Blair Defeated In 90 Day Vote

[Guest]

Whatever!

[Thracian]

Of course it's deserved. If you can't afford to tax, insure or MOT your car, you can't afford to run one properly anyway, or you've spent your money on the wrong things showing that you haven't prioritised things properly. If you've 'forgotten' or 'cannot be bothered', tough. It's not like they're going to be taking cars that have run out of tax within the last week or so, is it.

Why should those of us who budget properly, or make sacrifices to run a car, have to pay for the ever-growing proportion of society that thinks it's entitled to what the hell it wants without any thought or consideration towards anyone else?

Gee whizz Lisa - how far would you want to take that last paragraph?

IF you organised our Government so it DIDN'T waste our money on people who abuse or don't contribute to the system for no good reason, then just perhaps I would have more sympathy with these continued and vicious attacks on people with cars.

But you don't and neither will anyone else.

Many people - especially in the countryside - need their cars whether they are rich or skint.

Why does the government not pay the car tax for poor people who wish to work instead of wasting huge chunks of our money on illegal immigrants or (in my opinion) equally illegal wars which ensure that WE actually pay to murder innocent people who we have no wish to kill at all?

After all it already robs obscene amounts of money off those people in petrol tax.

[Steven]

For those that think UK foreign policy and terrorism are not interlinked.

Source

Muslim leaders blame Iraq war for 7 July bombings

By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent

Published: 11 November 2005

Tony Blair's foreign policy has been blamed by Home Office advisers for fuelling the extremism that led to the London bomb blasts in July.

Senior Muslims appointed by Charles Clarke to investigate the causes of the attacks, in which 52 commuters died, also warned that the Home Secretary's anti-terror legislation could prove dangerously counter-productive.

Ministers have always denied there was any link between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the radicalisation of young British Muslims. But they were contradicted in the final report of seven working parties of Muslim leaders set up after the London attacks by the Home Office.

It concluded: "British foreign policy - especially in the Middle East - cannot be left unconsidered as a factor in the motivations of criminal radical extremists. We believe it is a key contributory factor."

The report added: "The Government should learn from the impact of its foreign policies on its electors."

The working groups said "radical impulses" among the Muslim community were often triggered by "perceptions of injustices inherent in western foreign policy".

They said: "Criticism of some British foreign policies should not be assumed to be disloyal. Peaceful disagreement is a sign of a healthy democracy. Dissent should not be conflated with 'terrorism', 'violence' or deemed inimical to British values."

Their conclusions echoed a leaked Home Office/Foreign Office memorandum in July which concluded that the Iraq war was a key cause of young Muslims turning to terrorism.

The Prime Minister's official spokesman acknowledged that the Government had to do more to explain the "fundamental point" of its policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is to bring democracy to those nations.

Hazel Blears, the Home Office minister, said: "They are telling the Government some fairly challenging things and not just telling the Government what they think we wanted to hear."

The working parties' report also attacked the controversial plan in the Terrorism Bill, which completed its turbulent Commons passage yesterday, over a new offence of "glorifying" terrorism.

"The proposal ... as currently formulated could lead to a significant chill factor in the Muslim community in expressing legitimate support for self-determination struggles around the world," it said.

Plans to give the police powers to close down mosques which were being used by Islamic extremists could deprive law-abiding communities of their place of worship. And moves to ban radical Islamist organisations, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun, could send them underground and make them "more problematic in the future".

Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "These findings confirm what the Government's own leaked documents have shown - that the war in Iraq has encouraged home-grown terrorism. Proposals such as banning non-violent Muslim organisations and closing down mosques will simply make matters even worse."

The working groups recommended setting up a media unit to counter "Islamophobic" media reporting, setting up a British-Islam website to counter extremist Muslim sites on the internet and a drive to teach English to imams.

[IDEA OR IKEA]

For those that think UK foreign policy and terrorism are not interlinked.

Source

Its called playing the blame game.

He said this first/they did that first/thats why we did it.

Its always going to happen find a link and use it - its a good policy.

Bombs blamed on uk in iraq, uk in iraq because of terrorism (us lead!), attackes on 09/11 because of western policies, western policies because of rogue states in 90's etc etc etc etc etc etc its called HISTORY innit

[Steven]

Its called playing the blame game.

He said this first/they did that first/thats why we did it.

Its always going to happen find a link and use it - its a good policy.

Bombs blamed on uk in iraq, uk in iraq because of terrorism (us lead!), attackes on 09/11 because of western policies, western policies because of rogue states in 90's etc etc etc etc etc etc its called HISTORY innit

This is only half the story as it is about not throwing petrol on an already raging fire.

[IDEA OR IKEA]

This is only half the story as it is about not throwing petrol on an already raging fire.

I know but surely we cannot tip-toe around certain groups or countries when it comes to foreighn policy - its like being in a school playground (literally sometimes!) and looking after yourself. Every country does it and its about the voted leaders to make the decisions (proven right or wrong). At least we get to vote for our leader who makes the decisions and not just told what to do - go on holiday to North Korea heard its great this time of year!

[breadandcheese]

For those that think UK foreign policy and terrorism are not interlinked.

Source

Unfortunately, these articles do not tell us a great deal. I would liken the war on Iraq to a match, lighting a load of petrol. The question that remains is why was there all the petrol all over the place?

This article below, I think provides some interesting thoughts to help explain why (for those interested).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4424118.stm

As I say, Tunisia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. These muslim countries did not invade Iraq. Their "crime". These countries are prepared to open up, prepared to trade, looking to liberalise (maybe not Saudi Arabia on this last one). This is a war of political ideologies.

In that sense, I can understand George Bush's and Tony Blair's logic of setting up a thriving successful democratic state of Iraq with the aim of increasing standard of living, slap bang in the middle of the middle east. The hope that this will help spread the virtues of democracy and combat the spread of political islamism, not through words, but demonstration of the virtues.

Some may call this imperialism, but it's what every political ideal has done throughout history. The communist Soviet Union did it, Democratic countries have done this throughout the last century, fascist dictatorships have done it. Indeed, Islam itself was originally spread this way (through conquest).

[Thracian]

For those that think UK foreign policy and terrorism are not interlinked.

Source

You hardly needed a conference of leading Muslims to anticipate these conclusions.

They are unquestionably right about the link between the Wars and Terrorism - if people were attacking/occupying our country how would we react?

However there are depths to the above report which are predictably disturbing.

All relate to the increasing power which Muslims are acquiring in our country and the threat that if these powers are not retained/advanced there will be consequences for the Government.

Soon we will not be able to act in any way without deference to the Muslim voice. Why does that matter?

Certainly I have no desire NOT to consider Muslims and would NEVER have contemplated waging the Wars referred to because they are morally wrong, probably illegal and were bound to be counter-productive as has already been demonstrated.

It MATTERS because no other religious or representative group gets anything like the same consideration where policy is concerned and that - perhaps more than anything - reflects the success of a Muslim revolution which is fast changing the world and which seems now to be gathering pace like a laden lorry with no brakes on the downside of a mountain.

One doubts if, certainly fundamentalist Muslims would ever fight for the consideration of others as they do for consideration of themselves because, as I have warned before, it seems to be a "fundamental" requirement that they spread the word of their faith (and rightly so in their eyes).

This is not therefore a fight for the future of the Muslim faith. It is a fight for the survival of any other faith or way of thinking. It is a fight to protect our way of life from a way of life that does not seem to have resulted in any great utopia (indeed quite the opposite) in many Muslim lands.

Probably therefore it is a fight for moderation (depending on who wins control in the future).

I actually hate writing anything like this because I have a great deal of respect for moderate Muslims generally and believe there is much to be said for some of their values.

But I also have respect for Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs etc and recognise that in essence (and when not manipulated by the hatred of fanatics) so many faiths have much in common.

I just believe that our way of life would be best served and better preserved by rejecting warfare completely and by advertising our society by examples of human kindness, achievement, wisdom, honesty, helpfulness, by the rejecting of hypocrisy and by forever seeking answers for the benefit of all human beings through discoveries, inventions, care of the planet etc.

Ironically it will only be by RESPECT for us that our way of life will be preserved and that respect must be earned against a background of potential attack from people with another agenda who would take every opportunity to poison people's minds against us.

Weapons warfare may get the publicity but this is a battle for hearts and minds, essentially, and that is why so much emphasis is placed on control of media output.

You should learn in school to recognise efforts to brainwash you ... you would be astounded at what a subtle and much-practised art it is.

You never will of course.

[breadandcheese]

In reply to Thracian's post (I hate doing that quote button for large posts):

I went to an interesting discussion about 3 years ago from Michael Gove (for those who have never heard of him, he is a political analyst who writes for a number of newspapers).

He spoke about the need for democracy in the middle east and the link between the stifling of free speech and developments with the growth of political Islamism. The two seem diametrically posed, however, Gove explained that many Muslim countries had failed to match the economic performance of other developing nations, such as the East Asian economies, because of the failure of their leadership. In all of the middle east, their is not one instance of democracy, but instead ruling kings, parties or despotic dictators.

No-one could speak out against this leadership for fear of death or imprisonment. There was no way for people to vent their anger or effect change, other than in mosques. Out of this frustration of unemployment and poverty, grew a political ideology. As with all political ideologies, they can only grow in the right climate. Thus a facist political ideology grew harking back to when the Islamic empire (circa 1200AD) was the most forward and advanced society in the world.

It is not hard to see how Islamists' ideologies match their historical vision, blaming the Western infidels for their hardship, supporting the creation and return of the Islamic empire of former glory days (and extending it to encompass the world).

The irony is that Iran, the only true Islamist state in the world, has a huge slice of the population pro West and anti-Islamism (please always note Islamist and not Islamic) for they have lived under the oppresive regime since 1979.

With that in mind, the creation of a democratic, successful Iraq, could be a springboard to a new peaceful Middle East, where people are free to discuss topics freely, trade openly, rather than live in fear and anger. We will only know in a decade whether the invasion of Iraq was right or not.

[Ultra]

The usual sources have used this thread to give yet another airing to their anti-Muslim prejudices.

But the issue is whether an extension of the detention limit to 90 days would make the situation better or worse.

In the 1970s the then government introduced laws under which terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland could be detained without trial for ANY length of time. It was later acknowledged that this policy was the recruitment aid the IRA could ever have wished for.

It is therefore not surprising that not ONE of the MPs from that province was prepared to back the government's proposals.

We should all welcome the fact that Parliament reasserted its authority this week, and voted to protect democracy and civil rights. If it can't fulfil that basic task, it may as well not exist.

[Head Honcho]

The usual sources have used this thread to give yet another airing to their anti-Muslim prejudices.

But the issue is whether an extension of the detention limit to 90 days would make the situation better or worse.

In the 1970s the then government introduced laws under which terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland could be detained without trial for ANY length of time. It was later acknowledged that this policy was the recruitment aid the IRA could ever have wished for.

It is therefore not surprising that not ONE of the MPs from that province was prepared to back the government's proposals.

We should all welcome the fact that Parliament reasserted its authority this week, and voted to protect democracy and civil rights. If it can't fulfil that basic task, it may as well not exist.

I haven't read one Anti-Muslim post on this thread.

Could you please enlighten us?

[Guest]

Gee whizz Lisa - how far would you want to take that last paragraph?

IF you organised our Government so it DIDN'T waste our money on people who abuse or don't contribute to the system for no good reason, then just perhaps I would have more sympathy with these continued and vicious attacks on people with cars.

But you don't and neither will anyone else.

Many people - especially in the countryside - need their cars whether they are rich or skint.

Why does the government not pay the car tax for poor people who wish to work instead of wasting huge chunks of our money on illegal immigrants or (in my opinion) equally illegal wars which ensure that WE actually pay to murder innocent people who we have no wish to kill at all?

After all it already robs obscene amounts of money off those people in petrol tax.

It's not an attack on people with cars. It's an attack on people who have cars but can't afford to run and maintain them. When I bought my first car, I didn't just save up for the car itself, I made sure I'd saved enough for the insurance, and always kept money aside every month for tax, serving and MOT. That despite the fact I could have spent that money on other things.

Why should those of us who think things through be penalised for people who don't? If these people don't pay their taxes etc, what else are they neglecting to do?

As for those who are "skint" but need their cars, most people I know in this position have made sacrifices elsewhere to make sure that they can legally keep their vehicles on the road. Whilst there may be a proportion who do not bother, I can't imagine that this would amount to a significant number of people to be honest. As per usual with this country, it will be the minority spoiling it for everyone else.

As for wasting money on unnecessary wars, couldn't agree more!

[Hullfox]

I think the problem that you refer to Lisa is not so much the people who can't pay, it's those who won't.

There are too many people who try and beat the system for their own personal greed.

I've been in the position of having to repossess cars and I can honestly say that I never felt sorry once for doing it as it ensured that another non insured, tax dodging freeloader was off the roads. As for the people who couldn't pay but made efforts, suprisingly enough I never got to meet them as arrangements were always made with them to satisfy both parties.

Bit off subject I know but I agree with your sentiments.

[Ultra]

I haven't read one Anti-Muslim post on this thread.

Could you please enlighten us?

Left up to you we'd all be speaking Arabic come Christmas

Remember that one?

And what about this?

Soon we will not be able to act in any way without deference to the Muslim voice

Scaremongering nonsense that one might expect to find on a BNP website and not a forum for a multi-racial, multi-faith group of football supporters.

[Hullfox]

Remember that one?

And what about this?

Scaremongering nonsense that one might expect to find on a BNP website and not a forum for a multi-racial, multi-faith group of football supporters.

In defence of Allen, the speaking Arabic by Christmas comment was Anti-Hullcox rather than Anti-Muslim and was a continuation from an earlier thread.

The deference one though did make me cringe.

[Head Honcho]

Remember that one?

And what about this?

Scaremongering nonsense that one might expect to find on a BNP website and not a forum for a multi-racial, multi-faith group of football supporters.

As i said!

Enlighten us?

[Head Honcho]

In defence of Allen, the speaking Arabic by Christmas comment was Anti-Hullcox rather than Anti-Muslim and was a continuation from an earlier thread.

The deference one though did make me cringe.

Nice one :laugh:

[Thracian]

Remember that one?

And what about this?

Scaremongering nonsense that one might expect to find on a BNP website and not a forum for a multi-racial, multi-faith group of football supporters.

If you doubt the truth of these words why not ask in a poll whether people think it is scaremongering nonsense or whether it is getting harder to do anything without Muslim agreement?.

If the vote goes against what I say I'll be happy to concede that I am totally wrong. I have no dogma flags to fly so please don't link what I say to people like the BNP because I've NEVER even seen a BNP site or had anything to do with them, nor would I wish to have.

I do note though that this is the second time you have disgracefuly tried to link me to the BNP

in recent months and you have suggested it is also the case with others. Would you like me to suggest you are a closet spokesman for Muslim advancement?

I wouldn't dream of doing that cos I don't know you and know very little about the views you HOLD - only about views you disagree with.

Your latest comments, however, do beg the question as to whether you are some sort of activist with flags to fly. I wonder whether you would wish the BNP to enjoy the same influence and opportunity to comment as the Muslim leaders? Or indeed any other representative group.

I ask because you seem to criticise anyone who is concerned about the influence of the Muslim religion within our society and, while you have previously denied suggestions that there might (in years to come) be a Muslim government I would ask how much influence you think they might have in local Government?. Would it be an increasing amount?

As it happens I am more than multi-racial in my attitudes. I just don't like suggestions that, for instance and talking about increasing influence, I should no longer manufacture ceramic pigs because they are offensive or that Christmas lights should be called Midwinter Lights or something similar or that the date signs relating to BC (at Cheddar Gorge) should be changed to ignore reference to Christ.

We ALL find different things offensive/inappropriate but most of us have no influence at all on having anything done about it because while there is a Muslim Council of Great Britain there isn't a Nationalist Council of Britain (for instance) or a Council for The Protection of British traditions - at lest as far as I am aware.

Other questions I would ask are: Do you care about the freedoms (of choice and expression) which we generally enjoyed in this country?

And, as you seem to set yourself up as judge and jury on such matters in implying that various of us are racists (outrageously as far as I am concerned) then what is the definition of "racism" that you use to back your always strident judgement of people.

I think I have said to you before that YOU always seem more racist that most because you always SEEM to be so anti-anything that a white person says in relation to anything concerning Muslims.

Truly I could imagine you in a different life as Assistant to the Witchfinder and how many mistakes did those people make?.

PS: There was a propaganda piece from some London Islamic school posted on this site a couple of days ago which was subsequently blocked. I don't recall you complaining about what THAT was doing on a multi-racial, multi-cultural football website.

Is that because you didn't see it or because you have selective vision?

[Steven]

Remember that one?

And what about this?

Soon we will not be able to act in any way without deference to the Muslim voice

Scaremongering nonsense that one might expect to find on a BNP website and not a forum for a multi-racial, multi-faith group of football supporters.

That is true at the moment given the anti-Arab voices that are clearly being given full rein within the corridors of power. cf Blears the Home Office Minister. Now if that is racist then I suggest you address the Government rather than those of us on this forum.