# Islamist Massacre in Paris



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Gunmen have shot dead 12 people at the Paris office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in an apparent militant Islamist attack.

Four of the magazine's well-known cartoonists, including its editor, were among those killed, as well as two police officers.

A major police operation is under way to find three gunmen who fled by car.

President Francois Hollande said there was no doubt it had been a terrorist attack "of exceptional barbarity". 
BBC News - Charlie Hebdo: Gun attack on French magazine kills 12

Some may be shocked, not me!


----------



## Etienne (Dec 8, 2010)

One has handed himself in to the police and I am sure the other two will be caught very soon


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

And today, another two police officers have been shot in Paris!


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Other than being the PF news monitor, your point is...........?


----------



## Dingle (Aug 29, 2008)

Je sui Charlie!!


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Other than being the PF news monitor, *your point is*...........?


*and yours is??????????????????????????????????????????*


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

is everyone really convinced that this all went down the way the media are telling us it went down? I aint.


----------



## ThelifeofPi (Mar 18, 2013)

What are your thoughts on how it really went down Porps?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

ThelifeofPi said:


> What are your thoughts on how it really went down Porps?


i dont have enough info about it to be convinced of anything tbh, but some of the footage looks extremely suspect (shocking at first, then steadily more suspect the more times you watch). 
I wont start pointing fingers, but i think its worth at least considering that this could all just be about stirring up more anti islam sentiment.


----------



## Dingle (Aug 29, 2008)

porps said:


> i dont have enough info about it to be convinced of anything tbh, but some of the footage looks extremely suspect (shocking at first, then steadily more suspect the more times you watch).
> I wont start pointing fingers, but i think its worth at least considering that this could all just be about stirring up more anti islam sentiment.


Really??


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Dingle said:


> Really??


really what? Really we should consider more than one possiblity? Really we shouldnt just automatically beleive everything we get spoonfed by the media? Really we should do our own research instead of just jumping to whatever conclusion we're told?

Yeah, really.


----------



## ThelifeofPi (Mar 18, 2013)

The only thing I thought was a little odd was the journalists who were on the roof but then it said that some had run up to the rooftop when they heard the gunshots. 

I've learnt not to believe everything the media dish out but then my husbands an investigative journalist; in fact he knows the Charlie Hebdo building and some of the journalists that work their. I don't doubt for a moment that the previous death threats made on these cartoonists were very real in their origin. Anyone who draws for a satirical newspaper know that they are poking a pointy stick at whoever that drawing is about. Whilst some may laugh at the caricatures of themselves, we know that Islamic extremists will demand blood, just as they demanded the blood of Salaman Rushdi. Whilst we all have the right to be offended, nobody has the right to murder based on being offended. 

We can make a conspiracy out of anything and sometimes we will never know the truth but I believe this assassination was a very deliberate act from monsters who consider themselves extremists.

ED to say: Its okay to do your own research. Just don't jump onto every conspiracy band wagon.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

i havent jumped on a conspiracy bandwagon. I dont have enough info to be convinced one way or the other atm, so if im anywhere im on the fence. But i dont think "i dont have enough info, so i'd better just accept whatever pack of lies the media happen to be pushing out today".
question everything


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

Ang2 said:


> And today, another two police officers have been shot in Paris!


The french police have said that at this time they dont beleive the 2 cases are connected.


----------



## ladydog (Feb 24, 2013)

porps said:


> i havent jumped on a conspiracy bandwagon. I dont have enough info to be convinced one way or the other atm, so if im anywhere im on the fence. But i dont think "i dont have enough info, so i'd better just accept whatever pack of lies the media happen to be pushing out today".
> question everything


So you don't have any proof of what you actually say? You welcome to express you opinion of course but without being backed by facts then it does fall flat.
I was brought up to question, to inform myself before voicing my thoughts. The irony of your statement "question everything" is not lost on me as it does not appear you have done so before you posted.


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Other than being the PF news monitor, your point is...........?


Bit uncalled for. Many people on this forum discuss the news. I don't personally see a problem.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

ladydog said:


> So you don't have any proof of what you actually say? You welcome to express you opinion of course but without being backed by facts then it does fall flat.
> I was brought up to question, to inform myself before voicing my thoughts. The irony of your statement "question everything" is not lost on me as it does not appear you have done so before you posted.


i dont understand what you're going on with yourself about really. I havent made any claims which i would need to back with evidence. or am i supposed to prove to you that i am not convinced? /confused


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Other than being the PF news monitor, your point is...........?


Why would you say that?


----------



## willa (Jan 16, 2010)

If i understand correctly a female police officer was shot dead early thismorning  not sure if it's linked .

How can they still be on the run ?!


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

willa said:


> If i understand correctly a female police officer was shot dead early thismorning  not sure if it's linked .
> 
> How can they still be on the run ?!


Not the same attackers, but another terrorist attack. I hope there are no more deaths before they are caught.


----------



## ladydog (Feb 24, 2013)

porps said:


> i dont understand what you're going on with yourself about really. I havent made any claims which i would need to back with evidence. or am i supposed to prove to you that i am not convinced? /confused


You said that you are not convinced that it went down that way. This implies that something else occurred. What makes you say this? Proofs?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

ladydog said:


> You said that you are not convinced that it went down that way. This implies that something else occurred. What makes you say this? Proofs?


it doesnt imply that at all. it implies that i am not convinced.

convinced
kənˈvɪnst/Submit
adjective
*completely certain about something.*


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

porps said:


> it doesnt imply that at all. it implies that i am not convinced.
> 
> convinced
> kənˈvɪnst/Submit
> ...


But if you are not convinced, that suggests you have a conspiracy theory? What is it?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

porps said:


> I wont start pointing fingers, but i think its worth at least considering that this could all just be about stirring up more anti islam sentiment.


Seriously? Who the heck do you think would organise that? The Front National? Marine le Pen herself, perhaps? I believe that two suspects have been identified, brothers, extremists already known to the police.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

porps said:


> i dont have enough info about it to be convinced of anything tbh, but some of the footage looks extremely suspect (shocking at first, then steadily more suspect the more times you watch).
> I wont start pointing fingers, but i think its worth at least considering that this could all just be about stirring up more anti islam sentiment.


That's pure speculation.


----------



## ladydog (Feb 24, 2013)

Ang2 said:


> But if you are not convinced, that suggests you have a conspiracy theory? What is it?


I would like to hear it too.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Ang2 said:


> But if you are not convinced, that suggests you have a conspiracy theory? What is it?


No it doesnt. I am not convinced means "I am not completely certain".
I do not have an overarching theory, though i've read a few... if you are interested in hearing those theories, theres an excellent website called google, you should be able to find something there. 
All i know is that the video of the guy on the floor getting "finished off", which at first seemed shocking, now appears to me to be not even a particuarly convincing fake. Due to this i am unconvinced that we are being told the whole story.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

porps said:


> No it doesnt. I am not convinced means "I am not completely certain".
> I do not have an overarching theory, though i've read a few... if you are interested in hearing those theories, theres an excellent website called google, you should be able to find something there.
> All i know is that the video of the guy on the floor getting "finished off", which at first seemed shocking, now appears to me to be not even a particuarly convincing fake. Due to this i am unconvinced that we are being told the whole story.


I wonder if that poor man's family think it's "not even a particularly convincing fake".

You need to have a little respect for the tragedy of what happened here, rather than speculating about who set the whole thing up to stir up anti-racist feeling.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

porps said:


> All i know is that the video of the guy on the floor getting "finished off", which at first seemed shocking, now appears to me to be not even a particuarly convincing fake. Due to this i am unconvinced that we are being told the whole story.


I think you go too far. You really think Ahmed Merabet's partner or the rest of his colleagues from the police wil also think it's a fake, him getting killed while lying wounded on the ground?  I cannot see the point of it being a deliberate anti-Muslim act: there's already enough of that if you read my link on Tailsandtrails' thread. It doesn't need adding to. Perhaps you should read some French history (Google 2005 riots)


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sweety said:


> I wonder if that poor man's family think it's "not even a particularly convincing fake".
> 
> You need to have a little respect for the tragedy of what happened here, rather than speculating about who set the whole thing up to stir up anti-racist feeling.


i dont _need_ to do anything... well except breathing, sleeping and eating perhaps. I suspect the guy's family isnt reading this anyway. Besides which, i _did_ have a little respect.. and then i was asked for my opinion. And then i was forced to clarify what convinced means since some people here seem to, for reasons unknown to me, think unconvinced means "has conspiracy theory".


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> I think you go too far. You really think Ahmed Merabet's partner or the rest of his colleagues from the police wil also think it's a fake, him getting killed while lying wounded on the ground?  I cannot see the point of it being a deliberate anti-Muslim act: there's already enough of that if you read my link on Tailsandtrails' thread. It doesn't need adding to. Perhaps you should read some French history (Google 2005 riots)


i dont think i go far enough. perhaps you shouldnt assume that just because my opinion may be different to yours i could not possibly have read any french history.

Like i say it may not be the anti muslim thing. I dont have a theory. there are plenty out of there if you want to find one, all i'm saying is that the footage was unconvincing _to me_. Is it really such a crime to not be convinced by something? cos theres absolutely tons of stuff im not convinced by, theyre gonna need to throw away the key with me if its crime to be unconvinced.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

You use very strong terms-crime? Who mentioned it was a crime? 

It can look fake, but having seen footage of murders previously, perhaps an actual murder isn't as dramatic as those depicted in films. I don't know why you think it may not be real. This just strikes me as an odd thing to say. Fortunately, we have freedom of speech (to a degree) on PF, so we can both go back and forth with this as long as we want. It's just that I don't want.


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

porps said:


> i dont think i go far enough. perhaps you shouldnt assume that just because my opinion may be different to yours i could not possibly have read any french history.
> 
> Like i say it may not be the anti muslim thing. I dont have a theory. there are plenty out of there if you want to find one, all i'm saying is that the footage was unconvincing _to me_. Is it really such a crime to not be convinced by something? cos theres absolutely tons of stuff im not convinced by, theyre gonna need to throw away the key with me if its crime to be unconvinced.


The very fact that you don't believe the policeman was murdered in the footage *IS* a conspiracy theory.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

porps said:


> i dont _need_ to do anything... well except breathing, sleeping and eating perhaps. I suspect the guy's family isnt reading this anyway. Besides which, i _did_ have a little respect.. and then i was asked for my opinion. And then i was forced to clarify what convinced means since some people here seem to, for reasons unknown to me, think unconvinced means "has conspiracy theory".


I think you underestimate people on here. Most know exactly what "unconvinced" means.

You have a right to be unconvinced, but you don't have the right to speculate and be so disrespectful.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> You use very strong terms-crime? Who mentioned it was a crime?
> 
> It can look fake, but having seen footage of murders previously, perhaps an actual murder isn't as dramatic as those depicted in films. I don't know why you think it may not be real. This just strikes me as an odd thing to say. Fortunately, we have freedom of speech (to a degree) on PF, so we can both go back and forth with this as long as we want. It's just that I don't want.


cool, i dont wanna go back and forth either. i wouldve made 1 maybe 2 posts max in this thread if people didnt keep mistaking the word unconvinced for "has a conspiracy theory"


----------



## ladydog (Feb 24, 2013)

porps said:


> i dont _need_ to do anything... well except breathing, sleeping and eating perhaps. I suspect the guy's family isnt reading this anyway. Besides which, i _did_ have a little respect.. and then i was asked for my opinion. And then i was forced to clarify what convinced means since some people here seem to, for reasons unknown to me, think unconvinced means "has conspiracy theory".


You were asked to explain your opinions. You still haven't.
Why is the video of the murdered policeman a fake? Do you understand his dying words were? I do.
Please have the courage of your opinions.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sweety said:


> I think you underestimate people on here. Most know exactly what "unconvinced" means.
> 
> You have a right to be unconvinced, but you don't have the right to speculate and be so disrespectful.


i do actually have that right, though i'm not even being disrespectful.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

I've been somewhat remote from news lately as I've had my own personal crises unfolding that demanded my immediate attention, so the Charlie Hebdo attacks were, unfortunately, unfolding in the background.

Whether or not people think there's a conspiracy involved somewhere, 12 people have lost their lives, 12 families have been torn apart, never to be the same again, and 4 more people have been injured. The victims and their families deserve better than this. . .

RIP to those who lost their lives, deepest sympathies and condolences to their families, and I wish the injured a speedy recovery.


----------



## Dingle (Aug 29, 2008)

I for one hope these vile extremists are caught very soon, no doubt they will fight it out in an attempt to become some sort of martyr… all in the name of Islam and piece my ass. They are nothing but brain washed fools.

Je Suis Charlie!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> I think you go too far. You really think Ahmed Merabet's partner or the rest of his colleagues from the police wil also think it's a fake, him getting killed while lying wounded on the ground?  I cannot see the point of it being a deliberate anti-Muslim act: there's already enough of that if you read my link on Tailsandtrails' thread. It doesn't need adding to. Perhaps you should read some French history (Google 2005 riots)


*If you think about your words i've high lighted, by what i've read, that is the reason this tragedy happened.
People really should respect the fact that we will not be of the same opinion.
Many will not even try to understand why these things are going on. Of course anyone carrying out these sickening murders are wrong, but we should remember, we are not squeaky clean.
All this killing needs to stop.*


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

The terrorists are believed to have taken hostages (unconfirmed) and occupied offices of a construction company near Dammartin-en-Goele - a siege appears underway.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Watching it live on TV now they have taken a hostage, another killed and another injured.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

> Reuters reports that least one person was killed and several injured in shootout before at least one hostage was taken in Dammartin-en-Goele in France. This is all unverified by the authorities, who have only confirmed that a major operation is under.


Must be so scary for those involved/in the area


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

WTF are the stupid press people doing?  

They need to start to be prosecuted for interfering with a police operation :mad5:


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

France24.com has a useful live feed.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> Other than being the PF news monitor, your point is...........?


A couple of people have queried my response, so I thought I'd try to explain....

My instinct, on reading the two posts by the OP, was that they felt provocative in their phrasing. When I looked at other threads started by the OP it became obvious that she starts from a particular viewpoint, which appears to be negative on the subjects of immigration and Islam.

As a Church of England parish priest, I spend a lot of time thinking and talking about issues around other faiths and their relationship to the Church, and to the (these days mainly secular) population of this country. So often I hear and read inflammatory stuff which seems to render middle-class, white, C of E people as 'us' and those of other skin colours and/or faiths as 'them'. The only outcome that will result from this approach is civil war, and so I have a very sensitive radar for posts or comments that seem to be supporting this approach.

So, that's why I posted as I did.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Ang2 said:


> The very fact that you don't believe the policeman was murdered in the footage *IS* a conspiracy theory.


I think it is pretty obvious that the policeman was murdered...that isn't the question tho.

The question is WHY was he murdered...Ok, so the media have told us that it is because of Islamist extremists...we have been told it is in revenge for making fun of the prophet - Sorry but I'm with Porps to a certain degree here (no need to jump up about conspiracy this and that), it is all too convenient to blame things like this on religion...why can't we just see that it could be a group of violent people that want to cause havoc, with no ulterior motive, they just wanted to go out with a bang and what better bang than to go out as a martyr...
And what better way for a government to take our minds off the real issues and make us scared....

My heart goes out to the families of those injured and killed, and I hope these people are caught as soon as possible.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> A couple of people have queried my response, so I thought I'd try to explain....
> 
> My instinct, on reading the two posts by the OP, was that they felt provocative in their phrasing. When I looked at other threads started by the OP it became obvious that she starts from a particular viewpoint, which appears to be negative on the subjects of immigration and Islam.
> 
> ...


TBF, you do have a point there. I've noticed the same inclination in the OP's posts.

Ang, if I'm wrong in this instance, I apologise unreservedly.


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

My thoughts .. All religions have their share of radical thinkers and extremists, the last decade or so has seen our focus being drawn/pointed toward Islam.
Its very convienient for some who are glad the limelight has shifted..

I would not challenge the right of a person to their religious freedom and they should not challenge my right to free speech.


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

LinznMilly said:


> TBF, you do have a point there. I've noticed the same inclination in the OP's posts.
> 
> Ang, if I'm wrong in this instance, I apologise unreservedly.


TBF, when I posted this, it was breaking news across the World! Never seen anything like it since 9/11. I start threads/post on many issues, in general, cat chat, dog chat and rescue on many subjects. Whether I am anti islam, is irrelevant. Are we only to post on subjects we are 'for'! Then should anyone post on animal cruelty if they are outraged by it? Do not think I take any pleasure for what is unfolding. My heart goes to those murdered and their families RIP

Having been married to a muslim for 7 years - please don't call me racist! My views are from personal experience, knowledge, lived in a muslim country and have read the Koran.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)




----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

France Info radio has obtained an extraordinary account from a salesman who said he shook one of the suspect's hands when they arrived at the printing business at 8.30am this morning, writes Angelique Chrisafis in Paris.



> The man, who would only gave his name as Didier, said he had an appointment with Michel, the owner of the printing and publicity material business. Didier said he shook one of the gunmen's hands who he took to be police special operations officer. He was dressed in black and was heavily armed with at least one rifle.
> 
> He said when he arrived at the business his client came out to meet him with what he took to be a policeman, dressed in black combat gear, with a bullet-proof vest.
> 
> ...


Source: The Guardian


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

grumpy goby said:


> France Info radio has obtained an extraordinary account from a salesman who said he shook one of the suspects hands when they arrived at the printing business at 8.30am this morning, writes Angelique Chrisafis in Paris.
> 
> Source: The Guardian


This will haunt that man forever.

RIP all those who were killed.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *If you think about your words i've high lighted, by what i've read, that is the reason this tragedy happened.
> People really should respect the fact that we will not be of the same opinion.
> Many will not even try to understand why these things are going on. Of course anyone carrying out these sickening murders are wrong, but we should remember, we are not squeaky clean.
> All this killing needs to stop.*


My point was missed entirely. I'm not bothered about others contradicting my opinion  I'm bothered about being told that maybe this was a deliberate ploy to create anti-Muslim feeling. I found this very odd, hence my post.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> My point was missed entirely. I'm not bothered about others contradicting my opinion  I'm bothered about being told that maybe this was a deliberate ploy to create anti-Muslim feeling. I found this very odd, hence my post.


*Do you not think, it is a possibility though? Just thinking out loud.*


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Another hostage situation/shooting in Paris :/ in a Kosher Shop.


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *Do you not think, it is a possibility though? Just thinking out loud.*


Are you seriously suggesting that the French government would murder their own citizens? Because that is outrageous!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

grumpy goby said:


> Another hostage situation/shooting in Paris :/ in a Kosher Shop.


Its believed to be the man who shot the policewoman and he is connected to the other two terrorists


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Its believed to be the man who shot the policewoman and he is connected to the other two terrorists


Do these people not realise that they are going to alienate the muslim population even further! This will all backfire! A very sad situation indeed.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

he has 5 hostages including children


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Ang2 said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that the French government would murder their own citizens? Because that is outrageous!


*I didn't say it was the French government, but just for the record, nothing would surprise me.
Again, just thinking out loud.*


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Ang2 said:


> Do these people not realise that they are going to alienate the muslim population even further! This will all backfire! A very sad situation indeed.


This is something I'm really concerned about. It worries me that more and more extreme right wing organisations will use this to their own ends and stir up hysteria and anti Muslim feelings which could easily spiral out of control.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Ang2 said:


> Do these people not realise that they are going to alienate the muslim population even further! This will all backfire! A very sad situation indeed.


I believe their main aim is to kill non-muslims and they will view it as a bonus if the rest of the muslim population becomes alienated and isolated from western ways, hoping that they move to their extremist ways


----------



## ThelifeofPi (Mar 18, 2013)

Ang2 said:


> Do these people not realise that they are going to alienate the muslim population even further! This will all backfire! A very sad situation indeed.


It says in the Quaran; "Whenever hypocrites are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy. Radical Muslims see moderate Muslims as hypocrites of their faith and have a death sentence on their heads.

In other words, as far as the radicals are concerned, nothing is more offensive to Islam than moderate Muslims.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Just seen this:

Armed police are dealing with a third alert in the Trocadero area of Paris, opposite the Eiffel Tower, according to sources.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Just seen this:
> 
> Armed police are dealing with a third alert in the Trocadero area of Paris, opposite the Eiffel Tower, according to sources.





> Armed police are responding to false alarms across Paris amid increasing tension in the city.
> 
> In the most recent alert armed police were photographed pointing their guns at an apparent target in the Trocadero area of Paris, closing the tube station.
> 
> The Interior Ministry has since confirmed that the alert was a false alarm.


*Thankfully*


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Has anyone noticed that Google have a tribute, when you open the page, to those murdered at Charlie Hebdo?


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

OMG just put the news on and they were showing 'live' the end game of the siege, where French police stormed one of the locations. Lots of gun fire and explosions. Its apparently a printworks, and Im not sure if there were hostages there, having missed the news most of the day.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Ang2 said:


> OMG just put the news on and they were showing 'live' the end game of the siege, where French police stormed one of the locations. Lots of gun fire and explosions. Its apparently a printworks, and Im not sure if there were hostages there, having missed the news most of the day.


They think One hostage, the printworks manager I think


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Ang2 said:


> OMG just put the news on and they were showing 'live' the end game of the siege, where French police stormed one of the locations. Lots of gun fire and explosions. Its apparently a printworks, and Im not sure if there were hostages there, having missed the news most of the day.


Does it mentions the hostages in the shop - he has threatened to kill them if they storm the printworks


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Ang2 said:


> TBF, when I posted this, it was breaking news across the World! Never seen anything like it since 9/11. I start threads/post on many issues, in general, cat chat, dog chat and rescue on many subjects. Whether I am anti islam, is irrelevant. Are we only to post on subjects we are 'for'! Then should anyone post on animal cruelty if they are outraged by it? Do not think I take any pleasure for what is unfolding. My heart goes to those murdered and their families RIP
> 
> Having been married to a muslim for 7 years - *please don't call me racist*! My views are from personal experience, knowledge, lived in a muslim country and have read the Koran.


Please point out where I have called you racist?


----------



## willa (Jan 16, 2010)

SuperMarket - 4 Hostages Killed, 1 Gunman killed. Another Gunman apparently escaped and on the run ?!!


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Needs stopping asap. RIP poor hostages.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Heard a report on the news earlier that the gunmen are Yemeni Taliban.

Strange, TV last night said they were French citizens of Algerian origins.


----------



## willa (Jan 16, 2010)

All the papers today claiming the UK is going to be targeted by a similar attack

Simply terrifying .......


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

willa said:


> All the papers today claiming the UK is going to be targeted by a similar attack
> 
> Simply terrifying .......


what is terrifying is that a few men with guns are causing all this mayhem.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

lilythepink said:


> Heard a report on the news earlier that the gunmen are Yemeni Taliban.
> 
> Strange, TV last night said they were French citizens of Algerian origins.


that was on the news the morning they attacked Charlie Hebdo

reports stated the terrorists shouted out they were from AQAP, which covers Yemen

they are also french born. probably means they joined AQAP.
their has been some intelligence few months back that AQAP had some meetings with ISIS, this grouping calling itself Khorosan.
ISIS are a rival to al quida, so maybe AQAP are switching sides.
Tunisian al quida and Boko Haram and al shabab, by all accounts, have switched from al quida to ISIS.

but who knows?

what people also need to remember that France has been on high alert for about 8 weeks now, as their have been a number of individual islamist attacks throughout the country, upon police officers for example

also france, before they got involved against ISIS in syria, sent troops to northern Mali about a year ago and waged war direct war with al quida troops.


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

News is saying two hostages in a jewellery shop. Is this a new attack? Does anyone know?


----------



## ItsonlyChris (Mar 12, 2013)

If they attack here we'll just give them free housing, benefits and protect their human rights. Because we are far too PC.

I'm just hoping that it's a wake up call for Britain because it's woken up France.

I don't understand why they specifically attack unarmed civilians though? When our troops go in, a lot of the conflict is against active, armed, enemies? It's cowardly and nothing like being a martyr in the slightest.

I'm glad the GIGN handled it so well. They've always been one of my favourite units.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> I believe their main aim is to kill non-muslims and they will view it as a bonus if the rest of the muslim population becomes alienated and isolated from western ways, hoping that they move to their extremist ways


Then why the flip did they kill the Muslim police officer? 



lilythepink said:


> Heard a report on the news earlier that the gunmen are Yemeni Taliban.
> 
> Strange, TV last night said they were French citizens of Algerian origins.


They can be both-they trained in the Yemen. 



willa said:


> All the papers today claiming the UK is going to be targeted by a similar attack
> 
> Simply terrifying .......


The OH says it's a question of when, not if.  They're on high alert, but have been for months.


----------



## willa (Jan 16, 2010)

The UK can't really up their terror threat level to Critical, as that would mean an attack in imminent within days ! way to panic people


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

cinnamontoast said:


> Then why the flip did they kill the Muslim police officer?
> 
> .


Because they consider any fellow muslim working for the police or army of Western governments as traitors/kuffars (non believers).

Did anyone see Diane Abbot being interviewed last night? She said that at the time of the Salman Rushdie protests, she was threatened by the whole muslim community in her constituency, that if she didn't side with them, and condemn Rushdie and lobby for the book the be banned, that she wouldn't get another muslim vote.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

also, its possible they didnt know the police officer was muslim


----------



## Nagini (Jan 13, 2014)

Ang2 said:


> News is saying two hostages in a jewellery shop. Is this a new attack? Does anyone know?


yes a third situation is being reported , sky news seem to be slow picking up on it


----------



## willa (Jan 16, 2010)

Nagini said:


> yes a third situation is being reported , sky news seem to be slow picking up on it


Armed robbery ....


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

ItsonlyChris said:


> I don't understand why they specifically attack unarmed civilians though? When our troops go in, a lot of the conflict is against active, armed, enemies? It's cowardly and nothing like being a martyr in the slightest.


That's exactly why they do it - to spread fear and panic. Don't forget we've had to fight two wars obeying strict rules of engagement against an enemy who shares none of that


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

willa said:


> Armed robbery ....


Someone taking advantage of the police being occupied elsewhere?


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

It's sad to hear about what happened in France. 

The news and TV does tend to exaggerate and hype things but that's true with everything. Furthermore, with all the news coverage, some info is bound to be wrong at first. It wouldn't surprise me if more and more correct details are known in the future. This did happen with 9/11.

I'm not going to jump to conspiracy theories and I'm actually confused as to how and what kind of conspiracy would be involved. When you go the route of conspiracies, anything is possible. Did bugs bunny come to life and conspire to help them? Were these terrorists really some aliens from outer space determined to harm us? Did the Plutonians get annoyed with the human's spacecraft and send the terrorists to harm us?  I suppose any of that is possible.

In the end, I want to say, I believe in first speech and I hope this newspaper/comic place continues their comics/newspaper/whatever unchanged.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Ang2 said:


> Having been married to a muslim for 7 years - please don't call me racist! My views are from personal experience, knowledge, lived in a muslim country and have read the Koran.


What has being married to a muslim, living in a muslim country, and reading the Koran got to do with racism? Islam is a religion, not a race. You can do all the above and still be racist, just as someone married to a christian, living in a christian country, and has read the bible, can be racist.

Re the attacks in France - I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories whatsoever. I think it was an attack by extremists and feel a great sorrow for the victims and their families. However, I would be very surprised if what we have been shown is either the full story or the whole truth. I have learned over the years that the media's version of the truth is a mixture of a) what boosts viewing figures and b) what the ruling government want them to broadcast.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> What has being married to a muslim, living in a muslim country, and reading the Koran got to do with racism? Islam is a religion, not a race. You can do all the above and still be racist, just as someone married to a christian, living in a christian country, and has read the bible, can be racist.
> 
> Re the attacks in France - I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories whatsoever. I think it was an attack by extremists and feel a great sorrow for the victims and their families. However, I would be very surprised if what we have been shown is either the full story or the whole truth. I have learned over the years that the media's version of the truth is a mixture of a) what boosts viewing figures and b) what the ruling government want them to broadcast.


*For these reasons, i do wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a blanket ban on reporting these stories.
I can't help but feel, the more coverage these stories get, the worst the situations get. Just my opinion.*


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *For these reasons, i do wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a blanket ban on reporting these stories.
> I can't help but feel, the more coverage these stories get, the worst the situations get. Just my opinion.*


This is an interesting article - it's mainly about media censorship in the Northern Ireland conflicts, but it shows just how the media is used for censorship and disinformation in times of civil unrest and war.

The Media and Northern Ireland: Censorship, Information Management and the Broadcasting Ban | David Miller - Academia.edu


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

I know what you mean - it is compulsive viewing but may not help the situation. I suppose an argument for free transmission is that things are shown as they happen and not after an edit - particularly true now non-journos are broadcasting (twitter, youtube etc). You do get to see all the waiting, and the confusion, and actually in this one both the fear and the boredom in peoples faces as time went on.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

the whole world is aware of extremists.....not healthy for anybody and can only cause more disruption and hatred.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> What has being married to a muslim, living in a muslim country, and reading the Koran got to do with racism? Islam is a religion, not a race. You can do all the above and still be racist, just as someone married to a christian, living in a christian country, and has read the bible, can be racist.


im guessing you didnt spot the obvious contradiction in the paragraph above?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

lilythepink said:


> the whole world is aware of extremists.....not healthy for anybody and can only cause more disruption and hatred.


surely the more the whole world knows about the whole world, the better off everyone is?

its when we dont know whats going on we will get mistreated


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> surely the more the whole world knows about the whole world, the better off everyone is?


The media flooding the world with reports of terrorism, sometimes with versions of their own, makes for an insecure world and in an insecure world society turns on anyone who is eccentric or different or represents a minority.

It's a method of building foundations for persecution.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Zaros said:


> The media flooding the world with reports of terrorism, sometimes with versions of their own, makes for an insecure world and in an insecure world society turns on anyone who is eccentric or different or represents a minority.
> 
> It's a method of building foundations for persecution.


no, activity makes the world an insecure place.
activity is performed by people.

media just tells us what people are up to

the world *is* flooded with terrorism, of all kinds.

the only difference is the news channels are 24 hours.
quite boorishly so.
however, the terrorism was _already_ 24 hours.
it has been so for hundreds of years.
thus, the news channels are reporting the same activities they have been reporting since TV was invented.

we could, instead, as you say, not report events around the world.
the only thing that would achieve is the ability for terrorists of all colour, description, and definition, to abuse mankind, and get away with it easier.
Look how long the nazis were perfoming the Final Solution before it became common knowledge to the world.
These days we know when genocide is in process within days.
How can that be a bad thing?

it would seem the ultimate irony, to me, if the result of a specific terrorist attack on free speech, resulted in the curbing of media reporting.
not quite the outcome the victims of Charlie Hebdo would have in mind, I would think?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> it would seem the ultimate irony, to me, if the result of a specific terrorist attack on free speech, resulted in the curbing of media reporting.


And in giving them media coverage they received the attention they craved and in the eyes of some will have died martrys.

They may have got their just desserts (death) however, ironically, in receiving them they got what they didn't deserve. (martrydom)

We should focus on the tragic victims of this outrage and not the 845t4rd5 who perpetrated it.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Zaros said:


> And in giving them media coverage they received the attention they craved and in the eyes of some will have died martrys.
> 
> They may have got their just desserts (death) however, ironically, in receiving them they got what they didn't deserve. (martrydom)
> 
> We should focus on the tragic victims of this outrage and not the 845t4rd5 who perpetrated it.


not sure the advantage of a few guys not getting publicity outweighs the mass scale human rights abuses that would occur easier if the media didnt report stuff.
these guys already think they are martyrs, by the mere fact they got killed for 'fighting for allah', not because it got on the news


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Tails and Trails said:


> no, activity makes the world an insecure place.
> activity is performed by people.
> 
> media just tells us what people are up to
> ...


*The big trouble there, imo, is the way the media deal with these stories. As has been said before, they don't tell the full story.
We get told only what they want us to know.*


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *The big trouble there, imo, is the way the media deal with these stories. As has been said before, they don't tell the full story.
> We get told only what they want us to know.*


i agree with this.
but not the concept they shouldnt report the events.
thats two separate issues


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Tails and Trails said:


> i agree with this.
> but not the concept they shouldnt report the events.
> thats two separate issues


*If these kind of stories didn't get the coverage, others wouldn't have something to look up to and follow.*


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *If these kind of stories didn't get the coverage, others wouldn't have something to look up to and follow.*


which is then argument for _more _reporting, not less

i would agree with that


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Suchly if they don't like the way of life in a Christian country and how we live, they should go and the in a Muslim country where they can live the way they want to. Why should we have to give way to their ideas. 
If we went to live in a Muslim country we would have to live by their laws, that doesn't happen here we give way to them far to much.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Tails and Trails said:


> which is then argument for _more _reporting, not less
> 
> i would agree with that


* Sorry i don't see the logic here.*


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *If these kind of stories didn't get the coverage, others wouldn't have something to look up to and follow.*


I think it is right to report the events but in some ways publishing pictures of the murderers sort of adds to their infamy (amongst other extremists)

Personally I think that newspapers should have shown one of the satirical cartoons on their front page that Charlie Hebdo first published to show that freedom of speech cannot be silenced by such terror attacks


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Happy Paws said:


> Suchly if they don't like the way of life in a Christian country and how we live, they should go and the in a Muslim country where they can live the way they want to. Why should we have to give way to their ideas.
> If we went to live in a Muslim country we would have to live by their laws, that doesn't happen here we give way to them far to much.


*The thing is HP, these are extremists not " normal" thinking people.*


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> * Sorry i don't see the logic here.*


really 

on the one hand you say these islamist attacks shouldnt be broadcast so much as it gives them the attention they want , ie a media reporting ban

then on the other hand, you argue that we dont get given the whole story - true - so you think the media should report more information and details we dont get to hear about?

so you either want a media ban during these events (ie, less media), or you want even more media scrutiny during these events (ie, more media)?

personally, i opt for the latter


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> Suchly if they don't like the way of life in a Christian country and how we live, they should go and the in a Muslim country where they can live the way they want to. Why should we have to give way to their ideas.
> If we went to live in a Muslim country we would have to live by their laws, that doesn't happen here we give way to them far to much.


thats all true, except we dont live in a christian country.
and thank the earth for that.
i dont want to be answerable to the influence of any religion


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *The thing is HP, these are extremists not " normal" thinking people.*


not too sure any religious thinking is 'normal' - some psychologists designate religion as mental disorders, such as schizophrenia - but thats a whole different discussion


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Tails and Trails said:


> really
> 
> on the one hand you say these islamist attacks shouldnt be broadcast so much as it gives them the attention they want , ie a media reporting ban
> 
> ...


*No, what i am saying is, don't give them media coverage. When we do get coverage it's not the full truth. So a win win situation. imo.*


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *No, what i am saying is, don't give them media coverage. When we do get coverage it's not the full truth. So a win win situation. imo.*


eh?

thats a loose loose situation

as by banning the media coverage we DO get, you have just made it even easier than it is now to hide the media coverage we DONT get.

so you are creating a law to help the people you are pissed off with.

completely ironic, especially if you know all about the history of charlie hebdo and how they also tried to expose the governing establishment


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Tails and Trails said:


> eh?
> 
> thats a loose loose situation
> 
> ...


*I'm not referring to just this story. *


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *I'm not referring to just this story. *


neither am I


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

Tails and Trails said:


> no, activity makes the world an insecure place. activity is performed by people. media just tells us what people are up to the world *is* flooded with terrorism, of all kinds.
> 
> the only difference is the news channels are 24 hours. quite boorishly so.
> however, the terrorism was _already_ 24 hours.
> ...


I am afraid I don´t agree with you and I also find this comment untrue.

First, the sad reality is that there is less crime and less wars now than before and yet people are more afraid than before. Police statistics are pretty good source of information, as are the listed wars going on. But have they ever made headlines or even news? No. Instead we get more and more news about individual crimes with details and pictures. Naturally we could affect that by no buying scandal rags. Becoming famous is for some a motivation enough to commit horrendous crimes.

Second, the way media reports about the crimes and terrorist attacts makes it easy for us to think that criminals and terrorists have nothing to do with us and so we think we can treat them like different species and isolate them from our society. Treating them as individuals, who do bad things would actually help us to understand why they became criminals/terrorists and prevent it eventually.

Third, if the media would really focus on acts, it should report all the criminal acts, not just pick and choose a few random attacks. In the case of terrorism media should report all the acts "western" armies/ governments have committed against poorer countries. That way we would also understand that we are really no better and take responsibility againts the terrorist attacks our governments commit. To start we should understand how oil companies, fishing industry, farming industry, mining companies operate. Then we could follow up what happens in Iraq, Algeria, China, Russia, Congo, Saudi-Arabia etc, etc.

Based on these three viewpoints alone I do think that media is not an innocent party in increasing racism and fear amongst us. But then, we all have a responsibility to find out more information about what is really happening in the world and not just take the easy option and read the tabloid toilet papers. And accept that at times we too are responsible for lots of bad things that is happening in the world just by being lazy. And also that at times we too could make a difference and change someting for the better.
Focusing on the smaller pictures diverts our attention from the bígger ones.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Tails and Trails said:


> thats all true, except we dont live in a christian country.
> and thank the earth for that.
> i dont want to be answerable to the influence of any religion


The UK is classed as a Christian country, whether you are religious or not (I like you are not) but always think of it as Christian.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> What has being married to a muslim, living in a muslim country, and reading the Koran got to do with racism? Islam is a religion, not a race. You can do all the above and still be racist, just as someone married to a christian, living in a christian country, and has read the bible, can be racist.





Tails and Trails said:


> im guessing you didnt spot the obvious contradiction in the paragraph above?


No, but I'm sure you will enlighten me 

Heh heh - whatever it is you have made a follower out of Ang2 who now thinks you agree with her and is liking every post you write :lol:



Tails and Trails said:


> which is then argument for _more _reporting, not less


Actually, it's an argument for accurate reporting of the truth - but that is never going to happen and anyone who believes that they are told the whole truth by any media are kidding themsleves.

I understand completely what Janice is saying. What is reported in the media is never the whole ruth.and is always garnished by some viewpoint or other.

So the choice is:

a) biased news coverage slanted towards which ever government is controlling the media, which could include as much disinformation as information

b) no news coverage at all, so that the aim of the terrorists - which is to further their cause by getting as much news coverage as possible - is thwarted.


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> No, but I'm sure you will enlighten me
> 
> Heh heh - whatever it is you have made a follower out of Ang2 who now thinks you agree with her and is liking every post you write :lol:
> 
> ...


I think I 'liked' two posts out of a dozen or so! As did others. You really are pathetic!

The whole World has given this incident media coverage. Media teams from across the World flew to Paris to report the events 'live' as they unfolded. So all those countries are in some kind of conspiracy?

Im not against any race in particular. Im against Islam in the extremist form. Im against an ideology that is fanatical and has no place in western civilization. And you are for it because? ... It makes you feel all fluffy inside? 

Just another attempt to silence opinions other than your own and have another thread closed!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Ang2 said:


> I think I 'liked' two posts out of a dozen or so! As did others. You really are pathetic!
> 
> The whole World has given this incident media coverage. Media teams from across the World flew to Paris to report the events 'live' as they unfolded. So all those countries are in some kind of conspiracy?
> 
> ...


Listen, sweetness and light, there was no attempt from me at anything other than asking Tails N Trails what he/she meant. Why would that get the thread closed?

Now what_ could_ get it closed is someone being abusive and resorting to name calling but no-one has done that, have they? Oh, wait a minute, you just did .... :hand:


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Apologies if this has been published already but I thought this a very thoughtful piece of critical analysis that points out a lot of flaws with the social media comments, not least the comparisons with incorrectly credited words of Voltaire.

Why I am not Charlie | a paper bird


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Tails and Trails said:


> surely the more the whole world knows about the whole world, the better off everyone is?
> 
> its when we dont know whats going on we will get mistreated


That's ok if the media and powers that be can be trusted not to spin their stories to suit themselves?


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Tails and Trails said:


> surely the more the whole world knows about the whole world, the better off everyone is?
> 
> its when we dont know whats going on we will get mistreated


and, do you really think for a nano second that we are being told the whole truth here anyway?


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Happy Paws said:


> Suchly if they don't like the way of life in a Christian country and how we live, they should go and the in a Muslim country where they can live the way they want to. Why should we have to give way to their ideas.
> If we went to live in a Muslim country we would have to live by their laws, that doesn't happen here we give way to them far to much.


moderates of all religions and races can live happily and peacefully side by side...just takes a couple of extremists and it all goes to pot.

Law abiding people become wary and nervous of a neighbour with a different religion or culture


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

Tails and Trails said:


> thats all true, except we dont live in a christian country.
> and thank the earth for that.
> i dont want to be answerable to the influence of any religion


but do we live in a Christian country? and if we do, you are still influenced by religion...Christianity.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Ang2 said:


> Im against an ideology that is fanatical and has no place in western civilization.


Civilisation? Everyone talks about civilisation and that does include me. We're constantly questioning it. 
And rightly so too, especially in the light of recent events. But if you want the real harsh truth about civilisation, then it came to an abrupt and sad end at the exact point where the rail road track stopped outside the gates of Auschwitz. Any humanity that remained after that went up in smoke in its chimmneys. Extermination camps illustrated perfectly just how intolerant man can be towards his fellow man.

The money influenced media want nothing better than for one half of the world to hate the other and the greater the fraction of hatred the easier it is for govts to exploit those who become deeply resented in this world.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

I know we all grieve differently and deal differently, but for me Im just not at the point that I wand to dissect the politics, ideologies, and media-induced brain fog of all of this.

I grieve for the dead, for their families, for their loved ones. Im just sad. 
Its horrible for people to be murdered like this, its horrible for individuals to be brainwashed to the point of committing this sort of atrocity. The whole thing is just sad. 

And then it just fuels more fear, more hate, more extremism. 

I do wonder if this 24 hour news thing has been a good thing for us as human beings.


----------



## ThelifeofPi (Mar 18, 2013)

Zaros said:


> It's a method of building foundations for persecution.


Yep, like the Germans did with the Jews.

Muslims don't frighten me but the constant propaganda really does scare me.


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

It's absolutely awful what is happening over there...

I do think people look for conspiracies in too many things though. I have read into a lot of conspiracies and some I do question but it seems people want to see everything as a conspiracy now. I have even read posts on FB with people claiming the Glasgow bin lorry tragedy wasn't actually an 'accident' but terrorism... 

But then in this case some believe it isn't terrorism but is being passed off as such and then the Glasgow tragedy is the opposite... people claiming it was terrorism being covered up... so who knows...


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> This is something I'm really concerned about. It worries me that more and more extreme right wing organisations will use this to their own ends and stir up hysteria and anti Muslim feelings which could easily spiral out of control.


Which is exactly what they want.
It is not about Islam, it isn't even about hatred, it is all about POWER.

The real culprits are the imams and other recruiters who indoctrinate young, impressionable people, losers, who are usually being torn between cultures, feeling they don't fit in. They are being drawn in and brainwashed till they really believe they are making a difference for their own people, their religion, while in fact, they are just being sacrificed to the ulterior motives of some power-hungry plotters who don't give a hoot WHO gets killed, as long as it increases their power.

In order to get people to follow you, you need a cause, an enemy to fight, so people will unite and rally behind you. And that is exactly what all these calls for jihad and sharia are all about. Divide and rule.

The more we fall for this ruse and identify all muslims with these terrorists, the more muslims will be forced to rally to the jihad cause, because 'we', the christian westerners, will no longer trust or accept any muslims in our midst.

The only way to smother this is for christians, non-religious westerners and muslims to rally together against all terrorists and hate-mongers. And I mean ALL terrorists and hate-mongers. The ones that profess to be guided by islam AND the islamophobic ones.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

ThelifeofPi said:


> Muslims don't frighten me but the constant propaganda really does scare me.


And rightly so too.

Propaganda has proven itself to be a highly efficient tool for spreading terror amongst the people throughout many centuries.

Today we possess the means of spreading it more proficiently.:sad:


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

Zaros said:


> Civilisation? Everyone talks about civilisation and that does include me. We're constantly questioning it.
> And rightly so too, especially in the light of recent events. But if you want the real harsh truth about civilisation, then it came to an abrupt and sad end at the exact point where the rail road track stopped outside the gates of Auschwitz. Any humanity that remained after that went up in smoke in its chimmneys. Extermination camps illustrated perfectly just how intolerant man can be towards his fellow man.
> 
> The money influenced media want nothing better than for one half of the world to hate the other and the greater the fraction of hatred the easier it is for govts to exploit those who become deeply resented in this world.


Not just the media.
Governments, politicians, commercial companies, everyone who has managed to claw his way to the top of the ladder, really, they all crave an 'enemy' to draw attention away from their own plotting to gather power and wealth and keep the rest of the population poor and stupid.


----------



## ThelifeofPi (Mar 18, 2013)

Ang2 said:


> Im not against any race in particular. Im against Islam in the extremist form. Im against an ideology that is fanatical and has no place in western civilization. And you are for it because? ...


I think we can have extreme without them ever becoming fanatical. The Muslim clerics we have in the UK are mostly very peaceful people and yet they are extreme within their faith, just as a priest is extreme within his faith. The fanatics are a different kettle of fish.

I do understand where you are coming from Ang. I mean, I know what you are trying to say. I married an Iranian when I was 18 and spent several years living by the Caspian sea with my family, husband and young son. They were moderate Muslims; they were believers but didn't really practice. We then had some fanatical mullahs move into our town and as far as they were concerned, my family were hypocrites of their faith, especially my husband who had married a western infidel who refused to convert to Islam. My relationship came to a very sad end and the radical western hating fanatics were a direct result to that end. I have seen first hand what fanatical Muslims can do and they certainly have no beliefs in live and let live.

I speak farsi. I have lived amongst and worked with Muslims for many years. I support those of the Muslim faith and those who want to practice it in all its forms. What I don't support is the fanatics who want to use the sixth pillar of Islam as an excuse for al-harb against anyone who doesn't follow their faith.


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

ThelifeofPi said:


> I think we can have extreme without them ever becoming fanatical. The Muslim clerics we have in the UK are mostly very peaceful people and yet they are extreme within their faith, just as a priest is extreme within his faith. The fanatics are a different kettle of fish.
> 
> I do understand where you are coming from Ang. I mean, I know what you are trying to say. I married an Iranian when I was 18 and spent several years living by the Caspian sea with my family, husband and young son. They were moderate Muslims; they were believers but didn't really practice. We then had some fanatical mullahs move into our town and as far as they were concerned, my family were hypocrites of their faith, especially my husband who had married a western infidel who refused to convert to Islam. My relationship came to a very sad end and the radical western hating fanatics were a direct result to that end. I have seen first hand what fanatical Muslims can do and they certainly have no beliefs in live and let live.
> 
> I speak farsi. I have lived amongst and worked with Muslims for many years. I support those of the Muslim faith and those who want to practice it in all its forms. What I don't support is the fanatics who want to use the sixth pillar of Islam as an excuse for al-harb against anyone *who doesn't follow their faith*.


Totally agree.
As far as the bit in bold is concerned, they don't just attack whoever doesn't follow their faith, but everyone who doesn't follow the faith in the exact manner in which THEY perceive it should be.

You find that within certain christian subgroups, too. It is not enough someone else is a practicing christian, they should practice it in the exact same way they do. In a certain area in the Netherlands, you will be totally cold-shouldered by the entire population if you dare wash your car, do the laundry or visit a theatre or a swimming pool on a Sunday, because THEIR church tells them the only thing you are allowed to do on a Sunday is to walk to church 3 times a day. They are not even allowed do drive or cycle to church, so nobody else is allowed to drive a car or ride a bicycle either.

In one such village, a rich inhabitant had given the village a little playground for the children, but he had it removed after the children of some people that moved in from another village, a family who attended another, less strict, church, played in it on a Sunday.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Happy Paws said:


> The UK is classed as a Christian country, whether you are religious or not (I like you are not) but always think of it as Christian.


No, we are a secular country



lilythepink said:


> That's ok if the media and powers that be can be trusted not to spin their stories to suit themselves?


they cant, thats why we dont want to introduce a law banning reporting of events



lilythepink said:


> and, do you really think for a nano second that we are being told the whole truth here anyway?


No. I said this earlier.



lilythepink said:


> but do we live in a Christian country? and if we do, you are still influenced by religion...Christianity.


As per my post you quoted, I dont think we live in a christian country.
Therefore, I dont see the need for a Muslim to expect to live in the UK 'by our christian ways', as labelled by others, any more than I should be expected by live in the UK by our so called 'Christian ways', or, for that matter, live in the Uk by Muslim ways.
However, I do expect that we should ALL be expected to live in the UK by our secular non-religious State ways, and that the State should not interfere in the internal business of religion, other than the criminal laws of the land, or that ANY religion not should interfere in the internal business of The State. 
Thus all small remaining vestiges of (any) religious influence upon State laws and practices should be removed


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

Tails and Trails said:


> No, we are a secular country
> 
> they cant, thats why we dont want to introduce a law banning reporting of events
> 
> ...


Still, all our laws, our values and our culture, in all of western Europe, are based on christianity. So in that way, we are living by christian ways. The laws based on, let's say, the sharia, are totally alien to us.

As long as immigrants, and descendants of immigrants, agree to live by our legislation, which is based on christian norms and values, there should be no problem. And of course the same holds good for natives - and descendants of natives - of these western European countries.

Personally, I do not give a hoot about anyones ancestry, as long as they agree not to violate the laws and rules we, as a society, have agreed upon.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2015)

I found this a thoughtful blog on the topic:

Why You're Not Seeing Those 'Charlie Hebdo' Cartoons : The Two-Way : NPR

Dont know if I agree or not, but appreciate the honesty.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Tails and Trails said:


> No, we are a secular country
> 
> they cant, thats why we dont want to introduce a law banning reporting of events
> 
> ...


The UK isnt a secular country, there isnt seperation of church and state - the queen is head of the church of England, and they have seats in the house of Lord and enjoy the privilege of holding unelected seats as such

We are largely secular in nature, but we are not by definition a secular state.

France is a secular state. And ironically, the US is a secular country despite Atheists etc being a minority


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I found this a thoughtful blog on the topic:
> 
> Why You're Not Seeing Those 'Charlie Hebdo' Cartoons : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> Dont know if I agree or not, but appreciate the honesty.


cant comment on the bits about american newspapers, but he has only written what was already well established and revealed information about charlie hebdo magazine


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

grumpy goby said:


> The UK isnt a secular country, there isnt seperation of church and state - the queen is head of the church of England, and they have seats in the house of Lord and enjoy the privilege of holding unelected seats as such
> 
> We are largely secular in nature, but we are not by definition a secular state.
> 
> France is a secular state. And ironically, the US is a secular country despite Atheists etc being a minority


by secular i meant we are a nation of predominately secularist people,
which i why i also added that any remaining vestiges of the old christian governance order should be removed, which means all the things you listed

thus, i dont expect a muslim to be expect to live by our so called christian ways anymore than i should be expected to live by our so called christian ways or expected to live in the uk by muslim ways


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Tails and Trails said:


> by secular i meant we are a nation of predominately secularist people,
> which i why i also added that any remaining vestiges of the old christian governance order should be removed, which means all the things you listed
> 
> thus, i dont expect a muslim to be expect to live by our so called christian ways anymore than i should be expected to live by our so called christian ways or expected to live in the uk by muslim ways


Thats why I said we are largely secular in nature, but that is different to being a secular country 

Personally, I dont "get" religion (despite a C of E upbringing, I cant remember a defining time where I was a believer) and think people should be able to believe whatever they care to, and be free to do so, so long as it doesnt impinge on another persons rights.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

grumpy goby said:


> Thats why I said we are largely secular in nature, but that is different to being a secular country
> 
> Personally, I dont "get" religion and think people should be able to believe whatever they care to, and be free to do so, so long as it doesnt impinge on another persons rights.


totally agree

that applies to muslims and christians equally

thats why when i hear a muslim tell me i should not have the legal right to draw pictures of mo, or when i hear a christian say if 'a muslim wants to live in our chistian country, they should follow our questions ways', i just think "on yer bike"


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2015)

Tails and Trails said:


> cant comment on the bits about american newspapers, but he has only written what was already well established and revealed information about charlie hebdo magazine


Um... thats not at all the point of the blog.
The blog was meant as an explanation of how news organizations (his in particular) go about deciding what to post and what not to post.


> News editors at NPR and other organizations continually review their judgments on these types of issues when the materials are potentially offensive because of their religious, racial or sexual content. That review process will continue.


He went on to say that National Public Radio chose not to publish the video of the police officer being shot. CNN published it but with the officer blurred out. Other organizations chose to show the video unaltered, but with a warning.

Freedom of the press means the press is also free to decide how and what they report.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Um... thats not at all the point of the blog.
> The blog was meant as an explanation of how news organizations (his in particular) go about deciding what to post and what not to post.
> 
> He went on to say that National Public Radio chose not to publish the video of the police officer being shot. CNN published it but with the officer blurred out. Other organizations chose to show the video unaltered, but with a warning.
> ...


i know

............


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> What has being married to a muslim, living in a muslim country, and reading the Koran got to do with racism? Islam is a religion, not a race. You can do all the above and still be racist, just as someone married to a christian, living in a christian country, and has read the bible, can be racist.





Tails and Trails said:


> im guessing you didnt spot the obvious contradiction in the paragraph above?


Tails and Trails - I asked you what you thought the contradiction was half a thread ago and you didn't reply. I have to confess that I still can't see a contradiction - come on, don't keep me waiting any longer for your explanation!


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Tails and Trails - I asked you what you thought the contradiction was half a thread ago and you didn't reply. I have to confess that I still can't see a contradiction - come on, don't keep me waiting any longer for your explanation!


been busy

some others understood, this:

Islam is a religion,* not a race*. You can do all the above and *still be racist*,


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> been busy
> 
> some others understood, this:
> 
> Islam is a religion,* not a race*. You can do all the above and *still be racist*,


Ok, I know I'm taking tramadol and so am a little spaced out, but I am still struggling to understand what you mean.

Ang2 said that she could not be racist because she was married to a muslim, lived in a muslin country, and had read the Koran.

I said that Islam is a religion, not a race.

I said that because Islam was a religion and not a race, you could could be married to a muslim, live in a muslim country, read the Koran, and still be racist - ie your religion and your reading matter has no bearing upon whether or not you are racist.

So what am I missing? Why is that contradictory? Please explain in words of one syllable so that my tramadol-befuddled mind can understand, because I can't for the life of me see any contradiction in that. (Or perhaps the others who understood could explain what you mean if you cant?)


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Ok, I know I'm taking tramadol and so am a little spaced out, but I am still struggling to understand what you mean.
> 
> Ang2 said that she could not be racist because she was married to a muslim, lived in a muslin country, and had read the Koran.
> 
> ...


ok. i thought it was obvious now, so bit confused myself, bit i appreciate if you on on meds

simply put - you just said islam is a religion NOT a race, then gave examples of whereby you think someone could be racist against a muslim (and a christian earlier)


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Ok, I know I'm taking tramadol and so am a little spaced out, but I am still struggling to understand what you mean.
> 
> Ang2 said that she could not be racist because she was married to a muslim, lived in a muslin country, and had read the Koran.
> 
> ...


So what race am I racist against? Or is it all of them? Or is it too much tramadol dear?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> ok. i thought it was obvious now, so bit confused myself, bit i appreciate if you on on meds
> 
> simply put - you just said islam is a religion NOT a race, then gave examples of whereby you think someone could be racist against a muslim (and a christian earlier)


No I didn't - I gave examples that being married to a muslim, living in a muslim aountry and reading the koran does not exempt you from being racist any more than being married to a christian, living in a christian country, and reading the bible does not make you racist.

In other words, I gave examples that religion has nothing to do with race, not examples of HOW you could be racist.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> No I didn't - I gave examples that being married to a muslim, living in a muslim aountry and reading the koran does not exempt you from being racist any more than being married to a christian, living in a christian country, and reading the bible does not make you racist.
> 
> In other words, I gave examples that religion has nothing to do with race, not examples of HOW you could be racist.


you can be religious and racist _at the same time_, of course

but if you hate all muslims, or christians, that's not racism, as religion isnt a race, as you said yourself


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Ang2 said:


> So what race am I racist against? Or is it all of them? Or is it too much tramadol dear?


I didn't say you were a racist. I said that what you wrote - ie that you could not be racist because you were married to a muslim, had lived in a muslim country, and read the koran, actually did not mean that you were not racist. You dear, even without the excuse of the effects of tramadol, were trying to say that you couldn't be racist because of your ties to Islam. And, once again, as Isalm is a religion, not a race, any number of ties to Islam cannot prove that you are not racist.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> you can be religious and racist _at the same time_, of course
> 
> but if you hate all muslims, or christians, that's not racism, as religion isnt a race, *as you said yourself*


Exactly - as I said! No contradiction at all then!


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I didn't say you were a racist. I said that what you wrote - ie that you could not be racist because you were married to a muslim, had lived in a muslim country, and read the koran, actually did not mean that you were not racist. You dear, even without the excuse of the effects of tramadol, were trying to say that you couldn't be racist because of your ties to Islam. And, once again, as Isalm is a religion, not a race, any number of ties to Islam cannot prove that you are not racist.


And once again, to WHOM am I racist? ie What race please? As you have, in fact, called me racist!


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> .





> You dear, even without the excuse of the effects of tramadol, were trying to say that you couldn't be racist because of your ties to Islam.


she cant be racist toward muslims, because



> And, once again, as Isalm is a religion, not a race





> any number of ties to Islam cannot prove that you are not racist.


true, *unless* one were to claim she was racist against muslims


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Exactly - as I said! No contradiction at all then!


well, yes.
and you just did it again in the very post above this one quoted 

seriously though, i think me, ang, and other people reading are following this

it probably is just down to your meds, like you say. thats happened to me before


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Ang2 said:


> And once again, to WHOM am I racist? ie What race please? As you have, in fact, called me racist!


Ok - point out where I have called you a racist (as apart from where I have said that ties to Islam cannot prove you are not racist.) Post numbers and quotes please - otherwise I shall expect a public apologiy for your lies.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Anyone else having trouble following this?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> she cant be racist toward muslims, because
> 
> true, *unless* one were to claim she was racist against muslims


 You cannot be racist agains muslims becasue Islam is a religion not a race.

So in other words, you actually agree with what I am saying?


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Ok - point out where I have called you a racist (as apart from where I have said that ties to Islam cannot prove you are not racist.) Post numbers and quotes please - otherwise I shall expect a public apologiy for your lies.


Are YOU going to make a public apology?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> You cannot be racist agains muslims becasue Islam is a religion not a race.
> 
> So in other words, you actually agree with what I am saying?


no. you said, in relation to ang's attitude to muslims, she could still be ~potentially~ a racist, even even though she says she reads the koran, hangs with muslims, etc, etc, etc.
THEN you said islam is a religion NOT a race.

therefore, if you were to state someone can still hates muslims DESPITE all those activities given by ang, then they cant be a *race*-ist,
plenty of other things, but not a racist


----------



## tincan (Aug 30, 2012)

Or is it too much tramadol dear? ..... And quotes like that are a little below the belt imo ......


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

tincan said:


> Or is it too much tramadol dear? ..... And quotes like that are a little below the belt imo ......


And so is Racist!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jonescat said:


> Anyone else having trouble following this?


Ang2 wrote:


Ang2 said:


> Having been married to a muslim for 7 years - please don't call me racist! My views are from personal experience, knowledge, lived in a muslim country and have read the Koran.


To which I answered:


Spellweaver said:


> What has being married to a muslim, living in a muslim country, and reading the Koran got to do with racism? Islam is a religion, not a race. You can do all the above and still be racist, just as someone married to a christian, living in a christian country, and has read the bible, can be racist.


And Tails and Trails replied:


Tails and Trails said:


> im guessing you didnt spot the obvious contradiction in the paragraph above?


I asked Tails and Trails to explain, and he/she is now trying to say that my above post contradicted itself because in it I said you cannot be racist and then I gave examples of how to be racist against christians and muslims - which is so blatantly untrue it's laughable.

Meanwhile Ang2 - in her usual delightful way  - is saying I've called her racist.

That's about it in a nutsell


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Ang2 wrote:
> 
> To which I answered:
> 
> ...


Yep, clear as mud!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Ang2 said:


> Are YOU going to make a public apology?


I have nothing to apologise for. You are unable to show where I have called you racist because I have not called you racist.


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I have nothing to apologise for. You are unable to show where I have called you racist because I have not called you racist.


So, youre now saying Im not racist


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

Tails and Trails said:


> no. you said, in relation to ang's attitude to muslims, she could still be ~potentially~ a racist, even even though she says she reads the koran, hangs with muslims, etc, etc, etc.
> THEN you said islam is a religion NOT a race.
> 
> therefore, if you were to state someone can still hates muslims DESPITE all those activities given by ang, then they cant be a *race*-ist,
> plenty of other things, but not a racist


Now you are getting things mixed up...

Someone who hates muslims is islamophobic, and islamophobia is not racism, because muslims are not a race. Just like someone who is antisemitic is not therefore a racist, because the Jews are a people, not a race. Which doesn't mean an islamophobe or antisemite cannot also be a racist..

They might well be, but it doesn't follow from the fact that they are antisemitic or islamophobic.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> I asked Tails and Trails to explain, and he/she is now trying to say that my above post contradicted itself because in it I said you cannot be racist and then I gave examples of how to be racist against christians and muslims - which is so blatantly untrue it's laughable.


okay. tricky. 
last go.

joe blogs says they cant be racist against muslims, as they are married to one and read the koran

jane bloggs says islam ISNT a race, its a religion, BUT you can still read the koran etc and be a racist

however, jane bloggs DOESNT say islam isnt a race, its a religion, so someone whom reads the koran, can still be racist against races.

jane bloggs DOES says islam is a race, its a religion, then goes on to tell joe bloggs, IN RELATION TO A PRIOR DISCUSSION BETWEEN THEM IN REGARDS TO HER VIEWS UPON A RELIGION - ISLAM - that she *could* still be a racist despite reading the koran etc.
which, clearly, she couldnt be.
she *could* be a bigot, but not a racist

the same logic applies to christians.

excuse caps, not shouting, just didnt have fingers to find the underline button


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> no. you said, in relation to ang's attitude to muslims, she could still be ~potentially~ a racist, even even though she says she reads the koran, hangs with muslims, etc, etc, etc.
> THEN you said islam is a religion NOT a race.
> 
> *therefore, if you were to state someone can still hates muslims DESPITE all those activities given by ang,* then they cant be a *race*-ist,
> plenty of other things, but not a racist


What I actually said was that embracing Islam (or christianity and, by extension, any other religion) has no bearing at all upon whether or not one is racist. Which is exactly what you are saying above.

So if I *were* to state that someone still hates muslims despite embracing the religion (which I didn't; that's merely your conjecture). then of course I would say that they would not be racist.

SO WHERE IS THE BLOODY CONTRADICTION?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jiskefet said:


> Now you are getting things mixed up...
> 
> Someone who hates muslims is islamophobic, and islamophobia is not racism, because muslims are not a race. Just like someone who is antisemitic is not therefore a racist, because the Jews are a people, not a race. Which doesn't mean an islamophobe or antisemite cannot also be a racist..
> 
> They might well be, but it doesn't follow from the fact that they are antisemitic or islamophobic.


no!

its SW thats holding that position

im saying the opposite, PRECISELY what you just wrote.
ie, if you hate muslims, you cant be a racist, its not a race.
you would be a bigot.
however, you could be a bigot against religions AND a racist against races, AT THE SAME TIME, just like you say
but thats wasnt how the exchange between SW and ang2 went

and PS, BTW.
you CAN be a racist against jews, as, on this one occassion, jews are a race and a religion
and if you hate muslims, you cant be an islamophobe, as that isnt what a phobia is.
i realise that is a popular media buzz phrase, but its technically incorrect.
you would be an anti muslim bigot


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Ang2 said:


> So, youre now saying Im not racist


I have NEVER said you were racist. That was all in your head - as you have proved by your inability to point out where you think I called you racist, o harbinger of sweetness and light


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Perhaps you lot would prefer to take this to pm rather than clogging up the board with your personal to-ings and fro-ings?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

tails and trails said:


> no!
> 
> Its sw thats holding that position


no it is not!!!!!!


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> Perhaps you lot would prefer to take this to pm rather than clogging up the board with your personal to-ings and fro-ings?


im not involved in that disagreement between ang and SW.
its not my concern.
therefore i havent posted any personal 'to-ings and fro-ings'


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

Tails and Trails said:


> no!
> 
> its SW thats holding that position
> 
> ...


Nope, Jews are not a race, they are a religion AND a people. Jews are an Arab people, the only difference being that the rest of the arab PEOPLES are muslim, only the Jewish PEOPLE have a different religion from the other peoples in their region.

Arabs, and therefore, Jews, too, are of the Caucasian race, just like Europeans.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Tails and Trails said:


> im not involved in that disagreement between ang and SW.
> its not my concern.
> therefore i havent posted any personal 'to-ings and fro-ings'


Not you I meant, tbh.


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

It was Hitler who claimed the Jews were a race, which would be funny if it hadn't been for the consequences, as Hitler, himself, was a Jew.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> no it is not!!!!!!


then why have you written that ang could *potentially* be a racist, *in relation to* her earlier postings on this thread in regards to muslims, despite also stating yourself that islam has nothing to do with race?

the fact she said she couldnt be a racist toward muslims because she reads the koran etc is moot, as she couldnt be a *race*-ist toward muslims full stop

genuine question, as genuinely perplexed,
a few people did pick up on the same 'seeming' contradiction in your post that i did?


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I have NEVER said you were racist. That was all in your head - as you have proved by your inability to point out where you think I called you racist, o harbinger of sweetness and light


So you didn't say this?

[*QUOTEthe racist accusation is accurate and I will go on applying it to you every time you come out with yet another racist comment./QUOTE]*


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> Not you I meant, tbh.


ah- thanks


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> okay. tricky.
> last go.
> 
> joe blogs says they cant be racist against muslims, as they are married to one and read the koran
> ...


But that's not my post - that's an extra bit you've added to my post.

To use your terminology:

joe blogs says they cant be racist against muslims, as they are married to one and read the koran

jane bloggs says islam ISNT a race, its a religion, and that you can be muslim and read the koran or christian and the bible (or by etension any reliigion and erading any religious tect) and still be a racist.

End of. No contradiction.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jiskefet said:


> It was Hitler who claimed the Jews were a race, which would be funny if it hadn't been for the consequences, as Hitler, himself, was a Jew.


hitler being one eighth jewish was thought so for a long time, but was never proven, and is considered to likely untrue.

and the jews were a race and religion long before he was born

they are an "ethnoreligious" group

jews arent arabs. jews and arabs are semites


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> But that's not my post - that's an extra bit you've added to my post.
> 
> To use your terminology:
> 
> ...


what extra bit?


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

If Jews are a race, then Masai are a race, Nubians are a race, Scandinavians are a race, Celts are a race, Saxons are a race, Inuit are a race, Mongols are a race, and I could go on and on.

They simply are NOT a race.

There are only 3, or maybe 4, human races in the world.
White (caucasian), black (*******) and yellow (asiatic) and if you count the red (Indians, Inuit and polynesians) as a separate race, there are 4. But it is debatable if they aren't part of the Asian race.

And Hitler's mother's mother was Jewish, which, according to Jewish law, makes him a Jew. And to be fair, you only have to look at his face to see the proof... He is the archetypal Jew. Hitler's main problem was that he denounced his ancestry, because he didn't want to know. Which made him the abomination he was.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> then why have you written that ang could *potentially* be a racist, *in relation to* her earlier postings on this thread in regards to muslims, despite also stating yourself that islam has nothing to do with race?
> 
> the fact she said she couldnt be a racist toward muslims because she reads the koran etc is moot, as she couldnt be a *race*-ist toward muslims full stop


I think if you read my post again you will find that I mentioned nothing about Ang2's earlier postings and certainly did not say she could be racist in relation to her earlier posts on the thread. I was merely answering the thread I quoted, where Ang2 seemed to think that being married to a muslim, living in a muslim country, and reading the koran meant she was not racist. I was merely pointing out what seems to be a moot point to both you and me (but obviously not to Ang2) that one cannot be racist towards Islam because Islam is a religion, not a race; ergo the things Ang2 had quoted did not, in fact, prove she was not racist.

Here it is in its entirety:



Spellweaver said:


> What has being married to a muslim, living in a muslim country, and reading the Koran got to do with racism? Islam is a religion, not a race. You can do all the above and still be racist, just as someone married to a christian, living in a christian country, and has read the bible, can be racist.


I still maintain there is no contradiction in that post.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

cinnamontoast said:


> Perhaps you lot would prefer to take this to pm rather than clogging up the board with your personal to-ings and fro-ings?


Sorry, but when I am accused in public I will defend myself in public. I'm not the sort of person who sneaks about behind the scenes.

Don't worry - Ang2 is now firmly on ignore so she can post whatever she likes and I won't respond.


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I think if you read my post again you will find that I mentioned nothing about Ang2's earlier postings and certainly did not say she could be racist in relation to her earlier posts on the thread. I was merely answering the thread I quoted, where *Ang2 seemed to think that being married to a muslim, living in a muslim country, and reading the koran meant she was not racist. I was merely pointing out what seems to be a moot point to both you and me (but obviously not to Ang2*) that one cannot be racist towards Islam because Islam is a religion, not a race; ergo the things Ang2 had quoted did not, in fact, prove she was not racist.
> 
> Here it is in its entirety:
> 
> I still maintain there is no contradiction in that post.


Yep, and that's because *you *called me a racist because of my views on Islam  So carry on confusing everyone eh?


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Sorry, but when I am accused in public I will defend myself in public. I'm not the sort of person who sneaks about behind the scenes.
> 
> Don't worry - *Ang2 is now firmly on ignore so she can post whatever she likes and I won't respond*.


Best news ever! And of course you then don't have to answer my question about why I am racist


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Ang2 said:


> Having been married to a muslim for 7 years - please don't call me racist! My views are from personal experience, knowledge, lived in a muslim country and have read the Koran.


Thus, Ang is talking about others calling her a* racist*. Have no idea if they did, but thats the conversation and post to which you replied and _then _said....



Spellweaver said:


> What has being married to a muslim, living in a muslim country, and reading the Koran got to do with racism? *Islam is a religion, not a race.* *You can do all the above and still be racist*, just as someone married to a christian, living in a christian country, and has read the bible, can be racist.
> 
> .


so what does the line "you can do all the above (ie, ang's list of muslim connected activities) and still be a racist" mean, when we already know from ang's post you are responding to, she isnt even referring to a race when she is defending herself against 'perceived' charges of racism.

the way i read your post, if you just meant that you were correcting ang on the incorrect usage of the term racism in the context of her muslim activities comments, then you would have stopped after the sentence "islam is a religion, not a race".
Hence why i read a contradiction, as it does *look like* you are _going on to_ explain that ang could still qualify as a racist, even though ang isnt even making comments about a race


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jiskefet said:


> If Jews are a race, then Masai are a race, Nubians are a race, Scandinavians are a race, Celts are a race, Saxons are a race, Inuit are a race, Mongols are a race, and I could go on and on.
> 
> They simply are NOT a race.
> 
> ...


i see where you are coming from now.
its the distinction between ethnic group and race.
jews are an ethnic group like celts, as you say

however, what i meant was is that the term racism is also understood and used to be an attack upon ethnic groups.

and jews, unlike all other religions, are also an ethnic group, thus one could argue that, unlike muslims or sikhs etc, one can also be 'racist' against jews

it was hitler's grandfather that has the 'claim' to be jewish

his mother and maternal grandmother were roman catholic austrians


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> Thus, Ang is talking about others calling her a* racist*. Have no idea if they did, but thats the conversation and post to which you replied and _then _said....
> 
> so what does the line "you can do all the above (ie, ang's list of muslim connected activities) and still be a racist" mean, when we already know from ang's post you are responding to, she isnt even referring to a race when she is defending herself against 'perceived' charges of racism.
> 
> ...


I am fast losing the will to live :w00t:

Ang2 had posted to say the facts that she was married to a muslim, lived in a muslim country and had read the koran proved she could not be racist.

I posted to say that none of that proved she could not be racist because Islam was not a race.

The line "you can do all the above (ie, ang's list of muslim connected activities) and still be a racist" means exactly that - ie if you are using this to prove you are not a racist it will not.

Quite why that entailed all this contradiciton baloney on your part is STILL eluding me.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2015)

Jonescat said:


> Anyone else having trouble following this?


The only thing Im having trouble with is how twisted a very simple post can get.

All Spellweaver said was that being married to a muslim, living in a muslim country, and reading the koran does not exempt one from being racist. 
She never said anyone *was* racist, just that the above criteria doesnt exempt a person from being a racist.

Lets put it this way. Many southern americans are indeed very racist. Yet they are married to christians, live in a christian region, and read the bible.

I really dont see what the whole issue was/is 

And even if Spellweaver called someone a racist so what? Like I tell my own kids all the time, if you know whatever theyre saying about you isnt true, and those who matter to you know it isnt true, what does it matter to you what people think of you? Now, if youre behaving in a way to give folks the wrong idea, then sure, maybe consider how you come across, but in the end, what people think of you is their business, not yours.

In any case, Im sure the families of the dead cartoonists are comforted to know that the death of their loved ones has spurred a conversation that has deteriorated to this point.

*sigh*


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> I am fast losing the will to live :w00t:
> 
> Ang2 had posted to say the facts that she was married to a muslim, lived in a muslim country and had read the koran proved she could not be racist.
> 
> ...


it was your last sentence. a few others seem to get the same impression as me

many times before i have seen people accuse other people of being racists because they posted anti muslim bigoted comments.
i have replied many times, they cant be a racist, islam isnt a race

thus, i would have *just* posted to ang:



> "why does marrying a muslim (etc etc etc) mean you cant be a racist, islam isnt a race, its a religion.
> theoretically you could still be a racist". although you dont need to defend yourself from a perception that others on here have accused you of racism, as they would be wrong if they were anyway, as islam isnt a race"


however, in actuality, i probably wouldnt have posted anything at all, as it was clear to me that ang was only ever talking about religions and not race anyway, she just made the mistake of buying into the mistake that other may or may not had already made by calling her a racist. so if anything, if others were calling her so (I dont know, not my concern), it would be they I would make the post to.


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

Tails and Trails said:


> i see where you are coming from now.
> its the distinction between ethnic group and race.
> jews are an ethnic group like celts, as you say
> 
> ...


Still, there are ******* Jews and Nubian Jews as well as the archetypal, arabic-looking Jews... And they all claim they are NOT converts to the faith, but an integral part of the original Jewish community of the biblical era. Which doesn't make the Jews a race or even an ethnic group, as the Nubians and ******* Jews are of a different ethnic group. But they are still Jews. Which makes them a nothing more or less than a people with their own religion, maybe only to be compared with the Tibetans with their Dalai Lama.

The whole idea of ethnicity is unimportant, anyway, unless as a ground for discrimination. There has been so much mixing and mingling of ethnic groups over the past 3 milennia that there will not be a single person who is 100% Celt or Saxon, or even Scandinavian or Roman.. Even the Chinese are not 'pure', even if you count Han, Cantonese and all the other peoples as one and the same.

So the entire ethnic debate is purely academic, anyway. _unless_ one is looking for an excuse to exclude people from their own clique...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> it was your last sentence. a few others seem to get the same impression as me


And judging by posts, likes, pms and rep, quite a few have understood exactly what I was saying.

Snap!

(Well, if we're descending to the chiildish and ridiculous we might as well do it properly!  )


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

It isn't just the races and ethnic groups that are interconnected, though, religions are, too.

Far too many people seem to forget that the first 5 books of the Old Testament are the Jewish Thora, so Christianity could be described as a Jewish sect, denomination or schism. And the Islam recognizes both the Jewish prophets and Jesus Christ as God's/Allah's prophets, the only difference being that they recognize one final prophet we don't, Mohammed.
So Islam could be considered a Christian/Jewish sect/denomination.

Jaweh = God = Allah...
We are just lending our ear to different prophets of one and the same god...
Which makes the differences cultural rather than religious.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jiskefet said:


> Still, there are ******* Jews and Nubian Jews as well as the archetypal, arabic-looking Jews... And they all claim they are NOT converts to the faith, but an integral part of the original Jewish community of the biblical era. Which doesn't make the Jews a race or even an ethnic group, as the Nubians and ******* Jews are of a different ethnic group. But they are still Jews. Which makes them a nothing more or less than a people with their own religion, maybe only to be compared with the Tibetans with their Dalai Lama.
> 
> The whole idea of ethnicity is unimportant, anyway, unless as a ground for discrimination. There has been so much mixing and mingling of ethnic groups over the past 3 milennia that there will not be a single person who is 100% Celt or Saxon, or even Scandinavian or Roman.. Even the Chinese are not 'pure', even if you count Han, Cantonese and all the other peoples as one and the same.
> 
> So the entire ethnic debate is purely academic, anyway. _unless_ one is looking for an excuse to exclude people from their own clique...


jews are an ethnoreligious group, with ethnic divisions.
even jews say so

and you can, of course, become a religious jew without being an ethnic jew, and you can be an ethnic jew and become an atheist or christian, etc

i agree about its moot anyway

but i think its fair to say hitler was a racist, but people that hate all muslims are not, etc.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> And judging by posts, likes, pms and rep, quite a few have understood exactly what I was saying.
> 
> Snap!
> 
> (Well, if we're descending to the chiildish and ridiculous we might as well do it properly!  )


and thats all fine

but why do you think we are being childish, thats an odd thing to say?

i am not posting emotionally at all, as far as im concerned, its just an academic conversation, a stimulating intellectual exercise.

and we appear to now both have clarity as to the points we have been making to each other, so its resolved itself as a positive interesting discussion

good stuff :thumbsup:


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

Tails and Trails said:


> jews are an ethnoreligious group, with ethnic divisions.
> even jews say so
> 
> and you can, of course, become a religious jew without being an ethnic jew, and you can be an ethnic jew and become an atheist or christian, etc
> ...


I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point!
Hitler _was_ a racist, not because the Jews are a race, but because he claimed they were and he persecuted them because of that...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> it was your last sentence. a few others seem to get the same impression as me
> 
> many times before i have seen people accuse other people of being racists because they posted anti muslim bigoted comments.
> i have replied many times, they cant be a racist, islam isnt a race
> ...


Perhaps if you had merely read my post and taken it at its face value, instead of putting on it a whole host of other things that other people have said in the past, then you would not have misinterpreted my meaning and would not have tried to say what I did write was contradictory. It wasn't. It was only contradictory when you superimposed what you had seen other people write and surmise previously. I cannot be held responsible for you putting all your baggage onto a quote and reading things into it that are not there except in your own mind. Had you read my post and taken it at its face value, we would have been spared all this rigmarole.

As for what you would have said/wouldn't have said to Ang2, that is your business, just as it is my business to say exactly what *I* wanted to say. And I did say exactly what I wanted to say. No more; no less. That is what a forum is all about. You are not the forum editor and have no business in telling other people what they should and should not have written. Nor should you be responding to what you imagine posts to mean rather than what is actually written.

So the next time you feel you need to criticise one of my posts, please feel free to do so. But at the same time, please do me the courtesy of reading and criticising what I actually write, rather than superimposing onto it all the extra baggage you are carrying around with you from reading/seeing other posts.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jiskefet said:


> I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point!
> Hitler _was_ a racist, not because the Jews are a race, but because he claimed they were and he persecuted them because of that...


we will have to agree to disagree

as jewish people themselves tend to think of themselves as a 'race' in the ethnic sense of that word


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

Tails and Trails said:


> we will have to agree to disagree
> 
> as jewish people themselves tend to think of themselves as a 'race' in the ethnic sense of that word


I have always heard them refer to themselves as God's _people_, the chosen _people_, not as the chosen race....
And I know quite a lot of Jews, I even have a Jewish SIL

But maybe that is a difference in translation from the Hebrew into English and into Dutch, I cannot be sure of that...


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Perhaps if you had merely read my post and taken it at its face value, instead of putting on it a whole host of other things that other people have said in the past, then you would not have misinterpreted my meaning and would not have tried to say what I did write was contradictory. It wasn't. It was only contradictory when you superimposed what you had seen other people write and surmise previously. I cannot be held responsible for you putting all your baggage onto a quote and reading things into it that are not there except in your own mind. Had you read my post and taken it at its face value, we would have been spared all this rigmarole.
> 
> As for what you would have said/wouldn't have said to Ang2, that is your business, just as it is my business to say exactly what *I* wanted to say. That is what a forum is all about. You are not the forum editor and have no business in telling other people what they should and should not have written. Nor should you be responding to what you imagine posts to mean rather than what is actually written.
> 
> So the next time you feel you need to criticise one of my posts, please feel free to do so. But at the same time, please do me the courtesy of reading and criticising what I actually write, rather than superimposing onto it all the extra baggage you are carrying around with you from reading/seeing other posts.


this post above is not relevant, as it does not relate to my activity or purpose

i merely responded in line with_ 'a' _way your post can be 'seen' to read by people, therefore a 'face value'. seen to be read for the reasons i have expanded upon
however, you now clarify it is does not mean that.
and now i am clear on your points, i can now also see how your post can be read both ways.

i can only repeat, i have no idea why you are now , at this late stage, adding personalized comments to the discussion, as far as im concerned, i have no emotional/ personal motivations at all (why would i?), it was merely an stimulating intellectual exercise, which has now resolved itself positively.
all the more the more reason why the points above would be strange at this juncture.

enjoyable discussion. thanks for the opportunity 

PS - to be fair, it was you that insisted i bring it all up, i had shunted it, and had no plans of bothering


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jiskefet said:


> I have always heard them refer to themselves as God's _people_, the chosen _people_, not as the chosen race....
> And I know quite a lot of Jews, I even have a Jewish SIL
> 
> But maybe that is a difference in translation from the Hebrew into English and into Dutch, I cannot be sure of that...


ive had this discussion with jewish friends before


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

If your friends refer to the Jews as a race, I think it must be in the translation of the Hebrew word, which, apparently, can refer to either a race or a people. Coming to think of it, maybe there is no such distinction in Hebrew. After all, we are talking about a language with roots in an era where the world was very small and there may have been very little or no distinction between peoples, races and ethnic groups. There may have been a single word encompassing all of these. They probably had no concept of race or ethnicity, just of peoples, which were as different from each other as races or ethnic groups are to us in the modern world...
We would need a scholar in the Hebrew language to solve this one for us....


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

I found this interesting analogy

Jews were treated like a race because, for centuries, they behaved like a race and were treated like a race. Let me explain. The answer is genetic and has to do with the fact that most Jews originated from one and the same relatively small number of Jews who lived in Israel two-thousand years ago.
For a long time this was mere conjecture but genetic testing now demonstrates this beyond a doubt: an American Jew shares a greater genetic pool with an Ethiopian Jew than they do with their non-Jewish countrymen and this common genetic pool is about two millennia old. Now, obviously, everyone on earth traces their ancestry to some group that lived somewhere 2000 years ago. The difference is that Jews, for religious reasons, remained relatively strict about intermarriage. A variety of rules (such as kosher diet or sabbath observance) kept them together as a closely-knit community, even when they were dispersed from Israel (in what Jews call "the Diaspora"). So unlike, say, Goths or Huns, who shared the same group of origin but were "mixed in" thoroughly with the surrounding population in the centuries that followed their dispersal, Jews even in exile maintained a relatively "closed" genetic circle that is still detectable. Some outsiders have joined this group (hence, blonde Jews here and dark skinned Jews there) but that number is very small and intermarriage was, until recently, very small, in part due to exclusiveness (by Jews towards outsiders) and racism (by outsiders towards Jews). Hence: Jews are treated like a race because, for centuries, they were treated like a race.

ELI5: Why are Jews treated more like a race than other religions? : explainlikeimfive


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

In which case the population of a number of Dutch villages would also be a separate race, as they only marry people of the same church, which are limited to inhabitants of these villages. There is a tremendous lot of inbreeding, as this intermarriage within this limited population has been going on for many centuries.
However, this does not match the definition of a race.

Being treated like a race doesn't mean it IS a race...

If your reasoning is correct, the combined royal families of Europe would also be a separate race, as they also intermarried to the exclusion of the rest of the European population.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jiskefet said:


> In which case the population of a number of Dutch villages would also be a separate race, as they only marry people of the same church, which are limited to inhabitants of these villages. There is a tremendous lot of inbreeding, as this intermarriage within this limited population has been going on for many centuries.
> However, this does not match the definition of a race.
> 
> Being treated like a race doesn't mean it IS a race...
> ...


a bit of hushed up sex going on outside the circle, as it goes


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I could have put money on this idiot taking advantage of the tragedy to spread his fear & prejudice. Nigel Farage accused of using Paris atrocity for 'political point' scoring â RT UK

Good response from Keith Vaz

_

Leicester East MP Keith Vaz has reacted to Nigel Farages comments that multiculturalism was to blame for Wednesday's terror attack in Paris.

The Ukip leader was talking about the assault on the Charlie Hebdo offices, a French satirical magazine, which resulted in the deaths of 12 people.

Speaking about the attack, Mr Farage said: The real question is this. We in Britain - and Ive seen some evidence in other European countries of it too - have pursued a really rather gross policy of multiculturalism and by that, what I mean, is that weve encouraged people who have come from different cultures to remain within those cultures and not to integrate fully within our communities.

Responding to the statement, Mr Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: For Mr Farage to make these politicised comments immediately after this tragedy displays a contemptible lack of tact.

Read more: 404 Not Found 
Follow us: @Leicester_Merc on Twitter | leicestermercury on Facebook

In France and around the world, people of all faiths, nationalities and backgrounds are uniting in solidarity with the French people, this is the true reflection of multiculturalism.

The actions of a small group of severely warped individuals is no fifth pillar, as Mr Farage suggests.

Read more: 404 Not Found 
Follow us: @Leicester_Merc on Twitter | leicestermercury on Facebook _

404 Not Found


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> I could have put money on this idiot taking advantage of the tragedy to spread his fear & prejudice. Nigel Farage accused of using Paris atrocity for 'political point' scoring â€" RT UK
> 
> Good response from Keith Vaz
> 
> ...


So farage points to problems with multi-culturalism?
as have Angela merkel
as has trevor philips, a black man whom was the former head of the Equality & Human Rights Commission. (tony blair then moved government policy away from MC after this). 
as had george carey former archbishop of canterbury

its a valid critique.

keith vaz isnt that important. the comment you quoted is meaningless and a bit of a common predictable transparent response people often come out with. its just a posture. and a moot point, merely spoken as a ploy to shut down a discussion he doesnt agree with. he also tried to get salmon rushdie banned and has several instances of dodgy corruption to his name. whom gives a **** what keith vaz says?


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

Jiskefet said:


> In which case the population of a number of Dutch villages would also be a separate race, as they only marry people of the same church, which are limited to inhabitants of these villages. There is a tremendous lot of inbreeding, as this intermarriage within this limited population has been going on for many centuries.
> However, this does not match the definition of a race.


I used to live in one of these villages... Everyone was a cousin, nephew, aunt or brother of everyone else..

It was like hearing that old reggae song


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Tails and Trails said:


> So farage points to problems with multi-culturalism?
> as have Angela merkel
> as has trevor philips, a black man whom was the former head of the Equality & Human Rights Commission. (tony blair then moved government policy away from MC after this).
> as had george carey former archbishop of canterbury
> ...


I could have put money on you jumping to Nigels defence as well:lol:


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> I could have put money on you jumping to Nigels defence as well:lol:


i could put money on you extrapolating my post to fit what you would like it to be 
and avoiding what was actually written (ironic hahahahahahahahahahahahahahas)


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Tails and Trails said:


> whom gives a **** what keith vaz says?


His constituents - 14000 majority.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Tails and Trails said:


> i could put money on you extrapolating my post to fit what you would like it to be
> and avoiding what was actually written (ironic hahahahahahahahahahahahahahas)


Farage was using the tragedy to further his insidious agenda - only a blind man could fail to see that. Ukip did the same in Rotherham when they exploited the victims of child abuse for their campaign. They are a despicable party. 
And you do always jump to Nige's defence. lol


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Farage was using the tragedy to further his insidious agenda - only a blind man could fail to see that. Ukip did the same in Rotherham when they exploited the victims of child abuse for their campaign. They are a despicable party.
> And you do always jump to Nige's defence. lol


you just made the same post as the last one.
every time we have these exchanges, thats what you do.
you make a comment, i counter that.
you ignore the content of that reply, the points i make.
then make another comment just repeating the last comment, again ignoring points I am making.

so, again, all you have done is pointed out farage has expressed the same views that many other people have made over the same situations?
and then you choose to ignore this?

aside from that, why is not talking about what drives events, such as the ones mentioned, invalid?

also, why is offering critique invalid?

and why, therefore, is not stating that multiculturalism plays a part in the events of rochester or paris invalid?

multiculturalism and political correctness did indeed play a part in why rochester happened. along with other reasons.

i have expressed this critique myself. as have trevor philips and nigel farage.
i have not expressed it because they did, i expressed it because i think its true.
therefore, if people criticise trevor philips or angela merkel or nigel farage or george carey for making those observations, i will disagree with that person, as i agree with the observations.

and you are correct, politicians do make capital out of events.
likewise, i can turn around and say to you: "'typical, someone exploits the tragedy of charlie hebdo and the victims of rochester for their own insidious politically correct agenda. As usual with these types of people, they try and shut down debate they dont like the sound off by labeling anyone that has a non PC opinion as being racist or similar sentiments. its dishonest and devious, as they know those that disagree with them have a good argument, and the general public show a lot of support for that argument, and they cant handle that. and how despicable of them, to dishonour the victims of charlie hebdo and rochester by trying to exploit the events and control the response to these events thru the very things that are part of a culture contributed to these people becoming victims, especially if you consider that charlie hebdo stood against such cultures of political correctness/multi-culturism that aimed to curb free expression, the free expression people are trying to curb and censor right now when discussing the issues surrounding their murders. And how arrogant these people are to think that they speak on behalf of charlie hebdo as to what or what not they would not wish to be discussed. Whose exploiting them for political gain now? and how awful is it for them to use a thread created to remember the people that were murdered in paris for having a go at nigel farage"?

see, works both way, innit 

ironic lololololololololololololololololol


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jonescat said:


> His constituents - 14000 majority.


therein the problem with our so called democracy. we tick a box once every 5 years, 2/3 of votes cast dont get counted in the first past the post system, and then these guys do ****, speak ****, dont give a ****, but thats ok, they got a mandate from us


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

What is your preferred alternative?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jonescat said:


> What is your preferred alternative?


PR

direct democracy

local devolution

people like keith vaz whom have been exploited there public servant position to feather their own nest, and become embroiled in several dodgy dealings, to be fired as an MP

for members of parliament to be banned from representing any vested interests

the destruction of the LibLabCon left-right establishment


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Well this was an interesting debate...now, not so much :Yawn:
These threads always end up with stupid point scoring :shocked:


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Well this was an interesting debate...now, not so much :Yawn:
> These threads always end up with stupid point scoring :shocked:


Don't worry about it. Had plenty discussions with noushka before so know what to expect so trying not to repeat that

I think I explained my point well. Trying to stick to the issues . Its not really about whom said it its about what they say

If noush wants to take up my actual points, then she is free to do so and that would be great.
Then it would just be a valid discussion. I'm not gonna try again if its a nige this or me and nige that reply a third time

The discussion with Jonescat is good, she asked me a very good direct question, actually.

Or maybe we will just all find other stuff to do?


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

I try!

I worry about local democracy - on one hand I like the romantic idea, on the other I live right on the border of two counties and know a little about how it works if you have to deal with the other county ( e.g school hols may be different and recycling ability is different). Imagine that x 40 or so. 

Also, I do not necessarily want a local community (tries to think of something that will not annoy people but can be used as an example) of people who think that there is not enough provision at their local hospital for cancer patients to divert funds away from something less well known but equally as important to those who have it. Acutely aware of this as have a niece with something that about 18 people in the UK have, and that nobody except the relevant specialist would know about, so if put to a vote of any sort, it wouldn't get the funds she needs it to have. Similarly I don't want a local choice of facilities - we are too small here for that - I want local excellence!

I do agree though that accountability is key and that the party system as we have it is awful.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> Don't worry about it. Had plenty discussions with noushka before so know what to expect


Yes, with Noush you always know to expect valid points, well made, with plenty of evidence to back up her points.

Give me a poster like that any day - it's much more preferable to some pseudo-intellectual who wriggles like a worm on the hook and then moves the goalposts every time he/she is caught out. It's much more preferable to debate with a poster who says exactly what she means, rather than a poster who undertakes sly personal attacks under the guise of, "I argue issues; I don't make personal attacks, but ... " and then a personal attack follows.

Give me a poster like Noush any day!


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Now you know WHY I don't like them, you have know idea who you can trust, call me racist if you like I don't care.

British hate preacher Mizanur Rahman BACKS the Paris massacres | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Yes, with Noush you always know to expect valid points, well made, with plenty of evidence to back up her points.
> 
> Give me a poster like that any day - it's much more preferable to some pseudo-intellectual who wriggles like a worm on the hook and then moves the goalposts every time he/she is caught out. It's much more preferable to debate with a poster who says exactly what she means, rather than a poster who undertakes sly personal attacks under the guise of, "I argue issues; I don't make personal attacks, but ... " and then a personal attack follows.
> 
> Give me a poster like Noush any day!


Gosh, still today this minor little thing :001_huh:

i cant comment upon your central allegations about disguised personal attacks and moving goalposts, as you havent provided any examples. As such, that just means they are mere statements.
i wouldnt like to think someone "feels" I made a disguised personal attack, so would always be keen to address that.

Now that said, all I can say is if you didnt want to have the discussion we had last night, why did you insist?
I had shunted it, I only bothered because you asked keenly, I wasnt going to post again.

But that doesnt mean_ I _have to think we had a personal spat, just because, all of a sudden, right at the end, you personalised it?

Believe me, i had, and still dont, no personal/emotional interest, agenda, or motivation about you whatsoever. Why would I?
I dont know anything about you.
I was just exercising my brain.
I was being completely academic and literal.
I'm being only literal right now.

You can ask a guy to dance, doesnt mean he will 

PS, actually, I agree, Noushka often does post up valid points which she backs up. I appreciate and agree with many of her posts. But literally speaking, as it happens, on this occasion, you are actually incorrect.
As this specific time, in regards to my post, she did not actually make any valid points at all, as she ignored all the points I had made and questions I had asked by opting just to make personality based comments about the people making the points, in lieu of addressing their points.

Just to reiterate, i make this observation literally, as that is the literal case, it has nothing to do with a personality based motivation.
I would be most keen if Noush wishes to counter me on the actual points/content of my post, as keen as you were yesterday for me to do the same with yours.
Respects to her if she is not interested.

Im happy to exercise my brain with anyone. Anything else kills my soul.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> Gosh, you been brewing on that minor little thing all day :001_huh:


Whatever gave you that idea? Sorry to disappoint you, but if you think of my life as a beach, speaking to you on a forum has as much importance to me as an atom in one of the grains of sand.

Actually, I've been out all morning to a hospital appointment and then asleep in bed all afternoon, recovering from it. I then came on here, saw several posts on several threads and responded to them - as you do on a forum. No-one else saw fit to intimate that I had spent all day trying to think up an answer to any other posts I've responded to.

So why should you?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Whatever gave you that idea? Sorry to disappoint you, but if you think of my life as a beach, speaking to you on a forum has as much importance to me as an atom in one of the grains of sand.
> 
> Actually, I've been out all morning to a hospital appointment and then asleep in bed all afternoon, recovering from it. I then came on here, saw several posts on several threads and responded to them - as you do on a forum. No-one else saw fit to intimate that I had spent all day trying to think up an answer to any other posts I've responded to.
> 
> So why should you?


okay then. post edited

whats a life as a beach? - EDIT - dont worry, just got it


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Happy Paws said:


> Now you know WHY I don't like them, you have know idea who you can trust, call me racist if you like I don't care.
> 
> British hate preacher Mizanur Rahman BACKS the Paris massacres | Daily Mail Online


Them who?
Them British?
Them preachers?
Them Muslims?

Do you judge Christians on the basis of these people?









Didn't think so....

How about watching this for a bit of balance:

[youtube_browser]watch?v=s77JgiT6ypc[/youtube_browser]


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> I could have put money on you jumping to Nigels defence as well:lol:


Hey Noush'

What's the difference between a Punk Rocker and Nigel Farage ......

The letter 'S'.....

*F*CK THE SYSTEM!*










*F*CKS THE SYSTEM!*


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> How about watching this for a bit of balance:
> 
> [youtube_browser]watch?v=s77JgiT6ypc[/youtube_browser]


and you believe him, talk is cheap.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Zaros said:


> Hey Noush'
> 
> What's the difference between a Punk Rocker and Nigel Farage ......
> 
> ...


In that case the punk rocker will be gutted nige is more real than him

Fcks the system - that's a good thing, innit?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Tails and Trails said:


> In that case the punk rocker will be gutted nige is more real than him
> 
> Fcks the system - that's a good thing, innit?


I daresay the Punk Rocker is far more capable of governing this Country than that Farage idiot.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> In that case the punk rocker will be gutted nige is more real than him
> 
> good innit?


Yes Nige is real. A real 845t4rd.

He's been rubbing shoulders with those equally real 845t4rds those like minded Basic Finns, many of whom have criminal records.

Good innit.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Happy Paws said:


> and you believe him, talk is cheap.


Yes I believe him, if you did a bit of research on the Muslim faith (not extremist or fanatical crap) then you will see...

Interesting how a man ranting hate is more believable than someone talking in a calm and mannered fashion...The man in the video represents Muslims as a whole far better than the hideous man in the daily rag.


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

If anyone is interested, there is a Panorama report, tonight at 8.30 regarding the Paris massacre.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Zaros said:


> Yes Nige is real. A real 845t4rd.
> 
> He's been rubbing shoulders with those equally real 845t4rds those like minded Basic Finns, many of whom have criminal records.
> 
> Good innit.


Well, you're the put one the punk and the nige that way around - I wasn't buying it 
You say fck the system like its a bad thing!

Basic Finns - sounds like a neat grime crew


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> *Yes I believe him*, if you did a bit of research on the Muslim faith (not extremist or fanatical crap) then you will see...
> 
> Interesting how a man ranting hate is more believable than someone talking in a calm and mannered fashion...The man in the video represents Muslims as a whole far better than the hideous man in the daily rag.


I find it hard to believe any of them.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> Well, you're the one the punk and the nige that way around - I wasn't buying it 😁
> 
> Basic Finns - sounds like a neat grime crew


:001_huh:.......


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Tails and Trails said:


> Well, you're the put one the punk and the nige that way around - I wasn't buying it
> You say fck the system like its a bad thing!
> 
> Basic Finns - sounds like a neat grime crew


What?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Sweety said:


> What?


Which bit?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Sweety said:


> What?


*'Et tu, Brute?'*:laugh:


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2015)

Tails and Trails said:


> Which bit?


And you wondered why i didn't take you seriously on your thread about this...


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

jon bda said:


> And you wondered why i didn't take you seriously on your thread about this...


I did, and you did, and this what? :001_huh:


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Zaros said:


> *'Et tu, Brute?'*:laugh:


You dont get Grime music your neck the woods then zaros


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> You dont get Grime music your neck the woods then zaros


I don't want to listen to Farage's cr4p so what makes you think I'm going to listen to Grime cr4p?:001_unsure:



Tails and Trails said:


> *Well, you're the put one the punk and the nige that way around - I wasn't buying it *


The above quote has been read several times over and on each occasion it made no sense what so ever.

:001_huh:

In fact it makes less sense now than it did when I read it for the very first time.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Tails and Trails said:


> I did, and you did, and this what? :001_huh:


Seriously. Do you actually read your posts before you press submit?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Zaros said:


> I don't want to listen to Farage's cr4p so what makes you think I'm going to listen to Grime cr4p?:001_unsure:
> 
> The above quote has been read several times over and on each occasion it made no sense what so ever.
> 
> ...


What, you mean I've zoned out the PF king zoner!
Wow


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Sweety said:


> Seriously. Do you actually read your posts before you press submit?


Well, which bit of my quoted post you asking me about

I'm happy to explain.

I'm assuming it was the grime crew line?

Anyway zaros said basic finns. Never heard of that.
But it sounds like 'basic things'

Grime is a brilliant urban music form
Urban music is cool inner city music by black artists

Grime has neat rappers called MC's , so basic finns sounds like 'basic things' said in a grime accent, and basic finns would therefore make a grime type song or band title

Sorry -stream of consciousness moment

I expect you ain't laughing!
Grin grin


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> Well, which bit of my quoted post you asking me about
> 
> I'm happy to explain.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Tails and Trails said:


> Well, you're the put one the punk and the nige that way around - I wasn't buying it
> You say fck the system like its a bad thing!
> 
> Basic Finns - sounds like a neat grime crew


Oh ******

I'm on the phone - nightmare keyboard

That should have said: well, you're the one that put the punk and the nige that way around - I wasn't buying it


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Zaros said:


>


Simon and grime

I just ain't seein it


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Happy Paws said:


> I find it hard to believe any of them.


So you judge all Christians on the actions of the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Tails and Trails said:


> Well, which bit of my quoted post you asking me about
> 
> I'm happy to explain.
> 
> ...


Well, at last. You've said something intelligible.

You're right. I'm not laughing.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> So you judge all Christians on the actions of the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church?


Perhaps we should drop Anders Behring Breivik into the conversation, too? Christian.....Why not go mad and mention the Spanish Inquisition?

*Runs away again*


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Sweety said:


> Well, at last. You've said something intelligible.
> 
> You're right. I'm not laughing.


Good to hear - on both counts


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> Perhaps we should drop Anders Behring Breivik into the conversation, too? Christian.....Why not go mad and mention the Spanish Inquisition?
> 
> *Runs away again*


Actually brevik was only interested in cultural Christianity he was actually a secularist


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> Yes I believe him, if you did a bit of research on the Muslim faith (not extremist or fanatical crap) then you will see...
> 
> Interesting how a man ranting hate is more believable than someone talking in a calm and mannered fashion...*The man in the video represents Muslims as a whole far better than the hideous man in the daily rag*.


It does depend to some extent as to how well they know their _own_ religion, too - and on which branch of it they adhere to, as well, come to that.

For example, the local radio here had an Islamic cleric on the other morning who, whilst making a pretty decent fist of distancing your average UK muslim from the Paris attack, did at one point state catagorically that Mohammed was a man of _total_ peace and never did or condoned violence on anyone at any time in his life, which even the most basic research shows to be inaccurate as he was a pretty gifted military campaigner.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Happy Paws said:


> I find it hard to believe any of them.


They're just people like we are HP. Can you imagine what it must be like for Muslims living here with the likes of Farage constantly stiring the anti immigration pot? blaming multiculturalism for the atrocity in Paris? It must be terrifying for them.

I think these pictures speak a thousand words.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> They're just people like we are HP. Can you imagine what it must be like for Muslims living here with the likes of Farage constantly stiring the anti immigration pot? blaming multiculturalism for the atrocity in Paris? It must be terrifying for them.
> 
> I think these pictures speak a thousand words.


not necessarily

arent they british?
dont you regard them as british citizens?
dont you think they are same like me and you and I with the same issues, struggles, and concerns?
(EDITED TO SAY, or actually French in this instance? but the point is the same)

I do

and if you do, why would them being british and muslim mean they are any more or less capable to bothered by some of the reasons that people complain about immigration and multiculturalism, than the rest of us?
surely it depends upon their individual points of view, not their 'muslimness', and surely it depends upon what they think for themselves, not dependent upon farage?
I dont understand what the stereotyping is all about, or why the issues you mentioned are automatically presumed or referenced that way.
why is the narrative that way, as Russell Brand would put it.

Serious questions. Serious discussion
If you reply, and fair dues if you dont, can I please have a reply that responds to just what I have written thanks

and great pictures, btw, i agree with all of them


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

i never go round thinking i find it hard to believe any muslim.
as far as im concerned, muslims are just muslims, they just get on with their lives, christians are just christians, they just get on with their lives.

in fact, up until the point they start saying or doing things whereby they think they can expect to or actually try too enforce their religious rules or customs upon me, then i couldnt care less what label they give themselves.

i just treat everybody as an individual according to how they behave toward me and society
so in that sense, its not really helpful, and i dont see the point in, discussing which muslim is the muslim and which muslim isnt the muslim or which christian is the christian or which christian isnt the christian.

they are both muslims, and both christians.
as the facts are their books, bible and koran, give basis for both positions and both sets of behaviour, as both books both have passages and verses and statements which say stuff like love thy neighbour and shoot the sinner.
so either side can argue their credibility of representing their faith equally.
thats the trouble when you follow books full of contradictions and then turn them into rule books purported to be written by god


----------



## Dingle (Aug 29, 2008)

I do not have Muslim friends... or Catholic or Hindu etc... I just have friends.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Dingle said:


> I do not have Muslim friends... or Catholic or Hindu etc... I just have friends.


exactly!!!!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Tails and Trails said:


> not necessarily
> 
> arent they british?
> dont you regard them as british citizens?
> ...


Its not how they view though is it? Its how they are viewed. Farage et al by scapegoating 'foreigners' are creating a country of fear & prejudice. We use to be a fair and tolerant society. Its not muslims or immigrants I fear, its Farage and Government!

Speaking of Russell Brand - his excellent analysis of the tragedy >
[youtube_browser]/Dg8Y0WpbfZw[/youtube_browser]


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> not necessarily
> 
> arent they british?
> dont you regard them as british citizens?
> ...


You don't have to be stereotyping anyone, or not regarding someone as a British citizen, to recognise that if someone in power is repeatedly appearing on prime time media to say that you should not be in the country, and that your British citizenship may be taken away from you, then you are going to be worried. And that applies whatever your previous nationality, whatever your religion.

Hell, I'm worried. My husband was born in Germany and has been a naturalised British Citizen for almost 60 years now. If Farage's xenophobic rhetoric makes *my* blood run cold, and makes *me* worry what will happen if ever (God forbid) he gets any sort of power, then how much more will it be affecting a British citizen who has only been a British citizen for a couple of years? Recognising that some British citizens will have this worry is not relegating them to a stereotype. It is recognising the vast diversity in what being a British citizen means.

An inability to recognise that different sections of British society can and do have different kinds of worries is at best a failure to recognise the diversity of British citizenship and, at worst, a kind of discrimination in itself.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> You don't have to be stereotyping anyone, or not regarding someone as a British citizen, to recognise that if someone in power is repeatedly appearing on prime time media to say that you should not be in the country, and that your British citizenship may be taken away from you, then you are going to be worried. And that applies whatever your previous nationality, whatever your religion.
> 
> Hell, I'm worried. My husband was born in Germany and has been a naturalised British Citizen for almost 60 years now. If Farage's xenophobic rhetoric makes *my* blood run cold, and makes *me* worry what will happen if ever (God forbid) he gets any sort of power, then how much more will it be affecting a British citizen who has only been a British citizen for a couple of years? Recognising that some British citizens will have this worry is not relegating them to a stereotype. It is recognising the vast diversity in what being a British citizen means.
> 
> An inability to recognise that different sections of British society can and do have different kinds of worries is at best a failure to recognise the diversity of British citizenship and, at worst, a kind of discrimination in itself.


I see what you are getting at, I'm married to a Dane myself
Albeit I have heard farage on his LBC show say that some of your scenarios above are not what he wishes to do
But anyway, when I said British citizens in my post to noush I meant people born in Britain regardless of their ethnicity, my fault for not making that clear (including naturalized)
So your post above is touching on a different point and issue to the one I was discussing with noush and the next post i made


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Its not how they view though is it? Its how they are viewed. Farage et al by scapegoating 'foreigners' are creating a country of fear & prejudice. We use to be a fair and tolerant society. Its not muslims or immigrants I fear, its Farage and Government!
> 
> Speaking of Russell Brand - his excellent analysis of the tragedy >
> [youtube_browser]/Dg8Y0WpbfZw[/youtube_browser]


But that's my point again

Whose talking about foreigners?
Why are you assuming British people of any stripe or colour may not disagree with multicultural or immigration?
Why are you assuming that people are only objecting to multi culturalism and immigration based upon racial or religious prejudice therefore the only people that have made objections to either have been bigoted or racist white people? Of which their are plenty, of course. Therefore why are youa assuming Muslims in general are upset because their is a lot of objection to multiculturalism and immigration these days?
So my point to you is precisely about how 'they' view

You seem to be lumping together and segregating Muslims as one group as much as that other person you quoted from the other side of the argument
Both positions are causing division equally
If people started thinking about thru issues for and as the issues and cut away all this left and right crap and way of defining things then discussions would be a whole lot more constructive and helpful in terms of sorting out the problems


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

A good article:

We cant carry on like this. We just cant.

Today the Government has announced its latest measures to tackle what it will describe as the Isil terror threat. Isil is a code word. It actually means Muslim terror threat.

Last week the nation was confronted with the graphic, grotesque horror of the Rotherham child rape cases. They had, we were told, been perpetuated by Asian sex gangs. In this case the code word was Asian. They were in fact Muslim sex gangs.

In July we were confronted with the Birmingham Trojan Horse school scandal. The werent Trojan Horse schools. They were Muslim schools. Or rather, they we secular schools that were turned into Muslim schools.

This morning, Simon Danczuk  who, along with Ann Cryer and Jack Straw, is one of the few Labour MPs to have had the courage to speak out about the rapes in Rotherham  describes the corruption of the British political process via what he calls imported cultural differences from Pakistan. Using Pakistan interchangeably with the term Asian he describes how the Muslim community effectively intimidates it political representatives. Pressure was applied, thats what will have happened to Denis MacShane and he went along with it, he said, referring to an admission by the former Rotherham MP that he failed to speak out about the cycle of abuse being perpetrated in his constituency. As before, its Asian that is the code word.

Something is broken. Terribly broken. We are now being confronted on a monthly basis with fresh evidence of our failure  and it is a collective failure  to successfully integrate the British Muslim community within British society.

Terrorism. Rape. School segregation. Political corruption. These are the products of that failure that we have been presented with since June alone.

Each time one of these fresh abuses comes to light we undergo the same ritual. A report will be issued, and a sombre statement read out in the House of Commons. We will be stunned by what is revealed, and say to ourselves How can this have happened? Here? In Britain? In 2014?

Then two armies will mobilise. The ranks of one of those armies will be filled primarily with hardcore racists and professional Islamophobes. Their bile will spew forth, overtly and subliminally, as they summon up images of Britains green and pleasant land being turned into the Wests first Islamic caliphate.

They will quickly be met in battle by representatives of the Muslim community, Muslim commentators and some of their colleagues in the liberal commentariat. They will point to their opponents, conjure their own apocalyptic images of a white, anti-Muslim backlash, and push the original abuses to the side.

And what of the rest of us? This is what we do. We look down upon these two warring armies, tearing each other to pieces, and we say to ourselves Im not getting mixed up in that. So we turn away. We take the terrorism and the rape and the school segregation and the political corruption, and we attempt to rationalise it and compartmentalise it and neutralise it. Yes, we face a Muslim terror threat, we say, but we have faced other terror threats. Yes, the abuses in Rotherham were appalling, but it isnt only Muslims who commit rape. Yes the segregation in Birminghams schools was scandalous, but there are other single-faith schools. Yes, there is no excuse for political corruption. But political corruption is not the preserve of one community.

And of course we are right. So then we move on. But as we do so we leave behind a gaping  and widening  fissure between ourselves and Britains Muslims.

We live in the age of the public inquiry. Hillsborough. Bloody Sunday. Phone hacking. Jimmy Savile. Each of those represents an important issue. But none of them is surely as important or as fundamental as the fact that in front of our eyes an entire section of British society is in danger of being left to break off and simply drift away.

I have no idea what the best model would be. A public inquiry. A Royal Commission. It doesnt really matter. But we need a proper, comprehensive, formal examination of our failure to effectively integrate the British Muslim community.

Yes, such an inquiry would face accusations of racism. But this is not about racism, it is about realism. Britain is home to dozens of different races. Each has their own unique culture. Many have their own religions. All have experienced prejudice, stigmatisation and discrimination. Yet none have had the same issues in integrating with their host society as Britains Muslims.

Some people will argue that such a process would actually make social cohesion harder to obtain by formally stigmatising Muslims. But the stigmatisation is already happening on a daily basis. Isil. Trojan Horse schools. Sex gangs. Tower Hamlets. Precisely how much more stigmatisation is required before we choose to actually do something?

Another argument is that a formal inquiry would be the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is only a small radicalised section of Muslim society that presents an issue, we are told.

But it isnt. It was only a relatively small number of men responsible for the Rotherham rapes. But it was the Muslim community as a whole that created the environment that allowed the abuse to continue. I and others have used the phrase wall of silence in relation to Rotherham. But in reality it was a wall of acquiescence.

When those defenders of the Muslim community I referred to earlier are confronted with attacks on that community, their response is consistent. We saw it most recently in the aftermath of the murder of Lee Rigby. Each act of vandalism directed at a mosque, or assault on an individual Muslim, wasnt simply dismissed as the random product of a small number of isolated and misguided individuals. Instead it was held up as being symptomatic of a wider and deeper problem of Islamophobia in British society. Indeed, we are frequently told that acts of this nature demonstrate the extent to which Islamophobia is on the rise. And there may well be some truth in that assertion. But if it is legitimate to ascribe malign actions perpetrated towards Muslims as an example of a wider societal problem, then we have to accept that it is equally legitimate to see malign acts perpetrated by significant sections of the Muslim community in a similar context.

I dont know why we have a specific problem of Muslim integration. Im not sure anyone does. But I suspect one of the reasons is no one has really taken the time or effort to formally try and find out. And now we have to take time.

Because this I do know. The days when we could simply ignore the issue are over. Rotherham represented a watershed. Denial led the to the systematic rape of thousands of our children. It is no longer an option.

I know this as well. We cannot continue to tackle this problem in our current piecemeal fashion. More control orders, and Ofsted inspections and community liaison officers and local authority ombudsmen will not fix what is broken here.

Britains Muslims are failing to integrate. We need to find out why.

Too many of Britainâs Muslims are failing to integrate. We need to find out why â Telegraph Blogs


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2015)

Ang2 said:


> Something is broken. Terribly broken. We are now being confronted on a monthly basis with fresh evidence of our failure  and it is a collective failure  to successfully integrate the British Muslim community within British society.
> 
> Terrorism. Rape. School segregation. Political corruption. These are the products of that failure that we have been presented with since June alone.


Sorry if I missed the gist of that article, but is it basically saying that when Muslims dont integrate in to British society they become (or remain?) terrorists, rapists, school segregationists and politically corrupt?

This is news to me... I thought pretty much all races, religions, cultures - well, HUMANS, were well versed in terrorizing, raping, segregating and corrupting.

I think the failure is addressing something like terrorism as a Muslim issue. Terrorism is a terrorist issue. Maybe if we addressed it as such we might have a better chance at dealing with it effectively.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I think the failure is addressing something like terrorism as a Muslim issue. *Terrorism is a terrorist issue.* Maybe if we addressed it as such we might have a better chance at dealing with it effectively.


Bingo!!

(Message too short)


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Bingo!!
> 
> (Message too short)


Double bingo!


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Sorry if I missed the gist of that article, but is it basically saying that when Muslims dont integrate in to British society they become (or remain?) terrorists, rapists, school segregationists and politically corrupt?
> 
> *This is news to me*... I thought pretty much all races, religions, cultures - well, HUMANS, were well versed in terrorizing, raping, segregating and corrupting.
> 
> I think the failure is addressing something like terrorism as a Muslim issue. Terrorism is a terrorist issue. Maybe if we addressed it as such we might have a better chance at dealing with it effectively.


This is also news to me.

And I'm British.

However, I haven't really integrated into Finnish society but that's because like other Finns my wife and I chose to live in a fairly remote area and life in those areas is quite different from the life lived in more populated locations.
Nevertheless, the people with whom I do choose to associate (The Sar' organisation and its members - a close knit community spread throughout the country) would never view me as a potential rapist, robber, terrorist or morally or politically corrupt because of my choice of lifestyle.

Of course the Basic Finns might want to persuade or influence its adherents that I'm simply hiding away because I'm plotting some future dastardly crime against the nation. But that's because they're not quite bloody right in the head.

Basic Finns would prefer it if I returned home to England.

Farage doesn't want people from other nations (Foreigners/immigrants are such dirty words now) in his country and should he ever be allowed to see his twisted dream come to fruition then my wife would inevitably become very unwelcome under his regime if we should ever move to England.

Tis a worry.

I consider any supporter of Farage to be my enemy and the enemy of my enemy my friend.:001_smile:


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

ouesi said:


> I think the failure is addressing something like terrorism as a Muslim issue. Terrorism is a terrorist issue. Maybe if we addressed it as such we might have a better chance at dealing with it effectively.


But I think there _are_ issues in Islam and questions that need to be asked relating to certain ideologies within it. Some ideologies create more problems than others by their very nature and a criticism of them is valid, if not essential, to combat certain acts of terrorism.

I'm pretty left wing but it always amazes me how some on the left will attack anyone who questions Islamic teachings and principles as 'islamaphobic' or even 'racist' (Islam is not a race and 'christianaphobic' is not used with the same zeal). I find it amazing because so many Islamic teachings go against the values those people normally hold close, such as equality and freedom of expression. I think many Islamic teachings _are _ toxic and are essential to acts of terrorism such as we've seen in Paris. There are multiple stories of Muhammed killing or excusing the killing of those who disagreed with him and there is a very specific line in the Hadiths that states you must love him more than your family and all of mankind - that's dangerous and the Charile Hebdo murders would not have been committed without it.

Now that's not to say that Islam has a monopoly on dangerous ideas, you find them in other organised religions and the neoliberal capitalism embraced by the west has had some very nasty side effects. It's also not to say that individual muslims cannot be great people and they should be free to express their religious beliefs without fear of violence. You can dislike Islam and like, love and treat Muslims as individuals just as you can dislike smoking and treat smokers as individuals.

Freedom of expression is so important to society and we should not allow it to be oppressed by either the government or organised religion.

The late Christopher Hitchens gave a great talk on this here - 




" Its not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear, and every time you silence somebody you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something."

On Islam:

"But who is the one under threat? The person who promulgates this and says "I better listen because if I don't I'm in danger" or me, who thinks this is so silly you can even publish a cartoon about it. And up go the placards and up go the yells and the howls and the screams, "Behead those!" This is in London... this is in Toronto.... this is in New York.... It's right in our midst now, "Behead those!" "Behead those who cartoon Islam!" Do they get arrested for hate speech? No.. Might I get in trouble for what I've just said about the prophet Muhammad? Yes I might. Where are your priorities ladies and gentlemen? You're giving away what's most precious in your own society and you're giving it away without a fight and you're even praising the people who want to deny you the right to resist it. Shame on you while you do this. "


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2015)

lennythecloud said:


> But I think there _are_ issues in Islam and questions that need to be asked relating to certain ideologies within it. Some ideologies create more problems than others by their very nature and a criticism of them is valid, if not essential, to combat certain acts of terrorism.
> 
> I'm pretty left wing but it always amazes me how some on the left will attack anyone who questions Islamic teachings and principles as 'islamaphobic' or even 'racist' (Islam is not a race and 'christianaphobic' is not used with the same zeal). I find it amazing because so many Islamic teachings go against the values those people normally hold close, such as equality and freedom of expression. I think many Islamic teachings _are _ toxic and are essential to acts of terrorism such as we've seen in Paris. There are multiple stories of Muhammed killing or excusing the killing of those who disagreed with him and there is a very specific line in the Hadiths that states you must love him more than your family and all of mankind - that's dangerous and the Charile Hebdo murders would not have been committed without it.
> 
> ...


I think many (most?) religions lend themselves to some pretty questionable behavior, Islam is no exception. 
It's absolutely worth looking at what it is about religion that so easily turns in to extremist behavior, but I think we have to be careful about separating the correlation piece from the causation piece if that makes sense.

Or put another way. Will eliminating religion eliminate terrorist behavior? Will it eliminate bigoted, prejudicial persecutions? I don't know...

Maybe there is another avenue, another approach we haven't thought about. And if we stay hung up on the religion piece we may never get to the solution piece.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> I see what you are getting at, I'm married to a Dane myself
> Albeit I have heard farage on his LBC show say that some of your scenarios above are not what he wishes to do
> But anyway, when I said British citizens in my post to noush I meant people born in Britain regardless of their ethnicity, my fault for not making that clear (including naturalized)
> So your post above is touching on a different point and issue to the one I was discussing with noush and the next post i made


Do you really believe that people who were born in this country, but have a family member who wasn't, don't also worry? For example, although we have no children, suppose we had a son. If his father and I were worried about what would happen to his father if Farage came into power, by your argument our son, born in this country, would not. Do you really think that would be true? And if we had grandchildren, by your argument they would not be worried even if we were worried because they were third generation British. Do you really think that would be true?

Of course people born in this country will be worried about xenophobia; and so my post was speaking about exactly the same points and issues as Noush's original post.

As for treating everyone the same, no matter what their ethnicity or original nationality, that is something that only someone who does not really understand the issues of equality and diversity would do.

I know you have good intentions and believe you are treating everyone with equality when you say that you view everyone the same, irrespective or their race or religion, but the irony of this is that you are, in fact, doing exactly what you accused Noush of doing - ie creating a stereotype. Your stereotype is of British people who are all the same and all have the same ideals, worries and feelings, irrespective of their ethnic background or their religion.

But that is not true. British society is a very diverse society. Even without taking into account people from abroad who have come to live here, British society is diverse. Can there be anything more diverse than someone brought up in a mining village in Yorkshire and someone brought up in the aristocracy, for example? There are some similarities but a lot of differences, and we should celebrate those differences, not expect everyone to be exactly the same carbon copies of each other.

Equality and diversity go hand in hand. Equality is about creating a fairer society, where everyone can participate and has the opportunity to fulfil their potential. Diversity is about recognising individual as well as group differences, treating people as individuals, and placing positive value on the differences. You cannot have equality without first recognising the diversity of culture in Britain because if you don't recognise the differences, and want everyone to be exactly the same, you are going to end up making someone give up their differences in order to fit your stereotype. And that's not equality.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Now this is gettings silly........

A prominent Saudi Arabian cleric has issued a fatwa banning the building of snowmen, following rare snowfall in the conservative Muslim kingdom.

The religious order was issued by Sheikh Mohammed Saleh al-Munajjid, a former diplomat at the Saudi embassy in Washington, who said the practice was anti-Islamic.

"Munajjid argued that to build a snowman was to create an image of a human being, an action considered sinful under the kingdom's strict interpretation of Sunni Islam," explains The Guardian.

A fatwa is an Islamic scholar's interpretation of how ancient teachings in the Koran apply to modern life, and they serve as official advice to the Islamic community when issued by a religious leader.

Read more: Snowmen banned in Saudi Arabia: five of the strangest fatwas | News | The Week UK


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

You can still make snowballs though....

But shouldn't we be more worried by snow falling in Saudi?


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Jonescat said:


> You can still make snowballs though....
> 
> But shouldn't we be more worried by snow falling in Saudi?


I just thought how stupid some of these people are.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

ouesi said:


> I think many (most?) religions lend themselves to some pretty questionable behavior, Islam is no exception.


That's absolutely true but not all religions are the same, I think you'd have to work pretty hard to produce a situation where Tibetan Buddhists blew themselves up in a school full of children or where jains stoned adulterers (or anyone!) to death. Muslims who commit atrocities are not going against their religious texts, doctrines of jihad and martyrdom are explicitly written into their religion.

Islam in many parts of the world is at a different stage in its evolution to the other major religions, looking at it today is like looking at the Christianity of 500 years ago with the addition of the internet and AK-47s.



ouesi said:


> It's absolutely worth looking at what it is about religion that so easily turns in to extremist behavior, but I think we have to be careful about separating the correlation piece from the causation piece if that makes sense.
> 
> Or put another way. Will eliminating religion eliminate terrorist behavior? Will it eliminate bigoted, prejudicial persecutions? I don't know...
> 
> Maybe there is another avenue, another approach we haven't thought about. And if we stay hung up on the religion piece we may never get to the solution piece.


Of course religion is not the only problem in the world and I would never argue for eliminating it through any kind of force. However when religious text overtly preach things that are prejudicial, hateful or just plain wrong then they should be opposed. The penalty for apostasy or homosexuality in Islam is death, it's clear as can be from the hadiths. There's a direct link between those teachings and why a gay person or atheist in Saudi Arabia will be publically beheaded for his or her 'crimes'. Religion is also why in this country we debate gay marriage, stem cell research and cartoons like they're the height of moral controversy when there're really are better things to worry about.


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

In the wake of last week's tragic Paris terror attacks, the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam has launched a strongly worded attack to Islamist extremists living in the West who turn against freedom - by telling them to f*ck off.

The Labour politician, who leads one of Netherlands most highly populated cities, made the comments following the brutal murder of 17 people in Paris last week: 12 of whom died at the headquarters of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The Koucahi brothers, who carried out the attack at the Charlie Hebdo office, are believed to have acted in retaliation against controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed featured in the publication.

Witnesses reported that the pair shouted: "We have avenged the Prophet Mohamed" during the massacre.

Its incomprehensible that you turn against freedom like that, but if you dont like this freedom, for heavens sake, get your suitcase, and leave, the 53-year-old told the current affairs programme Nieuwsuur.

"There might be a place where you belong, and be honest with yourself about that, dont kill innocent journalists," Mr Aboutaleb continued.

"This is so backwards, so incomprehensible, go away if you cant find your place in the Netherlands, or accept the society we want to build here, because we only want people, including all those Muslims, and all those well-intentioned Muslims, who may be looked at with suspicion, we want to keep all those people together in what I call the 'We Society'.

"And if you dont like it here because you dont like the humorists who make a little newspaper  if I may dare say so  just f*** off," he declared.

Muslim mayor of Rotterdam Ahmed Aboutaleb tells extremists who 'don't like freedom' to 'f*** off' - Europe - World - The Independent


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I don't think it's so much about religion as about how some define their role in being in a certain denomination.

Some want to follow their beliefs quietly, some want to do acts of goodness and kindness in the name of their religion and some will openly preach their religion.

Unfortunately, there will always be some fanatics who believe that all should be forced, by whatever means, to embrace the 'True' religion - theirs, of course.

There are maniacs and zealots in all walks of life and they will find an outlet or excuse for their violent tendencies. Religion is sometimes just the excuse they're looking for.

Look at the case of poor Lee Rigby. That was nothing to do with religion, it was just two violent and sadistic men, carrying out the act of murder and trying to justify it.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Sweety said:


> Look at the case of poor Lee Rigby. That was nothing to do with religion, it was just two violent and sadistic men, carrying out the act of murder and trying to justify it.


Yet carried out by Islamists. I can't help but agree that there have been some serious incidents in this country linked to extremists. There were several incidents reported last year of young Islam lads trying to impose Sharia law on random members of the public.

Even if we try very hard not to be, we are still linked to Christianity: Easter and Christmas holidays, anyone? And someone said we are a secular society: no, we're not, not until the monarchy stops claiming to be in charge of the Church of Englnd.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2015)

lennythecloud said:


> That's absolutely true but not all religions are the same, I think you'd have to work pretty hard to produce a situation where Tibetan Buddhists blew themselves up in a school full of children or where jains stoned adulterers (or anyone!) to death. Muslims who commit atrocities are not going against their religious texts, doctrines of jihad and martyrdom are explicitly written into their religion.
> 
> Islam in many parts of the world is at a different stage in its evolution to the other major religions, looking at it today is like looking at the Christianity of 500 years ago with the addition of the internet and AK-47s.
> 
> Of course religion is not the only problem in the world and I would never argue for eliminating it through any kind of force. However when religious text overtly preach things that are prejudicial, hateful or just plain wrong then they should be opposed. The penalty for apostasy or homosexuality in Islam is death, it's clear as can be from the hadiths. There's a direct link between those teachings and why a gay person or atheist in Saudi Arabia will be publically beheaded for his or her 'crimes'. Religion is also why in this country we debate gay marriage, stem cell research and cartoons like they're the height of moral controversy when there're really are better things to worry about.


There is an argument to be made that Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy, as Buddha is not considered a god. (Just an aside.)

I'm in the bible belt of the US, Christianity is not very "evolved" either from where I'm standing. 
Obviously, having also lived outside of the bible belt, I know that what I see here is not representative of Christianity worldwide. But I can't ignore what has been done, even in very recent history in the name of Christianity or spurred on by an interpretation of Christianity.

But I agree, I think it would be foolish to ignore the role religion plays in so many of our social ills. The monotheistic "book" religions seem to be the biggest culprits when it comes to extreme behavior, but again, is it a correlation or a causation or??

I just think we need to stay very conscious of how we're examining the problem(s) and what biases of our own we're bringing to the table.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Just gonna leave this here, I found it very interesting...it kinda blows some peoples theories out of the water really :sneaky2:

10 worst examples of Christian or far-right terrorism - Salon.com


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Sweety said:


> I don't think it's so much about religion as about how some define their role in being in a certain denomination.
> 
> Some want to follow their beliefs quietly, some want to do acts of goodness and kindness in the name of their religion and some will openly preach their religion.
> 
> ...


*A bit like our governments try to justify killing hundreds of people. Not saying that what happened to Lee was right.
One day if we are very lucky, people will see that killing only leads to more killing.*


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> Just gonna leave this here, I found it very interesting...it kinda blows some peoples theories out of the water really :sneaky2:
> 
> 10 worst examples of Christian or far-right terrorism - Salon.com


I for one treat far right Christianity with as much distain as I treat islamists. The difference is of course scale, the attacks listed there cover decades. In less that 4 weeks islamists have carried out:

- The Peshawar school massacre 
- The Paris attacks
- 2000 slaughtered by boko haram in Nigeria.
- an unknown number of murders in territory held by ISIS

And these are just the incidents the western media has taken an interest in so will only be the tip of the iceberg. There is a real problem in Islam at the moment, likely fired up by inadvisable soviet and western interventions in the middle east over the past 100 years. It helps nobody to claim this problem doesn't exist, particularly as the largest group of victims of Islamic violence are muslims themselves.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

lennythecloud said:


> I for one treat far right Christianity with as much distain as I treat islamists. The difference is of course scale, the attacks listed there cover decades. In less that 4 weeks islamists have carried out:
> 
> - The Peshawar school massacre
> - The Paris attacks
> ...


I didn't state that there wasn't a problem..The thing is I don't buy into it being an Islamist issue..it is down to violent people that yearn after violent actions.

Between October 21, 2013 and October 24, 2014 there have been 5 mass murders. *None* were Muslim, and *none* were done in the name of religion...there is really bad stuff happening all over the world..

It is not the religion that is the problem, it is a minorities interpretation of that religion that is the problem. 
Some people's interpretation of the bible has lead to people committing atrocious acts, that doesn't make all Christians the same!


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

I am atheist, but I am not anti-theist, if that makes sense. I don't care what beliefs people hold so long as they keep it to themselves and don't impinge it on others (Im a strong believer that a child should be allowed to choose their own faith with freedom, for example, I don't think it should be forced upon a child by their parents)

Scummy people will do scummy things. This is now as it has been in the past, and will be in the future no doubt. Right now its around a specific interpretation of a specific religion, which immature in terms of religions (IMO, at 1400 years old it is going through phases that other major religions have already been through), and is at odds with the modern world.

Crude as it is, South Park sometimes makes some very valid points - there is an episode where Cartman is frozen and awakens in the future and the world is at war. Not because of religion, the world worships Richard Dawkins (who taught the world to be a jackass to people who think differently to you) - but because of what some petty reason. The point is, when we carve ourselves up into "groups", we will fight. No matter what the reason.

Humans are greedy, they are self centred as a group, they are selfish and insular. They do not like variations from what the consider to be right, or the norm. But "Normal" is a social construct. "Normal" is not the same in England as it is in France, or Italy - let alone across the globe.

Right now, the west is at war with Islam. 60 years ago the world was at war, 1000 years ago we were at war. We have been fighting each other since the dawn of man. And I have no doubt in 100 years we will be at war again. 

Multiculturism is important to society IMO - it makes life richer, more interesting and colourful. But it comes with problems - and the problem lies in the fact that there will always be stupid, ignorant people who don't like change, or don't like differences. 

There will always be nutters, there will always be different values and ideas. There will always be new and horrible way to kill each other. And there will always be an excuse. Whether its scapegoating groups for societies troubles, interpretation of religious text, Money, Resources... 

Early morning rant... May not make sense


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

grumpy goby said:


> I am atheist, but I am not anti-theist, if that makes sense. I don't care what beliefs people hold so long as they keep it to themselves and don't impinge it on others (Im a strong believer that a child should be allowed to choose their own faith with freedom, for example, I don't think it should be forced upon a child by their parents)
> 
> Scummy people will do scummy things. This is now as it has been in the past, and will be in the future no doubt. Right now its around a specific interpretation of a specific religion, which immature in terms of religions (IMO, at 1400 years old it is going through phases that other major religions have already been through), and is at odds with the modern world.
> 
> ...


On the contrary, this makes complete sense. Being almost 60, I've seen many terrorist threats - the Ku Klux Klan, Baader-Meinhoff, the Khmer Rouge and the IRA spring to mind without even having to think. People were as worried and frightened about them as they are about Islamic extremists today. I can remember not being allowed to go Christmas shopping in London because of the threat of IRA bombings.

Some groups were motivated by religion, some were motivated by politics - but all were motivated by the need of some human beings to be in power and to not only eradicate anyone who did not share their viewpoint, but also to use and kill innocent people who they view as pawns in the game.

The only difference today is the internet - had the internet been invented back in the 70's, there would have been the same kind of reaction to these groups as there is today against Islamic extremists. For example, people would have been all over the internet slating ALL christians for the atrocities undertaken by the Ku Klux Klan, some saying that Christianity is, in fact, a peaceful religion and that these are extremists so all christians should not be judged by their actions, and others quoting pieces from the bible that seem to incite christians to make war on others.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

grumpy goby said:


> Crude as it is, South Park sometimes makes some very valid points - there is an episode where Cartman is frozen and awakens in the future and the world is at war. Not because of religion, the world worships Richard Dawkins (who taught the world to be a jackass to people who think differently to you) - but because of what some petty reason. The point is, when we carve ourselves up into "groups", we will fight. No matter what the reason.


It's quite sad that a cartoon speaks more sense in some instances than the people that run our countries 

I also wonder how many people that slate the Koran have actually read it! It is very easy to pluck quotes to take them out of context...Although going by most debates I doubt most have read the bible either so I do find it amusing (?) when some like to compare the two religions in a claim that one is far more advanced/less violent than the other lol


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> It's quite sad that a cartoon speaks more sense in some instances than the people that run our countries
> 
> I also wonder how many people that slate the Koran have actually read it! It is very easy to pluck quotes to take them out of context...Although going by most debates I doubt most have read the bible either so I do find it amusing (?) when some like to compare the two religions in a claim that one is far more advanced/less violent than the other lol


Yesterday on Jeremy vine show had two Muslims talking about images of mohammed.
First Muslim was historical academic of Islam and related how in ancient history architecture featured images of the prophet. She told us Mohammed hads simply said he didn't like images being made of him because he was concerned he would be defied instead of Allah.
She wasnt bothered by the cartoons
The other guy was the head of something called the Muslim public affairs committee 
He hated the cartoons went on about racism etc 
Paddy o Connell asked him if the Koran says you cant have images of the prophet 
He replied I haven't read the Koran, I'm not devout that way!

In nearly spat at the radio -unbelievable!

The academic lady had read the Koran andt the answer is no!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Tails and Trails said:


> Yesterday on Jeremy vine show had two Muslims talking about images of mohammed.
> First Muslim was historical academic of Islam and related how in ancient history architecture featured images of the prophet. She told us Mohammed hads simply said he didn't like images being made of him because he was concerned he would be defied instead of Allah.
> She wasnt bothered by the cartoons
> The other guy was the head of something called the Muslim public affairs committee
> ...


Doesn't surprise me one bit, and it's not the first time I have heard that from people trying to justify their bad behaviour :nonod:

Growing up in a Catholic Convent I have read the bible many times (said more Hail Mary's than is healthy lol), I think most would be shocked if they read it from cover to cover (new and old testament)..it isn't all sweetness and light that's for sure :shocked:


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> I didn't state that there wasn't a problem..The thing is I don't buy into it being an Islamist issue..it is down to violent people that yearn after violent actions.
> 
> Between October 21, 2013 and October 24, 2014 there have been 5 mass murders. *None* were Muslim, and *none* were done in the name of religion...there is really bad stuff happening all over the world..
> 
> ...


The issue is disgruntled people, mostlyimpressionable, emotionally vulnerable youngsters or stupid adults who have never learned to think for themselves, wbo feel they don't belong in the society they are living in, who get brainwashed by their power-hungry superiors or by films, television programmes or games into believing that killing people for what you believe to be a just cause is not only acceptable, but downright heroic.

One of the main reasons radical Islamists have such a huge following is because a lot of muslim youngsters feel Europeans are looking down on them, even if they do have the education and diplomas. And the ones who don't manage that feel like they are treated like despicable morons. No wonder there is so much resentment....

And lookat the USA... Ever since the fall of the iron curtain they have treated muslims like the new communists.

Mind you, I am NOT saying it is all our fault, but I do see where the sentiment is coming from.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

I felt this was quite thought provoking, I know its in the Daily Mail but its written by a muslim lady

It's tragic that so many of my fellow British Muslims are turning their backs on freedom writes YASMIN ALIBHAI-BROWN | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Jiskefet (May 15, 2011)

A very good article that clearly states and explains the problems.
Freedom comes with choices to make, and taking responsibility for these choices. Many people are overwhelmed by this, and would prefer someone to make these decisions for them. 
It is so much easier to have someone else make these dicisions for you, someone who will not lay the responsibility for your own deeds with you, but ascribe them to a higher power.
As long as you are following the decisions of the pater familias, the leader of the tribe or, best of all, the representative of God himself, you will always be safe and protected, and you need not face the responsibilities of the big bad world.

But do not think these people who freely give up their freedom to decide for themselves are unintelligent or evil, they simply have not been raised to think and act independently and find this freedom, and the choices and responsibiities it entails, a heavy burden. It is the leaders who do understand the implications of the deeds they have these youngsters perform who are to blame. Unscrupulous people who keep the older generation separated from the community, the society, they live in by propagating the oldfashioned family, tribal and religious hierarchy, and who mould young people's minds into believing all of modern society is evil and sinful.

THESE people probably do not even believe our way of life is sinful, they do not care whether it is or not, they don't care if what THEY do is sinful, they are above that, they RULE, and that is all they are after.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Do you really believe that people who were born in this country, but have a family member who wasn't, don't also worry?
> 
> *No*
> 
> ...


*True, but this is a different topic of discussion to the one I was engaging Noush with.
*
My topic of discussion is simply thus:
Noush says:


> They're just people like we are HP. Can you imagine what it must be like for Muslims living here with the likes of Farage constantly stiring the anti immigration pot? blaming multiculturalism for the atrocity in Paris? It must be terrifying for them.


I say: not necessarily. Just because they are Muslim, does not mean they might not problems with the impact of immigration and/or multiculturalism as any other British person? Why the presumption that just because they are British muslim they would not???
Doesnt mean they are necessarily UKIP supporters.
Same applies to a white person.
The things many people worry about in regards immigration include over-population, trouble getting into schools, doctors appointments, enough jobs to go around, wages going down, too much traffic on the road, struggle to get a house, etc, and if you are a Green, the effect all this could have on the environment.
One could quite easily possess _those _concerns about immigration, regardless of one's culture, ethnicity, or religion.
One call also have different cultures and ethnicity and hold issues with multiculturalism, such a the back guy whom was the head of the Equality Commission, Trevor Philips.
To think otherwise is to stereotype people and is divisive, as you end saying they are a 'group' that is different to society.
In regards to these issues, you just need to say: they are British, they do or dont like immigration because......

I think there is a common problem amongst a certain subset of white middle class Politically Correct people that are think they can speak on behalf of other cultures, minorities, or races, without actually asking these people first, which is a bit patronizing really. Any Question on Radio 4 couple days had good example. A muslim and a Labour Party black guy stating how it was ridiculous example of the misuse of political correctness that the Oxford University Press were sending out internal guidelines about its chidren's books not mentioning pork. The Muslim lady said as a muslim, she couldnt care less if they mention pork!

Another example: The other day on LBC they were talking about Charlie Hebdo, a Guardian columnist called Simon Jenkins was coming out with the usual PC line about racism.
A guy then phoned up saying Simon Jenkins had made a big mistake in his argument, _as Islam is a religion not a race_, so it nothing to do with racism. And he would know, his parents came to Britain from the W.Indies, so he knew what racism really is.

And i have seen plenty of 'ethnic' British people on TV debates saying their is too much immigration into Britain these days.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> * True, but this is a different topic of discussion to the one I was engaging Noush with.
> *
> My topic of discussion is simply thus:
> Noush says:
> ...


I understand your argument that we are all British and we shouldn't presume that a British person who is also a Muslim would not be worried about all the issues a lot of British are worried about with regards to immigration. But Noush's post neither says, nor infers, any such presumption. It merely states that someone who is Muslim has *other* worries as well as all the worries they may have akin to any other British person. And the extra worry they have, along with all the other typically British worries, is that someone who is trying to be in power is stirring up the media and hence the populace by saying that all people of their religion should not be in this country, and that people from other countries should not be in our country. The worry about what will happen to them and their family if such a person should come into power is NOT a worry shared by any British person who does not have someone in the family either of a different religion to the state religion, or someone from another country. It *is* a concern shared by those of us British who do. Anyone may be concerned about a xenophone gaining power, but not with the same kind or depth of concern as someone who it may directly affect.

So as you seemed in your answer to be saying that we would only be feeling exactly the same as any other British person - ie because those family members are British too, we would only be worried about issues that all other British people are worried about and not worried about what it would mean if a xenophobe gained power - you are, in fact, guilty of what Noush was not. Noush's post did not create a "stereotype miuslim" but you are creating a sterotype of what it means to be a British person.

As I said, I undertasnd the point you were making - but your insistence that I am not talking about the point you were making makes me wonder if you understand the whole implication of your point. I was and am actually talking about the same point as you - I am merely extending what you have said and pointing out something you had not taken into consideration when making it.

.


Tails and Trails said:


> *In regards to these issues, you just need to say: they are British, they do or dont like immigration because......*


*

Just as Noush's original post was saying, "I am British and I have concerns about the way other British people perceive me and my religion because ... 



Tails and Trails said:



I think there is a common problem amongst a certain subset of white middle class Politically Correct people that are think they can speak on behalf of other cultures, minorities, or races, without actually asking these people first, which is a bit patronizing really. Any Question on Radio 4 couple days had good example. A muslim and a Labour Party black guy stating how it was ridiculous example of the misuse of political correctness that the Oxford University Press were sending out internal guidelines about its chidren's books not mentioning pork. The Muslim lady said as a muslim, she couldnt care less if they mention pork!

Click to expand...

I do agree with you that such people exist and that more damage is done by these well-meaning but deluded people than by any person of any other culture. But in calling them a "white middle-class subset" are you once more guilty of stereotyping? Some white middle class people are like this. Others are not. And n my 60 years I have come across people from all classes who behave in this way. *


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I do agree with you that such people exist and that more damage is done by these well-meaning but deluded people than by any person of any other culture. But in calling them a "white middle-class subset" are you once more guilty of stereotyping? Some white middle class people are like this. Others are not. And n my 60 years I have come across people from all classes who behave in this way.


Actually, he called them "a certain subset of white middle class Politically Correct people that are think they can speak on behalf of other cultures, minorities, or races, without actually asking these people first"

Ignoring the extra accidental 'are', logically that translates as "the subset of white middle class people who also belong to the data sets (Politically correct) AND the data set (speak on behalf of others without asking)"

Which would seem totally non-stereotypical to me, as it's not implying ONLY white middle class people think like that, or that ALL middle class people think like that, just that _some_ do.

(sorry for the mathematical-ish notation style, old geeky habits die hard and a Venn diagram was too much effort!  )


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jesthar said:


> Actually, he called them "a certain subset of white middle class Politically Correct people that are think they can speak on behalf of other cultures, minorities, or races, without actually asking these people first"
> 
> Ignoring the extra accidental 'are', logically that translates as "the subset of white middle class people who also belong to the data sets (Politically correct) AND the data set (speak on behalf of others without asking)"
> 
> ...


LOL
Brightened my miserable day that did
And that's made my post on that point redundant!


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Tails and Trails said:


> LOL
> Brightened my miserable day that did
> *And that's made my post on that point redundant!*


Oops! 

Be warned, folks, that's what three years studying Statement Logic as part of a Comp Sci degree will do to your debating style


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Jesthar said:


> Oops!
> 
> Be warned, folks, that's what three years studying Statement Logic as part of a Comp Sci degree will do to your debating style


No, you did me a favour 

Statement logic *is* my thing. 
You will note that if you read thru my posts.
And thats exactly what my original post in response to Noushka, which I am debating with SW, is about, is it not :laugh:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jesthar said:


> Actually, he called them "a certain subset of white middle class Politically Correct people that are think they can speak on behalf of other cultures, minorities, or races, without actually asking these people first"
> 
> Ignoring the extra accidental 'are', logically that translates as "the subset of white middle class people who also belong to the data sets (Politically correct) AND the data set (speak on behalf of others without asking)"
> 
> ...


I am no mathematician - I only just scraped through the "O" level - so I cannot debate mathematical matters with you and bow down to your superior knowledge.

However, I have a BA Hons (1st class) in philosophy, a subject which depends entirely upon the logical progression of an argument. And the only logical progression for his premise as he wrote it is an implied conclusion that _he thinks_ that the people who belong to this subset are the only people who think this way.

I'll try to explain.

His written premise was:
_I think_ there is a common problem amongst a certain subset of white middle class Politically Correct people that think they can speak on behalf of other cultures, minorities, or races, without actually asking these people first, which is a bit patronizing really.

which automatically leads to an implied conclusion of:
_I think_ this is the only subset of people who think this

For him not to have implied this conclusion, his premise would have had to say:
I think there is a problem *more common* amongst a certain subset of white middle class Politically Correct people that think they can speak on behalf of other cultures, minorities, or races, without actually asking these people first, which is a bit patronizing really.

The implied premise would then have been:
I think this subset feel this way but I recognise that there are other people who feel this way

Unfortunately, he stated the first premise, with its implied conlusion that only the subset thought this way.



Tails and Trails said:


> LOL
> Brightened my miserable day that did
> And that's made my post on that point redundant!


How could Jesthar's post about the last few lines in my post make your answer to my whole post redundant?



Tails and Trails said:


> No, you did me a favour
> 
> Statement logic *is* my thing.
> You will note that if you read thru my posts.
> And thats exactly what my original post in response to Noushka, which I am debating with SW, is about, is it not :laugh:


I've already pointed out the lack of logic in your answer to Noush, which you have chosen not to address in favour of hiding behind Jesthar.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I am no mathematician - I only just scraped through the "O" level - so I cannot debate mathematical matters with you and bow down to your superior knowledge.
> 
> However, I have a BA Hons (1st class) in philosophy, a subject which depends entirely upon the logical progression of an argument. And the only logical progression for his premise as he wrote it is an implied conclusion that _he thinks_ that the people who belong to this subset are the only people who think this way.
> 
> ...


Oh, yeah, I remember some of that stuff. Although if we're getting that far into semantic and cognitive analysis, then we probably also need to define a bunch of extra parameters and whether or not we're utilising a closed or open system model, at which point I think we can safely say we've lost not only the point of the debate, but probably the plot as well!  

Especially given that Statement Logic and philosophical logic are based in significantly different foundation principles and are therefore unlikely to parse too the same conclusions. Call it a fundamental reason why true AI is still a pipe dream, and likely to remain that way.



Spellweaver said:


> How could Jesthar's post about the last few lines in my post make your answer to my whole post redundant?


I believe he meant his post on that _point_ of your post, not your entire post. Or it could have just been two geeks enjoying a mathematical giggle, either/or. 



Spellweaver said:


> I've already pointed out the lack of logic in your answer to Noush, which you have chosen not to address in favour of hiding behind Jesthar.


Oi, are you implying my bum looks big in this avatar?  rrr:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jesthar said:


> Oh, yeah, I remember some of that stuff. Although if we're getting that far into semantic and cognitive analysis, then we probably also need to define a bunch of extra parameters and whether or not we're utilising a closed or open system model, at which point I think we can safely say we've lost not only the point of the debate, but probably the plot as well!


Not to mention the interest of everyone else on the forum :lol:



Jesthar said:


> Especially given that Statement Logic and philosophical logic are based in significantly different foundation principles and are therefore unlikely to parse too the same conclusions. Call it a fundamental reason why true AI is still a pipe dream, and likely to remain that way.


Absolutely agree - it's why we came to different conclusions. It might also explain why T&T's arguments always seem so mixed up and without logical foundation that they appear invalid to me. Having said that, when I have asked for explanations from T&T he has always replied with more convolutions, suppositions, and implied conclusions leading to invalid arguments which are always as illogical as his original arguments; he has never set anything out in the way that you did. I could follow your subset/data set argument even though I lacked the mathematical skills to debate its veracity. As T&T does not reply in mathematical terms but in philosophical terms, I follow his argument using philosophical rules - and you've seen what that results in!



Jesthar said:


> Oi, are you implying my bum looks big in this avatar?  rrr:


:lol: Now there's definitely no logical answer to that! :lol:


----------

