Grewks Posted 8 January 2015 Posted 8 January 2015 Sorry I might have mixed you up with someone else. Simple really, Blair and Bush lied to take their countries to an illegal war, far as I am aware Hollande has never done that. So the air-strikes on the 'ISIS State'....which quite frankly nobody knows what it is, are totally legal?
Jordan Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 Technically i am a christian, as i was baptised shortly after birth. However, i haven't attended a single service that hasn't been a baptism, wedding or a funeral. I would in fact consider myself an atheist. I was simply making the point that it is too easy to label an event such as yesterday as an 'act of terrorism'. A punch up in the local on a friday night is essentially an act of 'terror'...... People using the phrase are the ones who are essentially raising the terror levels. No they're not. You're just arguing over semantics about a word whose definition has never been formalized, and essentially rendering the word meaningless by attaching everything to it.You criticized earlier what you considered a vague definition of the term, yet that's the exact definition you attach to it. It doesn't take the keenest vision to see the differences between "a punch-up on a Friday night," the Charlie Hebdo attack, and what what "Bush/Blair" et al. have done. We already have a word in English for what you're talking about: violence. But the Charlie Hebdo attack is terrorism by any accepted sense of the term. Stupid people argue about words when they try to sound smart. I think you're capable of doing much better than them.
Larry_LCFC Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 Technically i am a christian, as i was baptised shortly after birth. However, i haven't attended a single service that hasn't been a baptism, wedding or a funeral. I would in fact consider myself an atheist. I was simply making the point that it is too easy to label an event such as yesterday as an 'act of terrorism'. A punch up in the local on a friday night is essentially an act of 'terror'...... People using the phrase are the ones who are essentially raising the terror levels. A cold blooded massacre by heavily armed Islamic extremists is hardly the same as a drunken punch up is it? What a ridiculous comparison, they're not even in the same book.
MooseBreath Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 Murdering a dozen people with machine guns in a premeditated attack on a specific target in retaliation for an earlier perceived insult to their religion... Basically the same as a scrap in a pub. Now I've heard it all. Why are they even chasing these guys? It was clearly just a silly misunderstanding.
leicsmac Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 This is about power, and treating people as things because of that power. Whether it's in the name of God, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever. That kind of ideology gives you power and makes you think you can do whatever the fvck you want - totalitarianism in a nutshell. It's happened in the past with other religions around the world when their members have been powerful, as well as ideology directed at a different source for your totalitarianism - take North Korea right now for one. No religion, instead the Family is the God. Ditto for China, only it's the Party who run the show there. And now it's the case with some of the members of Islam too - they are the most prominent with this right now, anyway. Religious or other ideological belief is fine. Developing your belief system into a means to justify pressing it upon other people and then impinging upon their own freedoms is definitely not fine. Whether it's blowing up abortion clinics or murdering cartoonists, just because they don't agree with your worldview. The reason why this has happened is because religion allows you power and influence through numbers. That shouldn't be the case. It should be private and personal, and definitely kept away from the corridoors of power in any nation state. Though I guess that'll never happen, given how deeply the poison is buried already there.
Grewks Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 No they're not. You're just arguing over semantics about a word whose definition has never been formalized, and essentially rendering the word meaningless by attaching everything to it. You criticized earlier what you considered a vague definition of the term, yet that's the exact definition you attach to it. It doesn't take the keenest vision to see the differences between "a punch-up on a Friday night," the Charlie Hebdo attack, and what what "Bush/Blair" et al. have done. We already have a word in English for what you're talking about: violence. But the Charlie Hebdo attack is terrorism by any accepted sense of the term. Stupid people argue about words when they try to sound smart. I think you're capable of doing much better than them. At the end of the day, to be put very very simply, the term terrorism of course incorprates its own definition from the word terror. Therefore the definition of terrorism does draw many similarities to that of the term terror. So when taking that into account, a punch up down the pub and the assasination of twelve journalists both do create fear for individuals, and therefore both are technically acts of 'Terror'. I am not debating the vastly different levels of seriousness of the two, nor am i trying to lessen the seriousness of the Paris attacks. I am merely trying to explain how the Media portray these events as being far more serious than others. For example... When was the last time the media reported the innocent murders of those living in Iraq/Afghanistan during the recent conflict? Because i can guarantee it far exceeds the amount over 1000x the amount which have been killed in the USA/UK/France by islamic extremists. The difference is, these soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are largely white and from the western world, and therefore are mostly Christain/Catholic/Atheists, are not considered 'Extremists'. On a daily basis they carry out missions which striker fear and terror into the heart of locals, acts of terrorism. I am fed up of people who are condemning these Islamic extremists, whilst in the same sentence not criticizing the roles of the West for essentially 'Training' these extremists in the first place. The mubarak/hussein/gaddafi regimes where the only thing preventing an islamic state forming in the East. Now, through our own acts of terrorism, i'm afraid we will all soon be getting our just desserts.
ozleicester Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 Terrorism is a media construct. For years back in the day, we lived with the "fear" of nuclear annihilation (oh yes i remember Sting's "I hope the Russians love their children too"). It serves governments well to have their population in fear it allows them to control, remove rights, increase surveillance etc etc. Terrorism is the new millennium's cold war, its a way to keep Joe public under control. And its not just international, jihadist, ISIS, or whatever. In OZ at the moment, we are in the grip of one punch killings, people (essentially young men) going out on the weekend getting p1ssed up and hitting each other, leading to death as they fall on the floor and hit their heads. This is being reported with glee by our media, which is leading to the introduction of more CC tv cameras, forcing earlier closing times on venues and allowing police greater powers of arrest and exclusion. Fear is the governments greatest power, scare enough people, often enough and they will ask to have their rights reduced and accept the tracking of their, every movement, every phone call and every internet action. ask yourself, how many people do i KNOW... not just heard of, but KNOW, that have been affected by terrorism, not by the news reports, not by changing their activities to deal with it, do i know ANYONE who has been impacted personally by a terrorist action? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHylQRVN2Qs
Grewks Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 Terrorism is a media construct. For years back in the day, we lived with the "fear" of nuclear annihilation (oh yes i remember Sting's "I hope the Russians love their children too"). It serves governments well to have their population in fear it allows them to control, remove rights, increase surveillance etc etc. Terrorism is the new millennium's cold war, its a way to keep Joe public under control. And its not just international, jihadist, ISIS, or whatever. In OZ at the moment, we are in the grip of one punch killings, people (essentially young men) going out on the weekend getting p1ssed up and hitting each other, leading to death as they fall on the floor and hit their heads. This is being reported with glee by our media, which is leading to the introduction of more CC tv cameras, forcing earlier closing times on venues and allowing police greater powers of arrest and exclusion. Fear is the governments greatest power, scare enough people, often enough and they will ask to have their rights reduced and accept the tracking of their, every movement, every phone call and every internet action. ask yourself, how many people do i KNOW... not just heard of, but KNOW, that have been affected by terrorism, not by the news reports, not by changing their activities to deal with it, do i know ANYONE who has been impacted personally by a terrorist action? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHylQRVN2Qs Yes. MH17.
Merging Cultures Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 No, I would let them make that choice. I wouldn't push them towards it but if they decided the believe in what they are given in education though RE or things at school then that would be their choice. I wouldn't really label myself an athiest, but I certainly don't 'get' religion and think it causes alot more hate, agrro, fighting and arguments than it's worth. It's a misuse of religion that causes problems. It's when people have their own agenda to gain power and money. They manipulate religious text, pick and choose what they want to preach and prey on peoples insecurities. The religious teachings themselves are usually pretty harmless and more often than not positive.I've kept out of this debate so far. I've been reading through and it has been a difficult read. Yes, radicalised Muslims are at fault. No, not all Muslims are radicalised. There are extremists in other religions. The vast majority of any religion, who are not radicalised, do not necessarily know who the extremists are, what they are preaching and they widely condemn them. I believe this is true of the Muslim community in the UK. What can the vast majority of any religion do about people preaching extremist views? Report them, if they become aware of them, and speak out against them. Then what? Literally, what can they do? This is what it boils down to. They have no power over what someone says. They can't kick them out of the country. Perhaps they should stone them for blasphemy /s. I'm really not sure what we expect any religious community to do about extremists that they most likely do not know about or associate themselves with. In saying this, I'm not trying to sweep it under the carpet to see if it will just go away. I'm looking for practical solutions to this issue. I've not heard any real actionable suggestions so far.
Jordan Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 To answer the question ozleicester asked us to ask ourselves: yes, I know several persons that have been directly affected by a terrorist act. What next?
Carl the Llama Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 Terrorism is a media construct. For years back in the day, we lived with the "fear" of nuclear annihilation (oh yes i remember Sting's "I hope the Russians love their children too"). It serves governments well to have their population in fear it allows them to control, remove rights, increase surveillance etc etc. Terrorism is the new millennium's cold war, its a way to keep Joe public under control. And its not just international, jihadist, ISIS, or whatever. In OZ at the moment, we are in the grip of one punch killings, people (essentially young men) going out on the weekend getting p1ssed up and hitting each other, leading to death as they fall on the floor and hit their heads. This is being reported with glee by our media, which is leading to the introduction of more CC tv cameras, forcing earlier closing times on venues and allowing police greater powers of arrest and exclusion. Fear is the governments greatest power, scare enough people, often enough and they will ask to have their rights reduced and accept the tracking of their, every movement, every phone call and every internet action. ask yourself, how many people do i KNOW... not just heard of, but KNOW, that have been affected by terrorism, not by the news reports, not by changing their activities to deal with it, do i know ANYONE who has been impacted personally by a terrorist action? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHylQRVN2Qs Of course terrorism's real. Certain media outlets really don't help the situation with the sensationalist way they construct their programmes, but they certainly didn't make the whole thing up.
Jon the Hat Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 All kicking of just outside Paris this morning. Reportedly 2 more dead, 10+ injured and a siege situation underway with hostages. Good luck to the French Police, really hope they can finish this off without much more bloodshed.
The Doctor Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 The members of the islamic group who carried out the attacks in Paris yesterday were not acting upon religious beliefs. I have yet to here a majority voice from fellow Muslims back their actions. They haven't, the muslim world has strongly condemned the actions which took place. It is far too easy to use religion as an excuse for crimes in the modern world. If a christian man kills his cheating wife because she was having an affair....is that a form of extremeism? Because he too is following his religious book to the very letter. you're being a complete tool again... There is a world of difference between a person being a twat, and their actions being justifiable in their book (your christian murderer), and a person being a twat while citing their religion as the reason for being a twat (The Paris Shooters). The first, you could infer that it was a religious act, but there's no real guarantee, the latter is clearly a religiously-motivated attack.
David Guiza Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 Seems as though they've taken a hostage in a printing factory, believed that the hostage is female and they have supposedly stated that "we never kill women". Horrendous state of events, hopefully, somehow, this can end with no more bloodshed.
MooseBreath Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 It's a misuse of religion that causes problems. It's when people have their own agenda to gain power and money. They manipulate religious text, pick and choose what they want to preach and prey on peoples insecurities. The religious teachings themselves are usually pretty harmless and more often than not positive. I've kept out of this debate so far. I've been reading through and it has been a difficult read. Yes, radicalised Muslims are at fault. No, not all Muslims are radicalised. There are extremists in other religions. The vast majority of any religion, who are not radicalised, do not necessarily know who the extremists are, what they are preaching and they widely condemn them. I believe this is true of the Muslim community in the UK. What can the vast majority of any religion do about people preaching extremist views? Report them, if they become aware of them, and speak out against them. Then what? Literally, what can they do? This is what it boils down to. They have no power over what someone says. They can't kick them out of the country. Perhaps they should stone them for blasphemy /s. I'm really not sure what we expect any religious community to do about extremists that they most likely do not know about or associate themselves with. In saying this, I'm not trying to sweep it under the carpet to see if it will just go away. I'm looking for practical solutions to this issue. I've not heard any real actionable suggestions so far. Why did it take a non-muslim former teacher to whistleblow about the islamification of schools in Birmingham when parents had been sent letters by pro-extremists asking them to make false complaints about their kids schools in order to facilitate the introduction of new headteachers? How can the Muslim community deny knowledge of high profile extremists like Abu Hamza preaching hate on British streets?
Merging Cultures Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 Why did it take a non-muslim former teacher to whistleblow about the islamification of schools in Birmingham when parents had been sent letters by pro-extremists asking them to make false complaints about their kids schools in order to facilitate the introduction of new headteachers? How can the Muslim community deny knowledge of high profile extremists like Abu Hamza preaching hate on British streets? Islamification doesn't mean radicalisation. However, in the schools case, it looks like a group of radical Muslims were getting parents to complain about teachers. That doesn't mean all the parents knew it was extremists who were promoting Islamification. The way I see it was that a small group of extremists manipulated the system. For instance, one guy tried to get a Head teacher to start the Islamification agenda, but another told him to wait until she was a respected leader first. Hence 'Operation Trojan Horse'. Muslim parents, staff and Governors were conned. I have also read that many Muslim parents complained about the direction the schools were going. As far as I can tell, no one is denying any knowledge of Hamza or others like him. If they are high profile, then it isn't just up to the Muslim community to deal with, and in some ways I am sure it makes it harder for them to deal with. I am sure there have been many instances where someone has preached on something that was 'over the line' and they got disciplined or removed from their position. We probably just don't hear about it. I know from my Church that they dealt quietly and swiftly with leaders who did/said things that were inappropriate. Looking at some pictures of Hamza (goodness he is ugly), the people with him have their faces covered and he got kicked out of the Mosque. It's not like the Muslim community were rushing to embrace him. They couldn't stop him from saying whatever he wanted to on the streets, nor can they stop other itinerant 'preachers'. What else do you want the Muslim community to do? They were not able to kick him (and others) out of the country, imprison him, stop him from talking etc. That is up to the Government to do.
David Guiza Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 Seems as though they've taken a hostage in a printing factory, believed that the hostage is female and they have supposedly stated that "we never kill women". Horrendous state of events, hopefully, somehow, this can end with no more bloodshed. Scratch that, it's a man according to Sky News.
MrSpaM Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 Seems as though they've taken a hostage in a printing factory, believed that the hostage is female and they have supposedly stated that "we never kill women". Horrendous state of events, hopefully, somehow, this can end with no more bloodshed. One of the victims at Charlie Hebdo was a woman
David Guiza Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 One of the victims at Charlie Hebdo was a woman I did think that, and the policewoman who was killed yesterday is related. Supposedly also stated that they don't kill civilians, not entirely sure what they define a civilian as in that case.
Guest MattP Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 Why did it take a non-muslim former teacher to whistleblow about the islamification of schools in Birmingham when parents had been sent letters by pro-extremists asking them to make false complaints about their kids schools in order to facilitate the introduction of new headteachers? How can the Muslim community deny knowledge of high profile extremists like Abu Hamza preaching hate on British streets? Give up mate, I've asked this numerous times and never get a response or if I do it's a piss poor lie about how no one actually knew. Muslims seem to be able to argue black is white with a completely straight face.
Guest MattP Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 I made a post on Facebookyesterday about freedom of speech being eroded and a teacher replied with this to it... Spot on. Even from our Facebook newsfeed...how many of us actually dare speak out strongly against such acts? Too few is the answer. Why? We bent over and allowed ourselves to get spanked a long time ago. That's why. I'm also tired of people pretending its a tiny minority. WAKE UP. I taught in a classroom yesterday where the kids condoned what had happened in France, even implying they supported it. And that classroom is in Leicester. Do we actually realise what state the world around us is in?
Merging Cultures Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 Give up mate, I've asked this numerous times and never get a response or if I do it's a piss poor lie about how no one actually knew. Muslims seem to be able to argue black is white with a completely straight face. About which point? Birmingham schools? Or Abu Hamza et al? As a Christian am I just lying for them?
Guest MattP Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 So the air-strikes on the 'ISIS State'....which quite frankly nobody knows what it is, are totally legal? Given we've only launched air strikes into Iraq where the government there has asked us too then the answer is yes they are totally legal.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.