Alf Bentley Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Livingstone underfire after blaming Blair for 7/7 bombings. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34941658 Obviously, the main people to blame for the 7/7 bombings were, er, the 7/7 bombers - and Red Ken should have made that clear, if he didn't. The things that he apparently said about Blair's role and guilt, as an accessory and underlying cause, seem entirely reasonable to me.
Webbo Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Obviously, the main people to blame for the 7/7 bombings were, er, the 7/7 bombers - and Red Ken should have made that clear, if he didn't. The things that he apparently said about Blair's role and guilt, as an accessory and underlying cause, seem entirely reasonable to me. Doesn't seem reasonable to me. A small section of the electorate don't like govt policy so the govt is partly to blame if that section decides to blow people up? No sorry, won't wash.
Guest Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 It's called pluralism.Some people, despite all the evidence to the contrary, still believe in socialism. Nobody wants to stop having their opinions heard. Some people beieve in islam extremism - they shouldn't be heard. Neither should the christian extremists have so much power.
leicsmac Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 It's called pluralism.Some people, despite all the evidence to the contrary, still believe in socialism. Nobody wants to stop having their opinions heard. Organised religion and the politics associated with it has caused pain and misery on the level that socialism can only dream of. And before you talk about Mao, Stalin and the Kim's - they had/have a very organised religion too, with themselves as the god.
Webbo Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Some people beieve in islam extremism - they shouldn't be heard. Neither should the christian extremists have so much power. As long as you're not inciting or excusing violence you have a right to make your point. I don't think the bishops in the HoLs could be considered extremist either.
Webbo Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Organised religion and the politics associated with it has caused pain and misery on the level that socialism can only dream of. And before you talk about Mao, Stalin and the Kim's - they had/have a very organised religion too, with themselves as the god. Can you honestly make that accusation against anybody in the house of lords?
leicsmac Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Can you honestly make that accusation against anybody in the house of lords? I can make it against others who share the same religions as they (that report is pretty proof of that, amongst)...but generalisations are not a good thing, so I don't think that they should be eschewed on account of that. As you say, religions make up a reasonable demographic of the population and so they should be represented, despite my own personal misgivings about them and the power they command. I just took umbrage at your comparison as it's not even close to like for like.
MooseBreath Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 I'd be interested to see some data from those more credible surveys. I certainly wouldn't advocate ignoring what is a very serious problem. Last I heard, something like 800 British Muslims had gone to Syria to fight. That alone is very serious. There needs to be a concerted attempt to understand why these people are going out there, to prevent more people doing likewise - and to closely monitor those who have got involved to stop them presenting a security threat. They are a tiny minority, but it is a major problem. It doesn't help when a paper seeks to boost its sales by spreading fear and hatred of particular groups, based on deliberate, irresponsible distortions. The survey question asked about "young Muslims joining fighters in Syria", yet the Sun's headline, in the wake of the Paris atrocities, referred to sympathy for "Jihadis" (which many would read as including the Paris terrorists). Likewise, its picture was of Jihadi John brandishing a vicious knife. Perhaps they should have asked "Do you support the Paris bombings?" or "Do you support Jihadi John's beheadings?" The results would have been interesting - and much lower than the 5% who had "a lot of sympathy" for young Muslims joining fighters in Syria and the 14% who had "some sympathy". I'm sure that quite a lot of Muslims have sympathy for their aims or instincts, but none for Islamic State, still less for the beheading, shooting and bombing of innocent civilians. The one I'm referring to is here, if this link works http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&rct=j&q=Charlie%20Hebdo%20muslim%20attitude%20survey%20&ved=0ahUKEwiJ3tC937DJAhVMfxoKHQTVCWIQFgguMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comres.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F02%2FBBC-Today-Programme_British-Muslims-Poll_FINAL-Tables_Feb2015.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFJXmHaxLI4i9CFd6j1E3_3Zt6zWw
Voll Blau Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Interesting piece on Corbyn by the deputy editor of the Speccie... http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/jeremy-corbyn-is-more-sensible-about-syria-than-david-cameron/
Alf Bentley Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Doesn't seem reasonable to me. A small section of the electorate don't like govt policy so the govt is partly to blame if that section decides to blow people up? No sorry, won't wash. A trivial comparison: Scenario 1: A Forest fan is walking down Granby Street minding his own business. You spot his scarf, cross the road and, unprovoked, beat the shit out of him leaving him in intensive care. Scenario 2: A Forest fan repeatedly abuses you and your family in the street, breaks into your brother's house, steals his money and beats him up. You lose your rag, beat the shit out of him and leave him in intensive care. Under both scenarios, your actions are wrong and you are to blame for them. But, in Scenario 2, the Forest fan bears a secondary responsibility for your misdeeds. That doesn't excuse or justify your actions, but a small part of the guilt is shared. I see similarities to Islamist hate preachers. They fire up hotheads, calling for violence against the infidel but may not commit violent acts themselves. The hotheads are responsible for their actions, of course, but surely those who provoke them bear a secondary responsibility? The one I'm referring to is here, if this link works http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&rct=j&q=Charlie%20Hebdo%20muslim%20attitude%20survey%20&ved=0ahUKEwiJ3tC937DJAhVMfxoKHQTVCWIQFgguMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comres.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F02%2FBBC-Today-Programme_British-Muslims-Poll_FINAL-Tables_Feb2015.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFJXmHaxLI4i9CFd6j1E3_3Zt6zWw Interesting stuff - and more worthwhile than the Sun survey, if still sometimes flawed. Do any particular responses concern you? 11% believing that organisations publishing photos of the prophet deserve to be attacked? Not great, but does "attack" necessarily mean violence? Could mean verbal denunciation, too. 24% disagreeing that acts of violence against such publishers "can never be justified"? But "acts of violence" isn't specific and "never" is very absolute. If I printed images of Mohammed on toilet rolls and set up a stall in Highfields, I probably would deserve a smack in the mouth, I'm being pedantic, but I wish pollsters would ask clearer questions. They've opted to avoid many difficult questions, asking whether respondents know anyone who supports ISIS, but not whether they themselves do. Likewise, they ask if respondents have sympathy for "the motives behind" the Charlie Hebdo attack, not if they have sympathy for the attack itself. When I was younger and stupider, if someone had asked me whether I sympathised with "the motives behind" IRA attacks, I'd have probably said "Yes", though I never supported the IRA. It's possible to support the motives behind extremism without supporting extremism. 20% feeling Islam can never be compatible with Western liberal society is a bit of a concern....but then most of that 20% also believe in abiding by British law and feel loyal to Britain. Lots of non-Muslims don't like aspects of Western liberal society, such as consumerism, multiculturalism, gay marriage. Some responses are quite encouraging: I'm not sure 95% of white British "feel a loyalty to Britain" or that 93% of them believe they "should always obey British laws" (I'd disagree with the second one myself). I'm astonished that 85% disagreed with the statement "I would rather socialise with Muslims than non-Muslims".
Guest Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 As long as you're not inciting or excusing violence you have a right to make your point. I don't think the bishops in the HoLs could be considered extremist either. perhaps we should have some official Raving looney party candidates in the HoL then. Why do you want fantasists and outright liars ruling your constitution.
Webbo Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 perhaps we should have some official Raving looney party candidates in the HoL then. Why do you want fantasists and outright liars ruling your constitution. And who decides what's fantasy?
Webbo Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 A trivial comparison: Scenario 1: A Forest fan is walking down Granby Street minding his own business. You spot his scarf, cross the road and, unprovoked, beat the shit out of him leaving him in intensive care. Scenario 2: A Forest fan repeatedly abuses you and your family in the street, breaks into your brother's house, steals his money and beats him up. You lose your rag, beat the shit out of him and leave him in intensive care. Under both scenarios, your actions are wrong and you are to blame for them. But, in Scenario 2, the Forest fan bears a secondary responsibility for your misdeeds. That doesn't excuse or justify your actions, but a small part of the guilt is shared. I see similarities to Islamist hate preachers. They fire up hotheads, calling for violence against the infidel but may not commit violent acts themselves. The hotheads are responsible for their actions, of course, but surely those who provoke them bear a secondary responsibility? Another comparison. The EDL riot and smash up shops because they don't agree with the govt immigration policy. Would the the govt be in any way responsible?
Guest Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 And who decides what's fantasy? Fiction or Fantasy is what isn't factual. Nobody needs to decide it do they?
Webbo Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Fiction or Fantasy is what isn't factual. Nobody needs to decide it do they? So you've got proof god doesn't exist? If I decide that left wing policies are fantasy can I ban them?
Guest Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 So you've got proof god doesn't exist? If I decide that left wing policies are fantasy can I ban them? Do you have proof Unicorns don't exist? Do you have proof dual sexed socks don't think about Leicester city? Do you realise how stupid your first question is? What is happening on the earth and has been happening on the earth for as long as we know without the wonderful positive intervention of any God/Allah/Odin etc... is proof enough isn't it? As for your second comment I've seen people banned and posts removed for less valid reasons on this site - probably not by yourself though who I believe to be a very level headed, reasonable and intelligent poster and mod.
Webbo Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Do you have proof Unicorns don't exist? Do you have proof dual sexed socks don't think about Leicester city? Do you realise how stupid your first question is? What is happening on the earth and has been happening on the earth for as long as we know without the wonderful positive intervention of any God/Allah/Odin etc... is proof enough isn't it? As for your second comment I've seen people banned and posts removed for less valid reasons on this site - probably not by yourself though who I believe to be a very level headed, reasonable and intelligent poster and mod. I'm not trying to get people who believe in unicorns banned.
Alf Bentley Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Another comparison. The EDL riot and smash up shops because they don't agree with the govt immigration policy. Would the the govt be in any way responsible? Hostility to the Iraq action was more than a disagreement with policy. It was a military invasion in which countless thousands died, based on a false pretext (weapons of mass destruction). One of the few things I know about Islam is that Muslims feel a strong bond with Muslims in other countries. That does not excuse the 7/7 bombers. They were responsible for their barbarous outrages. But Bush & Blair bear a secondary responsibility for their reckless, unjustified policies provoking those outrages. The government wouldn't be responsible for EDL riots through its current immigration policy. However, to use a scenario proportionately equivalent to the impact of Iraq, if the govt introduced an immigration policy that, say, left countless thousands of English people homeless, unemployed and starving, and the EDL fomented a riot, they WOULD bear a secondary responsibility - though the main responsibility would lie with the rioters and the EDL. So, are you going to respond to my 2 scenarios? Is your responsibility for violence identical, regardless of whether it is committed under severe provocation or under no provocation whatsoever? You accept the responsibility of those who incite (but do not carry out) violence. Can a democratically-elected government never bear any responsibility for violence provoked by its policies?
Webbo Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Hostility to the Iraq action was more than a disagreement with policy. It was a military invasion in which countless thousands died, based on a false pretext (weapons of mass destruction). One of the few things I know about Islam is that Muslims feel a strong bond with Muslims in other countries. That does not excuse the 7/7 bombers. They were responsible for their barbarous outrages. But Bush & Blair bear a secondary responsibility for their reckless, unjustified policies provoking those outrages. The government wouldn't be responsible for EDL riots through its current immigration policy. However, to use a scenario proportionately equivalent to the impact of Iraq, if the govt introduced an immigration policy that, say, left countless thousands of English people homeless, unemployed and starving, and the EDL fomented a riot, they WOULD bear a secondary responsibility - though the main responsibility would lie with the rioters and the EDL. So, are you going to respond to my 2 scenarios? Is your responsibility for violence identical, regardless of whether it is committed under severe provocation or under no provocation whatsoever? You accept the responsibility of those who incite (but do not carry out) violence. Can a democratically-elected government never bear any responsibility for violence provoked by its policies? I wouldn't riot over a policy of a democratically elected govt, no matter how much I disagreed, so I can't accept it no.
Guest Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 I'm not trying to get people who believe in unicorns banned. Thanks.
Alf Bentley Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 I wouldn't riot over a policy of a democratically elected govt, no matter how much I disagreed, so I can't accept it no. I've responded to your scenario, but you've refused to respond to mine. I've raised valid questions, but you refuse to answer. I've raised valid issues over the damage caused by Iraq, but you prefer the sidetracking diversion of riots. I give up. I'm off out to start an anti-Webbo riot!
Webbo Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 I'm sorry I didn't realise you wanted a response to this bit. A trivial comparison: Scenario 1: A Forest fan is walking down Granby Street minding his own business. You spot his scarf, cross the road and, unprovoked, beat the shit out of him leaving him in intensive care. Scenario 2: A Forest fan repeatedly abuses you and your family in the street, breaks into your brother's house, steals his money and beats him up. You lose your rag, beat the shit out of him and leave him in intensive care. Under both scenarios, your actions are wrong and you are to blame for them. But, in Scenario 2, the Forest fan bears a secondary responsibility for your misdeeds. That doesn't excuse or justify your actions, but a small part of the guilt is shared. I see similarities to Islamist hate preachers. They fire up hotheads, calling for violence against the infidel but may not commit violent acts themselves. The hotheads are responsible for their actions, of course, but surely those who provoke them bear a secondary responsibility? a) I'm not an aggressive person. I can't see any circumstances where I'd start a fight. b) The govt didn't personally attack them. It's a bit like saying I should blow up Russians because they've attacked Christians in the Ukraine. I'm not Ukrainian and I'd struggle to pretend that somehow the Russians had attacked me.
Thracian Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 Because they are powerful loonies who believe in a make believe figure maybe. There actually seems to be growing scientific evidence pointing towards the involvement of "a higher power" in the cosmic scheme of things, however that power might be defined. http://www.infowars.com/yet-more-evidence-emerges-that-our-universe-is-a-grand-simulation-created-by-an-intelligent-designer/
Rincewind Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 There actually seems to be growing scientific evidence pointing towards the involvement of "a higher power" in the cosmic scheme of things, however that power might be defined. http://www.infowars.com/yet-more-evidence-emerges-that-our-universe-is-a-grand-simulation-created-by-an-intelligent-designer/ Really? Now who would believe it?
maddog Posted 27 November 2015 Posted 27 November 2015 I pray to the great lord Jamie Vardy every night. That being has all power.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.