stuff up and perpetrating myths (all that for taxpayer's money).

Millions of people are motivated by fear, hate, bigotry and fascism.

Peregrinus, this is the first time I've disagreed with one of your posts. I may be lacking information about this guy, but a psycho is a psycho. Normal people don't go to those lengths based on abstract beliefs... To shoot and stab someone requires that that murderous tendency is a part of you.

I have this opinion regarding almost all killings.. Broken people latching onto something that makes themselves feel accepted and normal, and then they actually do something insane. I think they come to the cause; I don't think the cause creates them.

This thread is not the place for this discussion so a mod can delete this and I won't object.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Millions of people are motivated by fear, hate, bigotry and fascism.

Peregrinus, this is the first time I've disagreed with one of your posts. I may be lacking information about this guy, but a psycho is a psycho. Normal people don't go to those lengths based on abstract beliefs... To shoot and stab someone requires that that murderous tendency is a part of you.

I have this opinion regarding almost all killings.. Broken people latching onto something that makes themselves feel accepted and normal, and then they actually do something insane. I think they come to the cause; I don't think the cause creates them.

This thread is not the place for this discussion so a mod can delete this and I won't object.

Your opening line states that millions of people are motivated by fear hate and bigotry.

So you actually ironically disagreed with yourself


All in one post.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Your opening line states that millions of people are motivated by fear hate and bigotry.

So you actually ironically disagreed with yourself


All in one post.

My point was a general one; That the actual people who commit horrendous acts are born that way but latch onto some cause along the way.

I don't think I disagreed with myself at all.

is_that_so

McGiver wrote: »

I've had a listen to Brexitcast for the first time and probably the last! I didn't know this podcast is actually Laura and Katya talking over each other. If I knew it I wouldn't listen to it. It's probably as accurate as their tweets.

I'm not sure if I'm the only one thinking this but they sound to me as a) slightly to moderately delusional, b) slightly arrogant/exceptionalist and c) mostly speculative. They don't seem to understand how the EU works despite actually spending time in Brussels, shocking journalism given they are BBC.

They described the last weeks summit result as a fudge which to me means they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject. European Council decides by unanimity and the only way to reach a conclusion in this system is to compromise. The word compromise has a generally a positive connotation, whilst the word fudge is pejorative. Do these English folk really think that a compromise equals a fudge? Is compromise considered something wrong in the English psyche and culture?

Furthermore, they basically suggested that the Germans and the French control the EU and the evidence of that is that Macron wanted a short extension and Merkel wanted a long one so they met in the middle. Just failed to notice that there were 25 other countries with range of opinions falling from harder than France up to the German position, so surprise surprise the compromise of 31 October is something everyone can generally accept. This is such a poor understanding of the situation and dynamics combined with basically making stuff up and perpetrating myths (all that for taxpayer's money).

Fudge is how the EU functions. It's the only way it can reach agreements with so many disparate voices. Britain has always been a reluctant European at best. Even with the Common Market it was more about goods than ideals.

Tell me how

McGiver wrote: »

I've had a listen to Brexitcast for the first time and probably the last! I didn't know this podcast is actually Laura and Katya talking over each other. If I knew it I wouldn't listen to it. It's probably as accurate as their tweets.

I'm not sure if I'm the only one thinking this but they sound to me as a) slightly to moderately delusional, b) slightly arrogant/exceptionalist and c) mostly speculative. They don't seem to understand how the EU works despite actually spending time in Brussels, shocking journalism given they are BBC.

They described the last weeks summit result as a fudge which to me means they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject. European Council decides by unanimity and the only way to reach a conclusion in this system is to compromise. The word compromise has a generally a positive connotation, whilst the word fudge is pejorative. Do these English folk really think that a compromise equals a fudge? Is compromise considered something wrong in the English psyche and culture?

Furthermore, they basically suggested that the Germans and the French control the EU and the evidence of that is that Macron wanted a short extension and Merkel wanted a long one so they met in the middle. Just failed to notice that there were 25 other countries with range of opinions falling from harder than France up to the German position, so surprise surprise the compromise of 31 October is something everyone can generally accept. This is such a poor understanding of the situation and dynamics combined with basically making stuff up and perpetrating myths (all that for taxpayer's money).

I've listened to Brexitcast pretty much since its origin and have been fascinated by the expression of opinions which when you consider the Media organisation which they work for, you actually see how a narrative is reported which is largely influenced by those that do the reporting.

I always found Katya more pro-UK in her reporting on EU issues than Laura who seems to get accused more readily from both sides of being biased (usually a sign you are doing something right).
I always found the show had the air of "we know exactly what is going on and the Europeans just haven't figured it out yet", it always has a jocular tone and when Tony Connelly was on it once they introduced him as also having a Brexit focused podcast and he gave them some platitude about how his was only a pale shadow of a podcast in comparison to theirs and they all lapped it up.

This was ironic when Chris Mason was on BBC News talking about "who knows what is going to happen today, I haven't a clue" while Tony Connelly was on RTE (and Twitter) breaking a key story on Brexit.

Enzokk

McGiver wrote: »

I've had a listen to Brexitcast for the first time and probably the last! I didn't know this podcast is actually Laura and Katya talking over each other. If I knew it I wouldn't listen to it. It's probably as accurate as their tweets.

I'm not sure if I'm the only one thinking this but they sound to me as a) slightly to moderately delusional, b) slightly arrogant/exceptionalist and c) mostly speculative. They don't seem to understand how the EU works despite actually spending time in Brussels, shocking journalism given they are BBC.

They described the last weeks summit result as a fudge which to me means they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject. European Council decides by unanimity and the only way to reach a conclusion in this system is to compromise. The word compromise has a generally a positive connotation, whilst the word fudge is pejorative. Do these English folk really think that a compromise equals a fudge? Is compromise considered something wrong in the English psyche and culture?

Furthermore, they basically suggested that the Germans and the French control the EU and the evidence of that is that Macron wanted a short extension and Merkel wanted a long one so they met in the middle. Just failed to notice that there were 25 other countries with range of opinions falling from harder than France up to the German position, so surprise surprise the compromise of 31 October is something everyone can generally accept. This is such a poor understanding of the situation and dynamics combined with basically making stuff up and perpetrating myths (all that for taxpayer's money).

I agree with your post. Brexitcast seems like time for BBC journalists to debrief among themselves and to in some way hear the echo chamber a bit. They were saying for a long time that the EU would compromise at the last minute. This was said way before any of the recent deadlines and I feel they are a major contributor to this narrative you see with some MPs. In hindsight, what has the EU compromised on that you would have said is not in their interest? An all UK customs union instead of just NI? Some terrible compromise that for all EU countries, where they get to have less hassles with goods going to the UK. The UK really took it to the EU there.

What about the money? May said that they wanted £100b but this seems just wrong to me. It was never about an amount but by acknowledging what you committed to and paying for that. If they are kept in the EU through a series of delays then this may go down, however it could go up as well if the UK participates in the discussions on new budgets and they commit money to that. So there was no amount to begin with so neither side can claim victory. On citizens rights? Well both have guaranteed but it probably has taken longer than it should have. So was that a compromise?

Then I also agree with your assessment regarding the fudge and compromise. I see a fudge as a way to sell a agreement and you compromise to get to an agreement.

CelticRambler

Sinn Féin abstentionism; the politics of France and the French; the Irish language; hate crime and mental health ... Are we going to have a threadful of tangents from now until a week before Oct 31st?

Well, without trying to drag things back to Brexit, I had the opportunity to test Eurotunnel's new "frictionless" border last week. Now bearing in mind that I was travelling as a regular Joe (rather than a freight haulier) and some of the frictionlessness may have been hidden from me, but also remembering that GB is still part of the EU and I supposedly benefit from the Four Freedoms: crossing the frontier on this occasion was the most intensive and intrusive interrogation that I've had in 25 years of using that route.

Despite being a registered "frequent traveller" using the same vehicle for 15 years, as well as my own identiy documents, I was also asked to produce the vehicle's documents and answer questions about when/where I bought it, where I'd travelled from that day, where I was going, why I was going, when I was coming back, what I was bringing with me (with particular interest in alcohol and tobacco) and who I was bringing with me (or not). Then there was the "step out of the vehicle" exercise where I was taken down one walkway while my worldly possessions went off down another to be sniffed, scanned, x-rayed and whatever, before we were re-united on the far side of a gate and sent off to the next control point.

That was travelling from France to the UK, and altogether took about 20-25 minutes. Seeing as the check-in guidelines have been modified to allow an extra 20-25 minutes compared to how it used to be, I don't think my experience was exceptional.

On the other hand, coming back to France, 10 minutes from check-in to "boarding gate" with no sign of anyone or anything checking for chlorinated chicken or tarif-free car-parts, or indeed any way to declare them (definitely no "orange lane" for non commercial vehicles). I know that the French use customs flying-squads well away from their border zones, but I am sceptical that Eurotunnel are as ready for a hard no-deal Brexit as recently claimed.

Sam Russell

McGiver wrote: »

They described the last weeks summit result as a fudge which to me means they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject. European Council decides by unanimity and the only way to reach a conclusion in this system is to compromise. The word compromise has a generally a positive connotation, whilst the word fudge is pejorative. Do these English folk really think that a compromise equals a fudge? Is compromise considered something wrong in the English psyche and culture?

The difference between a compromise and a fudge can be described as follows.

Husband and wife want a pet. Husband wants dog, but wife wants a cat.

They compromise. They get a cat.

They agree to a fudge. They do not get a pet at all, but will think about it.

A compromise is for both sides to agree a middle position they can both accept.

A fudge is where they both agree to what sounds like the same thing but is definitely not, and will need to dealt with later, when it gets more pressing.

Anteayer

CelticRambler wrote: »

Sinn Féin abstentionism; the politics of France and the French; the Irish language; hate crime and mental health ... Are we going to have a threadful of tangents from now until a week before Oct 31st?

Well, without trying to drag things back to Brexit, I had the opportunity to test Eurotunnel's new "frictionless" border last week. Now bearing in mind that I was travelling as a regular Joe (rather than a freight haulier) and some of the frictionlessness may have been hidden from me, but also remembering that GB is still part of the EU and I supposedly benefit from the Four Freedoms: crossing the frontier on this occasion was the most intensive and intrusive interrogation that I've had in 25 years of using that route.

Despite being a registered "frequent traveller" using the same vehicle for 15 years, as well as my own identiy documents, I was also asked to produce the vehicle's documents and answer questions about when/where I bought it, where I'd travelled from that day, where I was going, why I was going, when I was coming back, what I was bringing with me (with particular interest in alcohol and tobacco) and who I was bringing with me (or not). Then there was the "step out of the vehicle" exercise where I was taken down one walkway while my worldly possessions went off down another to be sniffed, scanned, x-rayed and whatever, before we were re-united on the far side of a gate and sent off to the next control point.

That was travelling from France to the UK, and altogether took about 20-25 minutes. Seeing as the check-in guidelines have been modified to allow an extra 20-25 minutes compared to how it used to be, I don't think my experience was exceptional.

On the other hand, coming back to France, 10 minutes from check-in to "boarding gate" with no sign of anyone or anything checking for chlorinated chicken or tarif-free car-parts, or indeed any way to declare them (definitely no "orange lane" for non commercial vehicles). I know that the French use customs flying-squads well away from their border zones, but I am sceptical that Eurotunnel are as ready for a hard no-deal Brexit as recently claimed.

Unfortunately some of that is also stemming from the "hostile environment" mentality where they're pushing to the limit of what's legal.

I would be very concerned that even if the UK remains in the EU or a customs union, if the current political drivers continue it will just breech all of the agreements anyway by implementing things with xenophobic fervour, while the same won't apply the other direction.

The Home Office seems to have made a lot of "mistakes" including sending threatening deportation letters to EU nationals and so on. The whole approach is to deliberately make life unpleasant at borders and for people who are legitimately in the UK and to turn layers of public service and even citizens into immigration officers by making all sorts of mandatory requirement to report.

It's like the current government is literally trying to socially engineer a more xenophobic society.

Sam Russell

Anteayer wrote: »

It's like the current government is literally trying to socially engineer a more xenophobic society.

A few years ago, while Home Secretary, at the party conference, TM referred to the Tory Party as the Nasty Party. How right she was.

BarryD2

CelticRambler wrote: »

Sinn Féin abstentionism; the politics of France and the French; the Irish language; hate crime and mental health ... Are we going to have a threadful of tangents from now until a week before Oct 31st?

Well, without trying to drag things back to Brexit.....

But the above tangents are all related to Brexit, it has and will have many implications.

Recommend listening back to farming programme on RTE1 radio this morning. There was a segment from farmers around border area and there were lads from Armagh who were rightly browned off, felt voiceless and unrepresented as regards Brexit and generally in NI. There's a real & deep problem there, no point in sticking the head in the sand.

Leroy42

So they need to start changing their voting habits, instead of blaming others.

Unlike Brexit which had no real definition, a vote for SF brings one certainty. No seat in HoC. A vote for DUP is a vote for a very narrow, union before everything, stance.

Until the voters in NI start to base their votes and a wider perspective rather than tribal politics those farmers have no one to blame but themselves.

charlie14

Leroy42 wrote: »

So they need to start changing their voting habits, instead of blaming others.

Unlike Brexit which had no real definition, a vote for SF brings one certainty. No seat in HoC. A vote for DUP is a vote for a very narrow, union before everything, stance.

Until the voters in NI start to base their votes and a wider perspective rather than tribal politics those farmers have no one to blame but themselves.

Don`t get me wrong, I do get your point and within an even semi-normal democratic system voters from whatever faction would recognise what is in their common interest and vote accordingly.

From the NI Brexit referendum result I actually had the first glimmer of hope that this was at last being recognised. That hope went the way of morning mist shortly afterwards with the NI result in the UK parliamentary elections where the UUP who supported remain were virtually wiped out by the DUP.
NI is made up of in the main two tribes. One unionist that sees itself as British and one nationalist that sees itself as Irish, and while there may on the rare occasion be a broader issue like Brexit that can get the backing of the majority, other than that it is a case of both tribes reverting to their political stalemate fallback positions.

If there is ever going to be a situation in NI where voters can look outside this tribal mentality and vote for someone who represents their common goals, then it is going to have to start at local level. For me at least, the only hope I have of that ever having at least a hope of happening is through a fully functioning NI Assembly.

Charles Babbage

Leroy42 wrote: »

So they need to start changing their voting habits, instead of blaming others.

Unlike Brexit which had no real definition, a vote for SF brings one certainty. No seat in HoC. A vote for DUP is a vote for a very narrow, union before everything, stance.

Until the voters in NI start to base their votes and a wider perspective rather than tribal politics those farmers have no one to blame but themselves.

This is complete nonsense, NI will be ignored by the English whoever they vote for.

As for who the farmers should blame, perhaps those who left them in a colony.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

So they need to start changing their voting habits, instead of blaming others.

Unlike Brexit which had no real definition, a vote for SF brings one certainty. No seat in HoC. A vote for DUP is a vote for a very narrow, union before everything, stance.

Until the voters in NI start to base their votes and a wider perspective rather than tribal politics those farmers have no one to blame but themselves.

I doubt even if SF or another republican party won the seats and took them up we would have been in a different place though. We were always going to end up here with May as PM looking after Conservative interests first and foremost and having to rely on the DUP. That is the biggest problem right now and why the UK is stuck. It is a parliament arithmetic problem and SF taking up their seats doesn't solve it.

Leroy42

So the answer to be ignored is to vote for one of two competing ideologies with little care for the wider impact?

Why should HoC care when clearly the voters in the main appear to base their vote on tribal considerations rather than a wider or more complex set?

Will the HoC massively increasing spending in NI net that government anything by way of electoral gain? No. So it's a waste to even try.

So it's up to the voters to show they actually care.

Charles Babbage

Leroy42 wrote: »

So the answer to be ignored is to vote for one of two competing ideologies with little care for the wider impact?

Why should HoC care when clearly the voters in the main appear to base their vote on tribal considerations rather than a wider or more complex set?

Will the HoC massively increasing spending in NI net that government anything by way of electoral gain? No. So it's a waste to even try.

So it's up to the voters to show they actually care.

It isn't the business of people in South Armagh to regulate the government of England, which is another country. It is their business to elect political representatives that will get ensure that England will not be able to regulate Armagh's affairs in the future, and both SF and DUP are doing that at present.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

So the answer to be ignored is to vote for one of two competing ideologies with little care for the wider impact?

Why should HoC care when clearly the voters in the main appear to base their vote on tribal considerations rather than a wider or more complex set?

Will the HoC massively increasing spending in NI net that government anything by way of electoral gain? No. So it's a waste to even try.

So it's up to the voters to show they actually care.

I think it doesn't matter what they did they would have been ignored. That is the way of UK politics if you aren't from Labour or the Conservatives. You are sometimes dealing with short term politics from parties that have a long term view.

Case in point, TIG voting against all options in the indicative votes that would mean Brexit. Short term they have increased the likelihood of no-deal (since abated somewhat) but long term for voters they are not supporting Brexit in any form. We may not like it and it backfires spectacularly sometimes, but that is the way it is.

Phoebas

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This is complete nonsense, NI will be ignored by the English whoever they vote for.

I don't think anyone could argue that NI is being ignored right now. The DUP have tremendous influence.

Tell me how

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't think anyone could argue that NI is being ignored right now. The DUP have tremendous influence.

it is being ignored in the sense that there is little conversation from the DUP or the Tories around what is best for the community.

The DUP only have influence because of their support for May's Government. They represent a country which voted to stay in the EU and they have been ignoring the will of the majority of their constituents in advocating for a leaving without a Deal.

Between SF abstention and DUP beligerence, I suspect the citizens of NI largely feel like pawns.

Charles Babbage

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't think anyone could argue that NI is being ignored right now. The DUP have tremendous influence.

NI is in the news because the EU made it so, not because of any respect of its people by London.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

Millions of people are motivated by fear, hate, bigotry and fascism.

Peregrinus, this is the first time I've disagreed with one of your posts. I may be lacking information about this guy, but a psycho is a psycho. Normal people don't go to those lengths based on abstract beliefs... To shoot and stab someone requires that that murderous tendency is a part of you.

Sorry, but this is nonsense, millions of normal people have died because they were cought up in a society that went much further than those lenghts based on abstract beliefs. Why did millions of men go off to die in the trenches? What was the point of the Great Terror, or the Holocaust, or Stalin's purges? Do you think it was all random madness? These were not the result of mental illness, they were the result of sane rational people acting largely within the norms of their societies and the context of their times to achieve a specific goal. You may not agree with those goals, most of us would not, but it was not random derganged violence, it was intentional organised violence to achieve a particular end.

I hate to brake it to you, but the ability to comit all kinds of depraved violent acts is part of what it is to be human. Any dog can bite, most don't, the same is true of humans and killing.

lawred2

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't think anyone could argue that NI is being ignored right now. The DUP have tremendous influence.

No they don't. Recent slapdowns by TM in Parliament show quite clearly that the DUP have exhausted the cards they did hold..

Saying No all the time as a policy ultimately doesn't go very far. Sooner or later, the other parties will simply move on to get something done - the DUP are being sidelined.

Capt'n Midnight

And Brexit may cost another £100m. Rinse and repeat across the rest of the sector and expect similar from other industries.

Because this is how some of the money sent to to the EU used to come back.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47921375

British Steel is seeking a £100m loan from the government in order to meet EU emission rules.

Previously, the company could have used EU-issued carbon credits to settle its 2018 pollution bill.

briany

jochenstacker wrote: »

"History of mental illness" always gets wheeled out when the assailant is native, white and Christian. Had he been a darker skinned Muslim, I'm sure people would have an entirely different viewpoint of his deed, "...all Muslims are... religion of peace... terrorists... they're all the same...".
Thomas Alexander Mair is the result of right wing rhetoric and propaganda and brainwashing by the English media, he may be nuts, but he's the ultimate result of a climate of fear and hate that has been stoked for decades.

If you look at the number of Muslims who blow themselves up or run people over in the street, all without warning, versus the total number of Muslims in the world, it's a very tiny minority. I would never take it as the product of a normal psyche to pre-medatatively and remorselessly kill innocent people in cold blood, whether it's a white Christian, a brown Muslim, a gangland hit man or someone acting in war time. One can call it brainwashing if they want, but I doubt many of us would consider brainwashing to the point of committing wanton acts of murderous violence as a normal psychological situation.