Also in the news

[Innovindil]

6 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Is that hard to understand? 

Well... Yes, it is. 

 

He said far-right terrorism had gone from 6% of the caseload two years ago to 10% today, adding: "It's small but it's my fastest-growing problem."

But, he said, the biggest threat still came from jihadists.

 

So far-right/white terrorism is 10% of today's caseloads. So realistically, we should be having 1 white boy news report for every 9 Islamic ones. 

 

Sounds about right to me tbh, but I could be viewing different news sources I guess. 

 

Edit: of course assuming that everything non-White boy on the terrorism caseload would be Islamic, obviously it wouldn't be, but the point still stands. 

Edited 25 August 2020 by Innovindil

[iniesta]

16 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

From the format, I assume that's a quotation, but you don't say where it's from - or are you just restating your opinion? 

 

I think it's more widely accepted to refer to "Islamist terrorism" or "Islamic extremist terrorism". 

Otherwise, you'd presumably have to accept "white terrorism" and "Christian terrorism" when some white power nutjob or born-again extremist claims to be killing people on behalf of white people, Christian beliefs or whatever.

 

Anyway, I'm sure you won't change your mind, so I won't waste our time any longer....

Its really not difficult to find.. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Well... Yes, it is. 

 

He said far-right terrorism had gone from 6% of the caseload two years ago to 10% today, adding: "It's small but it's my fastest-growing problem."

But, he said, the biggest threat still came from jihadists.

 

So far-right/white terrorism is 10% of today's caseloads. So realistically, we should be having 1 white boy news report for every 9 Islamic ones. 

 

Sounds about right to me tbh, but I could be viewing different news sources I guess. 

 

Edit: of course assuming that everything non-White boy on the terrorism caseload would be Islamic, obviously it wouldn't be, but the point still stands. 

I think the point is that it's not just about the number of reports, but the style and language in which they are delivered that has an effect too.

[iniesta]

33 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Well its factually correct so I don't know why that would be a problem. Just like the term Islamic terrorism is not factually incorrect. 

'Person massacres dozens'. Don't call the perpetrator a person, I don't want to be associated with him as a fellow person. 

But the report specifically looks at reporting on specific events and how the approach is different, the number of attacks or the number dead is only of minor relevance to that. 

It was a passing sarcastic comment. 

 

What i find most concerning is that there is a Muslim Council of Britain’s Centre for Media Monitoring 😂 

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

Just to add to the debate:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transparency-report-disruptive-powers-2018-to-2019

 

Transparency report: disruptive powers 2018 to 2019. Report released in March this year.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/873361/CCS0320317274-001_HM_Government_Transparency_Report_Web_Accessible.pdf

 

Quote

Conviction in a court is one of the most effective tools we have to stop terrorists. The Government is therefore committed to pursuing convictions for terrorist offences where they have occurred. Terrorism-related arrests are made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). They can also be made under the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT) in circumstances where arresting officers require additional powers of detention or need to arrest a person suspected of terrorism-related activity without a warrant. Whether to arrest someone under PACE or TACT is an operational decision to be made by the police.

In the year ending 31 March 2019, 268 persons were arrested for terrorism-related activity, a decrease of 40% from the 443 arrests in the previous year. This was the lowest number of arrests in a year since the year ending March 2014.

Of the 268 arrests, 90 (34%) resulted in a charge, and of those charged, 70 were considered to be terrorism-related. Many of these cases are ongoing, so the number of charges resulting from the 268 arrests in the year ending 31 March 2019 can be expected to rise over time.

Of the 70 people charged with terrorism-related offences, 32 have been prosecuted and 34 are awaiting prosecution. All 32 of the prosecution cases led to individuals being convicted of an offence: 30 for terrorism-related offences and two for non-terrorism related offences.

As at 31 March 2019, there were 223 persons in custody in Great Britain1 for terrorism-related offences. This total was comprised of 178 persons (80%) in custody who held Islamist-extremist views, 33 (15%) who held far right-wing ideologies and a further 12 other persons. This was an increase of 5 persons compared to the 228 persons in custody as at 31 March 2018. The number of individuals in custody for terrorism-related offences has shown a steady increase in recent years, across all ideologies.

Terrorism arrests and outcomes are often highly reliant on the investigatory powers and tools outlined in this report.

Report also clarifies that "extreme right wing" terror is increasing. Which is something we should all be very worried about. 

[Finnaldo]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Well... Yes, it is. 

 

He said far-right terrorism had gone from 6% of the caseload two years ago to 10% today, adding: "It's small but it's my fastest-growing problem."

But, he said, the biggest threat still came from jihadists.

 

So far-right/white terrorism is 10% of today's caseloads. So realistically, we should be having 1 white boy news report for every 9 Islamic ones. 

 

Sounds about right to me tbh, but I could be viewing different news sources I guess. 

 

Edit: of course assuming that everything non-White boy on the terrorism caseload would be Islamic, obviously it wouldn't be, but the point still stands. 

That’s 10% of 800 live investigations... the absolute majority of which could lead to absolutely nothing, seeing as there’s been 25 foiled plots in three years.
 

Yet in terms of the foiled plots in three years, it’s 16 Islamic plots to 8 Far Right ones. 
 

So it is underrepresented, would you say? 

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think the point is that it's not just about the number of reports, but the style and language in which they are delivered that has an effect too.

I don't care what you think the point is, that isn't the point fin is making. 

[Innovindil]

2 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

That’s 10% of 800 live investigations... the absolute majority of which could lead to absolutely nothing, seeing as there’s been 25 foiled plots in three years.
 

Yet in terms of the foiled plots in three years, it’s 16 Islamic plots to 8 Far Right ones. 
 

So it is underrepresented, would you say? 

So our focal point now is failed attacks? What is the difference between using that as your representation and using iniesta's death statistic? 

Edited 25 August 2020 by Innovindil

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, iniesta said:

Its really not difficult to find.. 

 

Very lazy and/or disrespectful of you not to quote it, in that case. 

 

Oh, go on then, I'll Google it for you...... Oh, The Jerusalem Post..... 

[LiberalFox]

I don't see what the issue is with the report. I think they are right, and it's nice that maybe some media outlets will listen. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I don't care what you think the point is, that isn't the point fin is making. 

No, but it was related to the original post which is relevant here. Apologies if that feels like a deflection.

[iniesta]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Very lazy and/or disrespectful of you not to quote it, in that case. 

 

Oh, go on then, I'll Google it for you...... Oh, The Jerusalem Post..... 

Muslim Council of Britain’s Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) good

 

Jersusalem Post bad

 

That you Jeremy? 

 

As has been explained by somebody above, your policing of language wasn't needed. 

[Alf Bentley]

Just now, iniesta said:

Muslim Council of Britain’s Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) good

 

Jersusalem Post bad

 

That you Jeremy? 

 

As has been explained by somebody above, your policing of language wasn't needed. 

 

I'm not policing anything as I have no authority, any more than any other poster. This is a public forum and I expressed an opinion about your post, that's all. You can take it or leave it - and I'm sure you'll leave it.

 

No, it's not Jezza and I'm not a fan of his. Nor do I have an opinion or indeed any knowledge of either the Jerusalem Post or the Muslim Council's CfMM.

My laughter was at the idea of the Jerusalem Post being a good source to decide on terminology re. Islam/Islamism. I'd also laugh at the idea of the Muslim Council being best placed to define anti-Semitism, Zionism or whatever.

 

Over and out.

 

[Finnaldo]

16 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

So our focal point now is failed attacks? What is the difference between using that as your representation and using iniesta's death statistic? 

You can use death statistics, injury statistics and failed plot statistics all together if you wish, I think that’s more than fair and more balanced if you wish to present it that way.
 

But the issue with JUST death statistics is you could have 20 deaths and 5 injuries in one single attack, and 5 deaths and 20 injuries in total in four attacks, and whilst one was more deadly it doesn’t show you the patterns of how likely these attacks are to be undertaken.
 

For example, if some eco-terrorists launched a terror attack tomorrow that managed to kill 100 people, does that mean that it’s now eco-terrorism is the biggest threat to the U.K.? I’d argue it’s probably still Islamic terror, but the death statistics wouldn’t reflect that. 
 

He used the 3 deaths to suggest that Far Right Terrorism isn’t an issue, I used the 18% terror related incarceration and 32% of foiled terror attacks to suggest they are an issue that’s underreported. I’d argue those two stats together cast a better view than solely deaths, at least in my opinion. 
 

Islamic terrorism is reported as much as it should be, Far Right terror is underreported. I don’t think that’s an unfair opinion.  

Edited 25 August 2020 by Finnaldo

[urban.spaceman]

16 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I don't see what the issue is with the report. I think they are right, and it's nice that maybe some media outlets will listen. 

The issue is that the MCB has a knack of preferring a victimhood narrative over admitting there's an issue with something, and complaining about there being a disproportionate focus on the media on Islamist terror is a bit weird considering the number of actual terror arrests and prosecutions is wildly disproportionate compared to the very small UK Muslim population, and the very large white population, who are more likely to have right wing views.

[Finnaldo]

55 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

The issue is that the MCB has a knack of preferring a victimhood narrative over admitting there's an issue with something, and complaining about there being a disproportionate focus on the media on Islamist terror is a bit weird considering the number of actual terror arrests and prosecutions is wildly disproportionate compared to the very small UK Muslim population, and the very large white population, who are more likely to have right wing views.

I think that’s a fair assessment, clearly there are issues in subsects of the Muslim population. Every group in Britain, from ethnicity to religious persuasion have their skeletons. I think if there were more community leaders that were actively vocal about those skeletons (and I appreciate some are) and much more intense internal policing within communities this could be tackled a lot more proficiently. It’s a very intensive task but at a time where you’re trying to get White British populations to be more understanding, it doesn’t get very far if another section of society bury their issues under accusations of victimhood and phobias. It has to be a two way street to create a more harmonious society I believe. 

Edited 25 August 2020 by Finnaldo

[Innovindil]

24 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

You can use death statistics, injury statistics and failed plot statistics all together if you wish, I think that’s more than fair and more balanced if you wish to present it that way.
 

But the issue with JUST death statistics is you could have 20 deaths and 5 injuries in one single attack, and 5 deaths and 20 injuries in total in four attacks, and whilst one was more deadly it doesn’t show you the patterns of how likely these attacks are to be undertaken.
 

For example, if some eco-terrorists launched a terror attack tomorrow that managed to kill 100 people, does that mean that it’s now eco-terrorism is the biggest threat to the U.K.? I’d argue it’s probably still Islamic terror, but the death statistics wouldn’t reflect that. 
 

He used the 3 deaths to suggest that Far Right Terrorism isn’t an issue, I used the 18% terror related incarceration and 32% of foiled terror attacks to suggest they are an issue that’s underreported. I’d argue those two stats together cast a better view than solely deaths, at least in my opinion. 
 

Islamic terrorism is reported as much as it should be, Far Right terror is underreported. I don’t think that’s an unfair opinion.  

I don't think it's unfair, I just think it's wrong. For the most part, media reports on terrorism in general revolve around attacks and the damage linked to them. To that end over the last few years I think I've seen a fair balance. I've heard about people getting ran over by nazi boys in America, that car attack (can't even remember if it was ever confirmed but whatever) down in London outside a mosque. Then there was that miss Hitler and her Hitler wannabe cretin that were jailed recently. I even saw a report on a nazi-salute popping dog make national news. 

 

Honestly, that's just off the top of my head, I've probably forgotten more than I've read by now. Don't think it's being undereported at all. Nor do I think the media (apart from the usual suspects) would treat it any differently to Islamic extremism attacks when/if they happen. 

[LiberalFox]

26 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

The issue is that the MCB has a knack of preferring a victimhood narrative over admitting there's an issue with something, and complaining about there being a disproportionate focus on the media on Islamist terror is a bit weird considering the number of actual terror arrests and prosecutions is wildly disproportionate compared to the very small UK Muslim population, and the very large white population, who are more likely to have right wing views.

You sound a bit anti-Muslim there unless I'm reading it wrong. Surely they are doing their job in asking for accurate reporting. The problem with a lot of terrorism reporting (and I think it's possibly getting better) is it fuels racism towards Muslims (and people who are believed to be Muslim). You could argue that's part of the cause of any rise in "far right" terrorism. 

[Finnaldo]

25 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I don't think it's unfair, I just think it's wrong. For the most part, media reports on terrorism in general revolve around attacks and the damage linked to them. To that end over the last few years I think I've seen a fair balance. I've heard about people getting ran over by nazi boys in America, that car attack (can't even remember if it was ever confirmed but whatever) down in London outside a mosque. Then there was that miss Hitler and her Hitler wannabe cretin that were jailed recently. I even saw a report on a nazi-salute popping dog make national news. 

 

Honestly, that's just off the top of my head, I've probably forgotten more than I've read by now. Don't think it's being undereported at all. Nor do I think the media (apart from the usual suspects) would treat it any differently to Islamic extremism attacks when/if they happen. 

If you believe it’s reported adequately, fair enough we’ll have to agree to disagree.

[urban.spaceman]

29 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

You sound a bit anti-Muslim there unless I'm reading it wrong. Surely they are doing their job in asking for accurate reporting. The problem with a lot of terrorism reporting (and I think it's possibly getting better) is it fuels racism towards Muslims (and people who are believed to be Muslim). You could argue that's part of the cause of any rise in "far right" terrorism. 

I'm not anti-Muslim in the slightest. I am an atheist though, as well as an anti-theist, so I can be very anti-Islam at times. Vehemently anti-Islamism/religious extremism. The same for Christianity.

 

Those are some extremely important distinctions. It's essential to be able to criticise Islam, the Quran, extremists, and especially the likes of the MCB without being "anti-Muslim". Muslims themselves are critical of aspects all of those things, despite taboos and of course laws in certain places.

 

52 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

I think that’s a fair assessment, clearly there are issues in subsects of the Muslim population. Every group in Britain, from ethnicity to religious persuasion have their skeletons. For White Brits that may be the issue of lingering racism in some departments, for Muslims that’s Islamic terrorism and, with some Muslims from certain regions, grooming gangs. Perhaps issues with integration with some as well. I think if there were more community leaders that were actively vocal about these (and I appreciate some are) and much more intense internal policing within communities this could be tackled a lot more proficiently. It’s a very intensive task but at a time where you’re trying to get White British populations to be more understanding, it doesn’t get very far if another section of society bury their issues under accusations of victimhood and phobias. It has to be a two way street to create a more harmonious society I believe. 

This is why I find @LiberalFox's reply above so frustrating. One reply says I was being fair and the next says I was being anti-muslim . One should always try to be fair - my post near the top of this page used a report to prove that the number of terror offence arrests was indeed disproportionate. That's why "Islamophobia" is thrown about so often.

[LiberalFox]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

I'm not anti-Muslim in the slightest. I am an atheist though, as well as an anti-theist, so I can be very anti-Islam at times. Vehemently anti-Islamism/religious extremism. The same for Christianity.

 

Those are some extremely important distinctions. It's essential to be able to criticise Islam, the Quran, extremists, and especially the likes of the MCB without being "anti-Muslim". Muslims themselves are critical of aspects all of those things, despite taboos and of course laws in certain places.

 

This is why I find @LiberalFox's reply above so frustrating. One reply says I was being fair and the next says I was being anti-muslim . One should always try to be fair - my post near the top of this page used a report to prove that the number of terror offence arrests was indeed disproportionate. That's why "Islamophobia" is thrown about so often.

It's only my interpretation. It read as though there was an implication that Muslims hold some responsibility for the actions of other Muslims. Finnaldo's reply seems to indicate he also holds this view though he applies it to other groups such as "White Brits". I'll take you at your word though. I think anti-Muslim bigotry in the UK is fairly endemic and when something is tolerated to a large degree it's not necessarily a fault to be part of that. 

[Finnaldo]

35 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

It's only my interpretation. It read as though there was an implication that Muslims hold some responsibility for the actions of other Muslims. Finnaldo's reply seems to indicate he also holds this view though he applies it to other groups such as "White Brits". I'll take you at your word though. I think anti-Muslim bigotry in the UK is fairly endemic and when something is tolerated to a large degree it's not necessarily a fault to be part of that. 

To clarify, I don’t think Muslims should take responsibility for actions of other Muslims, I think we should be more open to discussing issues around grooming gangs as it is an issue (NOT pedophillia in large, this very particular phenomenon) that was initially buried over being scared to challenge this as a problem

within a minority of the Muslim community, and years after it’s still seen as a taboo subject within left-leaning & liberal circles (in some ways, your response to urban is an example of this).
 

There is sensible, nuanced way of dealing with this within Muslim community and in wider society, in the same way the White British majority we’re asked to consider the effects of racism. Otherwise it’s an issue that remains firmly a Far Right talking point that can be used to target innocent Muslims rather than being discussed more fairly as an issue within a minority of the community and why that comes to be. That’s my take anyway, I don’t mean to offend any regular British Muslims. 

[LiberalFox]

14 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

To clarify, I don’t think Muslims should take responsibility for actions of other Muslims, I think we should be more open to discussing issues around grooming gangs as it is an issue (NOT pedophillia in large, this very particular phenomenon) that was initially buried over being scared to challenge this as a problem

within a minority of the Muslim community, and years after it’s still seen as a taboo subject within left-leaning & liberal circles (in some ways, your response to urban is an example of this).
 

There is sensible, nuanced way of dealing with this within Muslim community and in wider society, in the same way the White British majority we’re asked to consider the effects of racism. Otherwise it’s an issue that remains firmly a Far Right talking point that can be used to target innocent Muslims rather than being discussed more fairly as an issue within a minority of the community and why that comes to be. That’s my take anyway, I don’t mean to offend any regular British Muslims. 

What is there to discuss? I don't see or hear any British Muslims saying grooming gangs are okay. It's criminal behaviour and needs to be dealt with by the police. 

 

Also isn't it a bit anti-Muslim that we are discussing whether or not Islam is over implicated in terrorism and now grooming gangs get brought up? 

 

The Liberal viewpoint is that the grooming gangs are an example of a group of young (but adult) men taking advantage of vulnerable young girls (teenage children and young adults). 

 

I haven't heard a coherent argument why the police and CPS are/were being hindered in bringing these people to justice. 

 

 

[the fox]

9 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

I'm not anti-Muslim in the slightest. I am an atheist though, as well as an anti-theist, so I can be very anti-Islam at times. Vehemently anti-Islamism/religious extremism. The same for Christianity.

 

Those are some extremely important distinctions. It's essential to be able to criticise Islam, the Quran, extremists, and especially the likes of the MCB without being "anti-Muslim". Muslims themselves are critical of aspects all of those things, despite taboos and of course laws in certain places.

 

This is why I find @LiberalFox's reply above so frustrating. One reply says I was being fair and the next says I was being anti-muslim . One should always try to be fair - my post near the top of this page used a report to prove that the number of terror offence arrests was indeed disproportionate. That's why "Islamophobia" is thrown about so often.

You can't separate Islam from Muslims, it's what defines them as people. And I, as a Muslim, do not in the smallest part, appreciate the term "Islamic terrorism" because there is not 1, not a single part of Islam that backs the ideology of those killers.

 

 

90+% of their victims are Muslims. 

 

And which Muslims exactly are critical of Islam and Qur'an? 

 

 

 

In Algeria, 100000s of people fell victim to terrorism in the 90s. And as time past, people have found out that most of those "Islamists" were hired assassins who were brought from many countries, financed by governments or from military who wanted nothing but for the people of Algeria to suffer, taste bitter poison, drop dead. and for the country's natural resources to be drained. You know, like what's happening in Libya and Syria but less publicized because almost everyone has a camera now so the second best option is for those countries to declare their involvement publicly but under the banner of "peace and democracy". and those hired assassins and military-traind individuals were told to grow beards and slaughter civilians. 

 

 

 

There is a square, about a 30 minute walk from where I live and in the 90s, people would wake up to the display of decapitated heads of innocent civilians by terrorists, not as a warning, but as a display of power, a statement that screams "nobody is safe". What have the people done to deserve such an ending? And what about the people who were tortured? Murdered in cold blood! Thrown in a river, flouting like dead fish. Or what about the people who are still missing to this day? What type of torture befell them? Did the killers at least save them a grave? All that just because we wanted to escape the invisible shackles of modern slavery where countries who have next to no natural resources keep magically getting richer yet we are somehow, with all those resources are getting poorer and poorer. They keep sucking our land dry. Dehumanizing us by the thing that they created and called "Islamic terrorists organizations" (bin laden was getting military equipments from the USA). So when a person sees the civilians in Muslim countries being bombed, they can fool themselves in believing that the 12 year old kids who were blown to bits were terroriest. Terrorists killing civilians from one side, and foreign governments from the other side. And the civilians are the evil ones in this scenario? What a joke.

 

The Iraq war was started because of fales information about WMDs, yet somehow people don't even search for who provided them. It's partially because Saddam wanted to go against the petrodollar (and many other things). They were financing Iraq AND Iran in the golf war because they wanted to weaken Iraq and make it ripe for the picking. And if Iraq falls, than naturally, Syria and Libya (al Gaddafi wanted to go against the petrodollar too) were next. All the parts so conveniently falling in place. What was the nationality of the pilots of the 9/11 plain again? A lot of them from an American Allie. And Saddam was blamed for that too. Weird, right? You see how systematically Muslims are being dehumanised? Muslims are in concentration camps in China in the millions and the sympathy for them is almost nonexistent. The former Egyptian president (Morsi), who was democratically elected by the way (but not the kind of "democratically elected" that the US liked) wanted to go against them and help his people, so they made sure that their agents in the Egyptian government and military turn against him(Egypt receive more than a billion dollars in aid annually from America and it's time for that investment to come in play), put him in prison until he died do to poor medical care, didn't even let his family attend. and made sure the new president will Cripple the already shaky economy by signing the right for Ethiopia to build a dam that will significantly decrease the Egyptian water portion of the Nile river as one of his first actions as a president as a punishment for the Egyptian people for daring to think for themselves. And let us not talk about the gold mines, the gas and oil reserves that were signed off to foreign agents on deals that are least described as disastrous to the natives. The donations that USA presidential candidates get from interested parties from the Arab countries who want to get on the good side of the next American president.  And the list goes on. I could write pages about how the Arabs were/are being exploited. Those are merely examples.

 

 

Don't believe me? Go ahead and search. Google is your friend. It's all on the internet. Petrodollar warfare, African gold (a currency that al Gaddafi wanted to use as a currency to replace the dollar), Saddam wanting to replace the dollar also in 2000. And we can go back even further, like how Laurence of Arabia was whispering in tribe leader's ears to revolt against the Othman empire in exchange for independence (which is a promise not kept as usual), how some of the flags of Arab countries were designed, how the partition of lands there was made so the tribes will always fight each other (putting opposing tribes in the same territory), how Palestine was sold, how it was seen as the end of the crusades to finally get the holly land back. How there was forceful recruitment to the WWs in exchange for the independence of the colonies which ended like the last promise the Arab tribes got. People were used as meat shields in WWs (again, all is documented).

 

People want to hear the story about why the west hates Iran so much and is etching for a war with them (it goes back to the 50's actually)?. To make a long story short, Britain was sucking the oil out of Iran, an Iranian change in leadership happened, kicked the British out, the USA came with arms to help Britain, but now Britain has to share the oil with the USA, but it didn't last for long and the new Iranian regime. kicked them out and that's I think pretty much were the feud started. Again, you can Google it if you want. Nationalization of oil in Iran in 1954, Britain launching a trade war and using the CIA against the Iranian government because Iran dared to think that they own their own oil. And it goes on and on and in.

 

. You know the protest in Algeria last year to remove the president? Certain agents were etching to slaughter Algerians if the protests turned violent. You know what would happen if Algerians went out and started breaking stuff like the Americans did this year? Another Libya situation. Talking about Libya, isn't it weird that any party who is calling for election and letting the Libyans decide for themselves is kicked out of the table of negotiations regarding "peace in Libya"? The Libyan oil is such high quality that it doesn't cost much to process it. And the gas? The gas is aplenty. 

 

Anyways, back to the subject.

 

It's forbidden to kill yourself (like blowing yourself up), it's forbidden to kill the innocent(Muslim or not), it is forbidden to give a country your word that you want cause harm than cause harm anyways, the terrorist do those things yet it's the Muslims fault. 

 

 

I will finish my post talking about the grooming gangs because it was mentioned here. I thought that people like tommy were telling some kind of joke. Where they somehow managed to link a religion that punishes sexual immortality to grooming gangs but it seems their motives are more sinister than I first thought. Their claim is some kind of dog whistle to say that Muslims can rape girls as long as the girls are not Muslim(which is not true but I have to clarify because some may think it's true. Sad times). It took time for me to figure it out tbh. 

 

I mean what kind of reaction do people expect to get exactly? "I know your religion forbids sexual immortality but do you think it encourages grooming gangs?" What kind of stupid question is that?

Edited 26 August 2020 by the fox

[Finnaldo]

3 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

What is there to discuss? I don't see or hear any British Muslims saying grooming gangs are okay. It's criminal behaviour and needs to be dealt with by the police. 

I agree fully with this part. 
 

3 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

Also isn't it a bit anti-Muslim that we are discussing whether or not Islam is over implicated in terrorism and now grooming gangs get brought up? 

But as much as I appreciate that, it’s still the lens through which many Britons view the British Muslim community, the fact it’s anti-Muslim or Islamophobic is always brought up and those who hold misconceptions are still entrenched in their view. My point was to talk about fundamentalist terror and grooming gangs and offer honest cross-community solutions. As it is, I’ve heard people say “If talking about grooming gangs is Islamophobia, then saying I’m racist is whitephobia”. 
 

3 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

The Liberal viewpoint is that the grooming gangs are an example of a group of young (but adult) men taking advantage of vulnerable young girls (teenage children and young adults). 

That’s absolutely fine, but why was the Rotherham cases and similar to it so unique? How were grown men hanging outside of schools with bottles of alcohol, threatening parents who knew of the abuse, getting away with it for so long? Why is it such a radical departure from other grooming groups that tend to operate via the internet, and be a lot more subtle? 
 

I’m not saying this should take special attention, from what I understand this is a minority of cases within the wider context of child grooming and sexual assault, what I’m saying is that we should ask why it is a certain subsection of society taking a certain strategy. Is there cultural factors that surround it? Is it simply a coincidence? Without asking these questions we’d never know, but they have to be honest, nuanced, non-politicised questions that are put together with respected and progressive community leaders. 
 

Personally, I believe building a harmonious society takes sacrifice from all parties. It requires the majority (in this case the White Christian/Non-Religious majority) to be more accepting and tolerant of other cultures and creeds, but it also requires those communities to be accommodating to change and perhaps modifying their views. I think the majority of Muslims do, but if the exceptions to that are considered taboo for conversation and discussion, then it creates divides that if left to fester result in more malicious elements taking advantage of it. I want people in Britain to celebrate their own culture and others to want to willingly engage in it, but without recognising our flaws or the minority of problem-makers in our respective communities, misconceptions and mistrust won’t go away.