CLOSED

14041434546164

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Not presently residing in Europe, I have a few quick questions.

    What happens over there to the ISIL rejects and others who've visited Syria & Iraq in the last 6 years on anything other than official business or proven short family visits? Are they let back into the countries of origin? Are they screened or severely questioned?

    Are those who have known to fight for the 'cause' been rehabilitated to cleanse themselves of any lingering misconceptions and delusions?

    Has my suggestion from six months ago that 'hate propaganda' in mosques, facebook, google, youtube etc. been put in place, with loss of charity status and significant fines on controlling shareholders (Brin, Zuckerberg, Page et al) been enacted?

    Have enhanced methods been put in place to vet immigration and refugee claims?

    If not, then what's the point of discussing this any further? One could be forgiven for believing that Western governments are encouraging this.

    No you clearly don't live in Europe do you!!

    The childlike innocence of your questions is touching.

    In Europe the priority is not to do anything that might be considered contrary or offensive to Islam. And obviously as everything causes offence to Islam our governments do nothing but appease.
    I can appreciate the religious sensitivities, but I've always felt that if someone can't explain clearly why they were in Syria (or Iraq) over the past six years, they should be temporarily incarcerated and further grilled until they can provide evidence of what they were doing there. They certainly just shouldn't be let back into the country.

    The refugee and immigration thing is another one. ISIL has already said that it will infiltrate that pool, so common sense would suggest that this is an area that should be very closely monitored.

    Furthermore, I didn't think Europe was doing all that well at the moment economically. It's hardly the time to be accepting boatloads of refugees, despite humanitarian considerations imho. Far more beneficial to try to find ways to solve the problem at its source, via coordinated diplomacy and engagement (even if it means some loss of face). 7 years later and Assad is still in power. What really was won here and at what cost?
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,328
    You mean like the KKK (protestant hate group)?
    Westboro Baptist Church?
    Anders Breivik?

    Clutching rather feebly at straws in the ever increasing desperation to let Islam off the hook.

    I know the KKK have certainly killed people in their time but can you point to a sustained series of terrorist attacks committed by them? Marching, spouting racism and the odd shooting not really the same.

    And I must have missed the report when some Westbrook baptist church followers piled a van into a load of innocent pedestrians. It's laughable to equate standing on a street corner shouting some homophobic bullshit that no one is listening to to driving a van into people and then jumping out with knives to butcher any survivors.

    Which leaves you with Breivik. And how many comparable attacks have there been? For every Breivik/KKK white supremacist nutter who commits a terrorist act you've got 50 people who are doing it as a 'perversion of Islam'.

    Stop those people first and I'll take my chances with being blown up by Westboro baptist church.

    Funny you ask that only days after one of these guys killed a protester by running his car into a protst march.


    This isn't a dick comparison contest, I'm not interested in who committed the most violence, I'm only countering the notion that only Muslim extremists are responsible for attacks and Islam is the only religion with extremism or apologists. I've seen radical Jews on tv in those settlements that it was their right to take over the land from Palestinians because it was 'the right of the strongest'. I wonder if they'd had the guts to say that to the Nazis'.

    Religious extremism is wrong in any way, shape or form. Blaming all Muslims for terror attacks or the lack of denouncing them is a very one-sided way of looking at it, and will do more harm then good. But it's easy of course, it makes the world 'good- bad', and that's what we all like. Playing into the hands of these extremists who want us to be at war with all Muslims.

    Well I'm not going to attack my collegues for their religion. I'm not inclined to invade Malaisia because 95% of Malay follow (their form of) Islam. The problem is middle eastern, and those pointing to Sumatra haven't got a clue what they're talking about, as that Island has had it's indepence wars for the last 500 odd years.

    It's the oil countries in the middle east, where sheiks depress their own people and give them the West as the Evil Empire whilst still selling the oil to the same empire fascillitating their luxury lifestyle. And it's us thinking oil dollars are more important than human rights still buying the stuff from countries like Iraque, Saudia Arabia, Syria, etc.

    Preachers there use ancient texts to gain power, and that only works if you can point to an enemy. And they can as we live in a way that breaks just about every rule in their ancient texts. So what do we do? We buy their oil and sell them our weapons for their local power struggles, financing and harboring extremism.

    It isn't that difficult to stop. Just stop buying their oil, block trade until thay manage to treat their citizens right. But no, we do that to North Korea, not to our friends the beheading Saudi's. For human rights in NK are completely different then those in SA.




  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,328
    patb wrote: »
    "You mean like the KKK (protestant hate group)?
    Westboro Baptist Church?
    Anders Breivik?"

    Yes, I'm sure the good people of Spain are very concerned with attacks from these guys.

    I'm no way supporting the KKK but to compare the global situation re Islamic extremism to the KKK is just futher evidence of the wilful efforts by some to ignore the facts.

    Some Americans might. Again, I was pointing out the flaw in reasoning, not saying the KKK is a world-wide phenomenon. Nor is radical islam, it just so happens they're fighting the West, and we happen to BE the West (Spain included).
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    edited August 2017 Posts: 1,053
    patb wrote: »

    We have somehow got to the situation where Muslims really do think thet their religion is special because wider society seems to sanction that attitude. We need to get back to a situation in the West where Islam is simply another religion with no special treatment whatsover.

    This is entirely the fault of the regressive left. As evidenced here on occasion, it is completely unacceptable to criticise Islam.

    Maajid Nawaz, author of 'Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism' sums up the situation rather succinctly, describing "well-meaning liberals and ideologically driven leftists" in the United Kingdom who naïvely and "ignorantly pandered to" Islamists and helped Islamist ideology to gain acceptance. Nawaz elaborates, saying that "a section of the left" has "an inherent hesitation to challenge some of the bigotry that can occur within minority communities ... for the sake of political correctness, for the sake of tolerating what they believe is other cultures and respecting different lifestyles"



  • edited August 2017 Posts: 4,617
    The relativist view re looking at the KKK etc does not help.

    If someone from the KKK drove into a crowd tomorrow and killed 50 or more, how does that have any impact re the issue we have re extreme Islam? How does it help? No matter what issues with have with other groups around the World, it in no way changes the issue we have re Islamic terror. It in no way alters both the facts re how many have been killed and injured in the name of Islam or the emotional impact on the relatives and friends of the victims.

    And, in some way, it almost seeks to play down the issue. In the same way the parent of a bully would say, "well he's not the only bully in the school", perhaps not but that observation does not help in any way. It just seeks to detract from the issue/conversation.

  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    edited August 2017 Posts: 1,053
    @patb It doesn't. It is simply a distraction technique. In my opinion, a terrorist of one hue is no better than another, but in this instance the relativist stance serves to aid the argument of those who, for whatever misguided reason, have chosen to defend the extremists.

    Terrorism aside for a moment. Regressive leftism is the reason that the child sex scandals in Rotherham and elsewhere was allowed to continue for so long. For those not aware, the cases I refer to was the organised sexual abuse of young girls by Muslim men which was conducted on an industrial scale. This was known about for many years but never acted upon by the authorities, for the simple fact that they were scared to investigate fully for fear of being branded racist. In the meantime, thousands of vulnerable children were raped and physically abused. Even now, no one in authority is allowed to voice an opinion on the matter (Sarah Champion anyone?).

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4282450/rochdale-sex-abuse-cop-says-sacking-of-race-row-mp-sarah-champion-means-potential-whistleblowers-will-fear-losing-their-jobs/

    I can say with certainty, that had these abuse rings been organised by Christians or athiests, then the full force of the law would have been applied in the very first instance of the authorities getting wind of it.

    Still, better to sacrifice children for the sake of community cohesion hey chaps? Also better to sacrifice civilians for the same reason? Keep calm and carry on!
  • Posts: 7,653
    Really somebody just said that if Christians had organised sexual abuse they would have been immediately would have felt the full force of the law?

    How long has that taken and how much sexual abuse done by people working for the Catholic church has been really prosecuted or swept under the carpet by the Christian community?

    Somehow I sense somebody rewriting current and millennia old history.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    edited August 2017 Posts: 1,053
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Really somebody just said that if Christians had organised sexual abuse they would have been immediately would have felt the full force of the law?

    How long has that taken and how much sexual abuse done by people working for the Catholic church has been really prosecuted or swept under the carpet by the Christian community?

    Somehow I sense somebody rewriting current and millennia old history.

    You do have a very valid point about the church. Not a case of revisionism but a very valid point which I obviously missed. A pervert is a pervert in my book and I have little doubt that this type of behaviour will also extend to the upper echelons of power. I was, however, speaking about street gangs.

    What are your viewpoints on the Rotherham (and other towns) scandals? The church wields much power and influence, they can engineer circumstances whereby they evade justice from within. That's how they got (get) away with it. I stand to be corrected, but don't think that much of what happened in the church was an open secret as it was with the Muslim grooming gangs? Those within the church would know, but not the police. That being the case, please explain the reason for the turning a blind eye to Rotherham? Why were the perpetrators passively aided and abetted by the authorities when this situation was known about for so long?
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    Just to add to the above. Again I stand to be corrected, but I can't recall anyone being sacked from their governmental position for speaking out about sexual abuse in the church? I also can't recall anyone holding back with their opinions in the media regarding this?
  • Posts: 7,653
    stag wrote: »
    Just to add to the above. Again I stand to be corrected, but I can't recall anyone being sacked from their governmental position for speaking out about sexual abuse in the church? I also can't recall anyone holding back with their opinions in the media regarding this?

    I am quite sure that there has been some sacking and turning blind eyes on abuse situations only the church has had some serious power and still does, their department in charge of such offenses and formerly in charge of Inquisition {during the second millennium of the church] does know how to do so quietly and effective. They had quite a lot of time to perfect this.

    Not taking away that this ought be despised at any moment dome by any religious undertaking.

    I think that if you look in our recent history you will find a lot of situations where officials looked the other way or decided to not act in somebody importants interest.

    And indeed a pervert is a pervert not depending on his political or religious background.
  • Posts: 6,017
    Yep. Jimmy Savile, for example.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Gerard wrote: »
    Yep. Jimmy Savile, for example.

    His antics were quite well known by member of the right and the left political persuasion. One can only wonder why nobody ever did something about it.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    I can say with a modicum of confidence that had a complaint of sexual assault been made to the police against Reverend Bloggs, then it would have been followed up. From what you say I think you and I agree that the church successfully blocked wrongdoing from the agencies of law enforcement? That being the case, then this and the Muslim grooming gang situation are not really comparable? I say this because it has been openly acknowledged that not only did the police know about this, but also Social Services and others. Why then did they fail to act to protect the victims?

    Remember we are not talking about someone important here - we are speaking about street gangs of Muslim men. Had these gangs been comprised white (Christians/athiests/Jeddi's or whomever) men, then swift and decisive action would have been taken by the police to smash the networks and bring the offenders to justice.

    So, why were these gangs allowed to continue while the authorities looked the other way? I think it's for the same reason as they fail to confront Islamic extremism and terrorism. Again, look at what happened to Sarah Champion. If she gets sacked for speaking out about criminal activity of the most vile nature (and no one can argue she was not telling the truth) then how are we as a nation supposed to confront the problem of Islamist terrorism?
  • Posts: 7,653
    I would blame incompetency by various agencies and would say it has nothing to do with Islamic religious preference. I generally think that police forces sometimes are just not doing their job as they should.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Am I the only one who finds it utterly preposterous that we are having to have such a proctracted debate to even reach a consensus that Islam is a factor in the current spate of attacks?

    They really must be laughing at us and our precious 'values'.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    There's an arrogance with Islam that simply isn't there with other religions. To be fair, I'm not sure many British Muslims are aware of it because they live it and thus can't see how it can be construed as such. To them it's just fact that theirs is the one true faith. The major issue is that it's exacerbated by 'progressives', who cannot be seen to call out its inability to conform to western standards. If you live in a society where other faiths, Christians for example, can be lampooned left, right and centre without reprisals then it should be the same for Islam. But it isn't.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 4,617
    It is a very bizarre situation we have. The facts are staring us in the face but some still will not deal with these facts. We cant make any real progress until we get past this phase. I'm not really sure how much more evidence we need regarding the fact that Islam is a factor.

    I think that there is a genuine chance that if the establishment fail to come to terms with the situation, then the issue will be pushed further to the right. (as with Trump). The public have been incredibly patient but there only so many candles you can light, only so many charity concerts, only so many buildings to light up and only so many "Praying for (insert whatever city has been attacked) messages on Facebook.

    We should also consider that it was only the incompetence of these latest guys that prevented a much bigger attack (rather than expert policing or intel from within the community). The gas bottle method clearly is a risky plan. Left unchecked, they will become more expert and more dangerous.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    A worrying rabbit hole we seem to be heading down:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/20/hate-crimes-online-abusers-prosecutors-serious-crackdown-internet-face-to-face

    The key phrase:

    "The definition of hate crime, recognised by the CPS and police, is “any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice”


    So no actual tangible crime needs to have been committed or evidence produced just somebody deciding to perceive something as offensive.

    "There are crucial provisions in law to ensure we do not stifle free speech, an important right in our society. Hate is hate, however"


    And as you've just defined hate as being somebody's own personal opinion whether or not they are offended about something said as part of an individual's right to free speech then said right has the potential to be eroded to the point of being meaningless.

    So any of us here criticising Islam, or indeed any religion, can be found guilty of a crime if somebody decides that we are exhibiting hostility to Islam and thus takes offence.

    Christ if I even say 'I think DAD is utter shite and anyone who thinks otherwise is a lobotomised cretin' I can be arrested (as long as there is someone out there prepared to front up at a police station and say 'I am a lobotomised cretin and I like DAD and I found that comment offensive.')

    And just before you think this is just the lefty Guardian doing their usual schtick take a look at who is writing this; yep the DPP herself.

    Of course racial or homophobic abuse on twitter and the like can and does cross the line of being acceptable under free speech but when legal decisions are being made on the whim of somebody choosing to be offended or not you end up with a country which is, to pick one completely random example out of thin air, terrified to reproduce a cartoon of a man with a beard in any media because not only are they scared of mob rule violence but also because the law protects said mob as their right to be 'offended' is now the most sacrosanct right of all in a modern liberal society.

    How long before it supersedes the right to life itself and we get a story where someone who was offended murders someone and the court let's him go because the victim really shouldn't have had the temerity to criticise his religion?
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 4,617
    "So no actual tangible crime needs to have been committed"

    I think you may have not interpretted this incorrectly:

    “any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice”

    You still need to have a criminal offence in the first place but its the motivation which depends on whether its defined as hate crime. Its pretty meaningless as I cant see how you can murder someone or attack them without being hostile so automatically, all murders/attacks become hate crime?

    "So what happened?"

    "He punched me in the face?"

    "Do you perceive that as hostile?"

    Duh?

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    patb wrote: »
    "So no actual tangible crime needs to have been committed"

    I think you may have not interpretted this incorrectly:

    “any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice”

    You still need to have a criminal offence in the first place but its the motivation which depends on whether its defined as hate crime. Its pretty meaningless as I cant see how you can murder someone or attack them without being hostile so automatically, all murders/attacks become hate crime?

    "So what happened?"

    "He punched me in the face?"

    "Do you perceive that as hostile?"

    Duh?

    Fair point.

    But if an actual crime has been committed then the law can simply deal with it as usual and all this is redundant then isn't it?

    Or is throwing acid in someone's face with hate as your motive more serious than doing it to nick their phone?
  • Posts: 4,617
    Yes, the whole thing is pretty pointless and a distraction but the media lap all of this stuff up. Plus it uses up Police time and resources.

    As the CPS have changed their policy, you can expect "hate crime doubles" headlines next year.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,328
    Funny how I just point out that terrorism isn't a muslim monopoly and I'm put away as 'leftist'. If you want to fight 1.5 billion people because 200.000 are your real enemy, be my guest, but I think that is utterly stupid. It's the same as calling all Germans in the 1930ies Nazis. You'd just be utterly wrong and taking out more then half the people who could actually help you defeat them.

    What's going on in Britain when it comes to this PC stuff and protecting criminals because of their religion is beyond me. For me there should be a strict devision between state and church (whichever one) and no rule should ever be made because someone might feel offended. We're all equal in our rights, end of story.

    At the same time, the rules proposed would protect gay- and others (sorry, I lost count with all those letters) were attacked by muslims because of their preferences, right? Or is it a one-way street again?

    That thing about beeing muslim and not beeing able to get that in line with western values is utter rubbish though, I know many muslims who can and again, go to Malaysia, Java, Singapore or even the US and you'll find there are millions who don't have a problem whatsoever to incorporate modern life into their muslim belief and vice versa.

    I know, beeing nuanced and knowing exactly who you're fighting against isn't lovely cowboy stuff, it's more fun to blow everyone away in a blaze of gory, eh, sorry, glory.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,009
    Unsure if it has been posted already, but the Barcelona van attack suspect has been shot and killed by police:

    https://www.yahoo.com/gma/suspected-driver-barcelona-attack-killed-13-identified-still-123104502--abc-news-topstories.html
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,425
    More evidence of the authorities going soft on the jihadis!

    First one cop shoots 4 dead on the spot, and now this?!

    When are they going to start taking the tough action that's required?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    A worrying rabbit hole we seem to be heading down:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/20/hate-crimes-online-abusers-prosecutors-serious-crackdown-internet-face-to-face

    The key phrase:

    "The definition of hate crime, recognised by the CPS and police, is “any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice”


    So no actual tangible crime needs to have been committed or evidence produced just somebody deciding to perceive something as offensive.

    "There are crucial provisions in law to ensure we do not stifle free speech, an important right in our society. Hate is hate, however"


    And as you've just defined hate as being somebody's own personal opinion whether or not they are offended about something said as part of an individual's right to free speech then said right has the potential to be eroded to the point of being meaningless.

    So any of us here criticising Islam, or indeed any religion, can be found guilty of a crime if somebody decides that we are exhibiting hostility to Islam and thus takes offence.

    Christ if I even say 'I think DAD is utter shite and anyone who thinks otherwise is a lobotomised cretin' I can be arrested (as long as there is someone out there prepared to front up at a police station and say 'I am a lobotomised cretin and I like DAD and I found that comment offensive.')

    And just before you think this is just the lefty Guardian doing their usual schtick take a look at who is writing this; yep the DPP herself.

    Of course racial or homophobic abuse on twitter and the like can and does cross the line of being acceptable under free speech but when legal decisions are being made on the whim of somebody choosing to be offended or not you end up with a country which is, to pick one completely random example out of thin air, terrified to reproduce a cartoon of a man with a beard in any media because not only are they scared of mob rule violence but also because the law protects said mob as their right to be 'offended' is now the most sacrosanct right of all in a modern liberal society.

    How long before it supersedes the right to life itself and we get a story where someone who was offended murders someone and the court let's him go because the victim really shouldn't have had the temerity to criticise his religion?

    ea64b5fedefb1e60d3e61b71f6f46d57--prophet-muhammad-crybaby.jpg
  • Posts: 4,617
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41032483

    A van containing gas canisters has been discovered near a music venue in Rotterdam, hours after a tip-off from Spanish police led to the cancellation of a rock concert.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    patb wrote: »
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41032483

    A van containing gas canisters has been discovered near a music venue in Rotterdam, hours after a tip-off from Spanish police led to the cancellation of a rock concert.

    Let us all hope that those poor misunderstood freedom fighters (I won't say terrorists because that is politically incorrect and may cause offence) didn't injure themselves in any way during their mission to plant these devices (is bomb the appropriate word? Or does it sound too aggressive?).

    KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON!
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,328
    stag wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41032483

    A van containing gas canisters has been discovered near a music venue in Rotterdam, hours after a tip-off from Spanish police led to the cancellation of a rock concert.

    Let us all hope that those poor misunderstood freedom fighters (I won't say terrorists because that is politically incorrect and may cause offence) didn't injure themselves in any way during their mission to plant these devices (is bomb the appropriate word? Or does it sound too aggressive?).

    KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON!

    Together with information from the Spanish Police and information that was spread by an individual in this country (Netherlands) the police had to cancel the concert. Police speak of a 'very alarming message' and the person has been arrested and will be helt accounteable.

    For those of you who understand Dutch:
    http://www.nu.nl/terrorisme-in-europa/4892969/verdachte-brabant-verspreidde-bericht-dreiging-bij-maassilo-.html

    Seems like the police were on their game this time.
This discussion has been closed.