- All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
Forums > Social Discussion > And the terrorists win
Login/Join to ParticipateDoc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001
![Doc Lightning]()
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
GOLD Member since May 2001
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
Posted:The NYPD has now begun random bag searches on subway riders.
Yup, folks, in the U.S. you can be randomly stopped and searched.
I sure hope this gets knocked down, because I'd rather die in an explosion than have the fourth amendment trampled.
Yup, folks, in the U.S. you can be randomly stopped and searched.
I sure hope this gets knocked down, because I'd rather die in an explosion than have the fourth amendment trampled.
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
Posted:
Dave:
"...assumed he's suggesting that the terrorists will give up on bombing, and replied on that basis.
Whereas in fact Cole clearly is speaking of 'the bombing' i.e. that particular planned bombing- he's talking about those particualar terrorists aborting that particular bombing, not giving up on bombing altogether"
Sorry, from these statements, I assumed when Cole said "the bombers" I thought he meant all potential terrorists:
"the bombers can carry out a bombing elsewhere"
"at least deter the would-be bombers."
And Cole quite catagorically states:
"it may mean that after giving up on their original plan, they give up on the bombing altogether"
So I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that he *wasn't* suggesting:
(Dave)
"giving up on bombing altogether"
Which other terrorists could he be talking about? The two cells that attempted or carried out bombings are dead or arrested. The suspected third one has yet to do anything at all. So which "particular" terrorists was he talking about?
Dave:
"Similarly, earlier when I used the example of two buildings, one with a search team and the other without. Rather than addressing that example, lightning comes up with the fact that as a terrorist, he'd attack the building with the search team by going in another entrance!!
Does he think I'm so stupid as to propose a building with a search team only on the front entrance? Have I really got to waste my time clarifying a straightforward post for the benefit of someone who's so intent on making their point that they don't give me credit for some basic intelligence?"
Lightning appears to have left this thread, and I didn't say that so...
My point was that you can't cover every entrance to the underground, nor can you cover every entrance to a building (at least with a feasible sized police presence).
Dave:
"I'm happy to debate big issues on HOP, i'm happy for them to get a bit intense sometimes, and I'm happy to spend time and effort writing well thought out and intelligent responses to other intelligent and well thought out posts."
Glad we agree on that, if nothing else.
Basically, my point that I've been trying to put across for most of this thread is that I have suggested multiple examples of how useless random searches are. I've suggested over half a dozen logical scenarios *that no-one* has disagreed with. In my mind the examples I've set forward invalidate the usefulness of searches. No-one has yet given me any counter examples of a situation where a search directly prevents a bombing.
Firepoise and Cole have both suggested that it is a deterrent to futher groups of terrorists. I have said that anyone with more brains than a dead jellyfish could come up with a plan that would not be affected in the slightest by the searches.
Doc was arguing on grounds of morality, and good luck to him. I, on the other hand, am arguing that they are impractical, and worse than useless, because they tie up police resources that could be spent solving crimes, or locating other terrorists.
I *do* try to read other people's post properly, and try
to respond intelligently and logically.
Dave:
"...assumed he's suggesting that the terrorists will give up on bombing, and replied on that basis.
Whereas in fact Cole clearly is speaking of 'the bombing' i.e. that particular planned bombing- he's talking about those particualar terrorists aborting that particular bombing, not giving up on bombing altogether"
Sorry, from these statements, I assumed when Cole said "the bombers" I thought he meant all potential terrorists:
"the bombers can carry out a bombing elsewhere"
"at least deter the would-be bombers."
And Cole quite catagorically states:
"it may mean that after giving up on their original plan, they give up on the bombing altogether"
So I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that he *wasn't* suggesting:
(Dave)
"giving up on bombing altogether"
Which other terrorists could he be talking about? The two cells that attempted or carried out bombings are dead or arrested. The suspected third one has yet to do anything at all. So which "particular" terrorists was he talking about?
Dave:
"Similarly, earlier when I used the example of two buildings, one with a search team and the other without. Rather than addressing that example, lightning comes up with the fact that as a terrorist, he'd attack the building with the search team by going in another entrance!!
Does he think I'm so stupid as to propose a building with a search team only on the front entrance? Have I really got to waste my time clarifying a straightforward post for the benefit of someone who's so intent on making their point that they don't give me credit for some basic intelligence?"
Lightning appears to have left this thread, and I didn't say that so...
My point was that you can't cover every entrance to the underground, nor can you cover every entrance to a building (at least with a feasible sized police presence).
Dave:
"I'm happy to debate big issues on HOP, i'm happy for them to get a bit intense sometimes, and I'm happy to spend time and effort writing well thought out and intelligent responses to other intelligent and well thought out posts."
Glad we agree on that, if nothing else.
Basically, my point that I've been trying to put across for most of this thread is that I have suggested multiple examples of how useless random searches are. I've suggested over half a dozen logical scenarios *that no-one* has disagreed with. In my mind the examples I've set forward invalidate the usefulness of searches. No-one has yet given me any counter examples of a situation where a search directly prevents a bombing.
Firepoise and Cole have both suggested that it is a deterrent to futher groups of terrorists. I have said that anyone with more brains than a dead jellyfish could come up with a plan that would not be affected in the slightest by the searches.
Doc was arguing on grounds of morality, and good luck to him. I, on the other hand, am arguing that they are impractical, and worse than useless, because they tie up police resources that could be spent solving crimes, or locating other terrorists.
I *do* try to read other people's post properly, and try
to respond intelligently and logically.After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Posted:Sethis, Cole said-
Cole:
"but equally it may mean that after giving up on their original plan, they give up on the bombing altogether."
ie the terrorists have planned to attack a target- in their eyes it's a juicy one that will cause lots of disruption, lots of death and bring about loads of publicity.
However, on arrival, it's apparent that the target is too well defended- the entrances are covered by search teams.
The terrorists decide not to waste their bomb, and give up on the bombing altogether- they don't give up on bombing- it is quite possible that they could use the same bomb in the future.
and that's all I was saying, giving up the bombing, is not the same as giving up bombing.
It seems to me that your response was directed towards the terrorists giving up bombing altogether, and, as Cole was talking about giving up the bombing altogether, your response is not relevant to what he said.
-----------------
Written by: sethis
Basically, my point that I've been trying to put across for most of this thread is that I have suggested multiple examples of how useless random searches are. I've suggested over half a dozen logical scenarios *that no-one* has disagreed with. In my mind the examples I've set forward invalidate the usefulness of searches. No-one has yet given me any counter examples of a situation where a search directly prevents a bombing.
Indeed. Lightning also put forward a few examples of how searches could fail to detect a bomb.
You'll note that I myself have put forward an example or two of how searches could prevent a bombing.
I could have come up with loads more, but I'm not going to because there is no point.
The thing is that the usefulness or otherwise of searches will not be decided by stacking up examples against each other.
For every example of a scenario of a search failing you come up with, I can come up with an example of a scenario where a search succeeds, and on and on, for as long as we want- it will prove nothing.
So, what will establish the usefulness or otherwise of searches?
Certainly nothing I've said up to now, my posts on this thread have in no way established that searches are good, they've been about showing the fallacies in your and lightnings example-based/opinion based approach.
I would think that the best way to establish the true value of searches would be studies on regions with a high level of suicide bombers, the way the authorities approach that situation, and some kind of statistical study to try to determine what role searches have played in lessening the impact of searches.
But ultimately, i suspect that coming to definitive conclusions on the issue will be difficult and probably impossible.
Cole:
"but equally it may mean that after giving up on their original plan, they give up on the bombing altogether."
ie the terrorists have planned to attack a target- in their eyes it's a juicy one that will cause lots of disruption, lots of death and bring about loads of publicity.
However, on arrival, it's apparent that the target is too well defended- the entrances are covered by search teams.
The terrorists decide not to waste their bomb, and give up on the bombing altogether- they don't give up on bombing- it is quite possible that they could use the same bomb in the future.
and that's all I was saying, giving up the bombing, is not the same as giving up bombing.
It seems to me that your response was directed towards the terrorists giving up bombing altogether, and, as Cole was talking about giving up the bombing altogether, your response is not relevant to what he said.
-----------------
Written by: sethis
Basically, my point that I've been trying to put across for most of this thread is that I have suggested multiple examples of how useless random searches are. I've suggested over half a dozen logical scenarios *that no-one* has disagreed with. In my mind the examples I've set forward invalidate the usefulness of searches. No-one has yet given me any counter examples of a situation where a search directly prevents a bombing.
Indeed. Lightning also put forward a few examples of how searches could fail to detect a bomb.
You'll note that I myself have put forward an example or two of how searches could prevent a bombing.
I could have come up with loads more, but I'm not going to because there is no point.
The thing is that the usefulness or otherwise of searches will not be decided by stacking up examples against each other.
For every example of a scenario of a search failing you come up with, I can come up with an example of a scenario where a search succeeds, and on and on, for as long as we want- it will prove nothing.
So, what will establish the usefulness or otherwise of searches?
Certainly nothing I've said up to now, my posts on this thread have in no way established that searches are good, they've been about showing the fallacies in your and lightnings example-based/opinion based approach.
I would think that the best way to establish the true value of searches would be studies on regions with a high level of suicide bombers, the way the authorities approach that situation, and some kind of statistical study to try to determine what role searches have played in lessening the impact of searches.
But ultimately, i suspect that coming to definitive conclusions on the issue will be difficult and probably impossible.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Posted:Ok, about what Cole said, then that's purely semantics, and depending on what emphasis you put where with your tone of voice it could have meant either of the two points that you said. Another example of why debates in person are better.
That said, my point stands that the terrorists would have to be extremely stupid to walk to a station, having not planned for searches, and think "Oh well, let's go home/ find somewhere else"
Dave:
"Certainly nothing I've said up to now, my posts on this thread have in no way established that searches are good, they've been about showing the fallacies in your and lightnings example-based/opinion based approach."
OK, two points here. If you're not arguing your own side, and simply pointing out "flaws" in *our* argument, then there really isn't much point in debating because you will never argue your own side.
And in your own words:
Dave:
"But ultimately, i suspect that coming to definitive conclusions on the issue will be difficult and probably impossible."
So what other way is there to argue, apart from "example-based ... approach[s]"? If we have no access to official statistics (which are often suspect anyway) and we cannot conduct our own research, then how else are we to arrive at a conclusion other than by logical hypothetical examples?
That said, my point stands that the terrorists would have to be extremely stupid to walk to a station, having not planned for searches, and think "Oh well, let's go home/ find somewhere else"
Dave:
"Certainly nothing I've said up to now, my posts on this thread have in no way established that searches are good, they've been about showing the fallacies in your and lightnings example-based/opinion based approach."
OK, two points here. If you're not arguing your own side, and simply pointing out "flaws" in *our* argument, then there really isn't much point in debating because you will never argue your own side.
And in your own words:
Dave:
"But ultimately, i suspect that coming to definitive conclusions on the issue will be difficult and probably impossible."
So what other way is there to argue, apart from "example-based ... approach[s]"? If we have no access to official statistics (which are often suspect anyway) and we cannot conduct our own research, then how else are we to arrive at a conclusion other than by logical hypothetical examples?
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Posted:No, it's not semantics- cole said something in good clear and unambiguous English, and you've misinterpreted it.
With some statements, tone of voice does indeed alter the meaning, but not in this case.
'"but equally it may mean that after giving up on their original plan, they give up on the bombing altogether."
Deciding not to continue with the original bombing, is very different from giving up on 'bombing'- in the first case it's a matter of aborting one bombing run, in the second it's a case of deciding to never use bombs again.
Now I don't dispute that you cannot distinguish between the two, but the fact remains that the language used clearly does.
There was a time when I couldn't distinguish between 'your' and 'you're' and used them interchangibly- that didn't alter the fact that they are in fact distinct and not interchangeable.
Written by:
OK, two points here. If you're not arguing your own side, and simply pointing out "flaws" in *our* argument, then there really isn't much point in debating because you will never argue your own side.
firstly, I don't have a 'side' to argue on the issue of the usefulness of searches- I'm undecided on that.
Secondly, IMO, if I'm pointing out 'flaws' in your argument, you should very much be interested in addressing it, because if you want to convince people you're right, the last thing you need in your arguments are flaws.
Lastly, as this thread seems to be coming down to an off-topic quibble between me and you on what constitutes valid argument, i think it may be time to call it a day?
So I'll apologise if I've caused any offence to you, none intended; it's just that this 'serious discussion' has involved a lot of shoddy 'reasoning' (much of it by individuals other than you), even by HOP standards and I guess I'm starting to question the point of bothering to post on them.
With some statements, tone of voice does indeed alter the meaning, but not in this case.
'"but equally it may mean that after giving up on their original plan, they give up on the bombing altogether."
Deciding not to continue with the original bombing, is very different from giving up on 'bombing'- in the first case it's a matter of aborting one bombing run, in the second it's a case of deciding to never use bombs again.
Now I don't dispute that you cannot distinguish between the two, but the fact remains that the language used clearly does.
There was a time when I couldn't distinguish between 'your' and 'you're' and used them interchangibly- that didn't alter the fact that they are in fact distinct and not interchangeable.
Written by:
OK, two points here. If you're not arguing your own side, and simply pointing out "flaws" in *our* argument, then there really isn't much point in debating because you will never argue your own side.
firstly, I don't have a 'side' to argue on the issue of the usefulness of searches- I'm undecided on that.
Secondly, IMO, if I'm pointing out 'flaws' in your argument, you should very much be interested in addressing it, because if you want to convince people you're right, the last thing you need in your arguments are flaws.
Lastly, as this thread seems to be coming down to an off-topic quibble between me and you on what constitutes valid argument, i think it may be time to call it a day?
So I'll apologise if I've caused any offence to you, none intended; it's just that this 'serious discussion' has involved a lot of shoddy 'reasoning' (much of it by individuals other than you), even by HOP standards and I guess I'm starting to question the point of bothering to post on them.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Posted:Well, the way I read it was that "the bombing" could mean 1. The target they had in mind, and 2. The idea of bombing anywhere. I thought the second, while you thought the first. Fine. OK. Let's call that a day. But I would appreciate it if you could leave the condescension out. I'm an intelligent, rational person and I like to think you are the same. Insults (however they are phrased) have no place here.
Thanks
Well I put "Flaws" in speechmarks to indicate that I do not in fact think that you have given many good arguments against my argument. As soon as someone points out what is actually *wrong* with what I'm saying, or shows that one of my examples is illogical or defunct, then I'll be happy to re-examine my argument. But, and I'll say this again, no-one has yet disagreed with the hypothetical situations that I've outlined.
Basically, if you don't want me to use examples, then I phrase my stance like this:
1. Random searches do not *stop* a terrorist attack if one is being planned. There are simply too many ways to avoid them.
Therefore:
2. It is an invasion of privacy that does not serve any purpose, and it alienates Muslims (who are obviously targeted by this) and anyone with brown skin. The man shot 7 times in the head would not (IMO) have been so quickly executed if he happened to have white skin.
Also:
3. It is a waste of police resources, that could be better used on the police's normal duties, or tracking down other terrorists.
These are the main points of my argument.
I'm happy to call it a day, but I'll have to start another thread to debate on... We appear to have frightened off other people, so maybe we should stop debating quite so loudly
Thanks
Well I put "Flaws" in speechmarks to indicate that I do not in fact think that you have given many good arguments against my argument. As soon as someone points out what is actually *wrong* with what I'm saying, or shows that one of my examples is illogical or defunct, then I'll be happy to re-examine my argument. But, and I'll say this again, no-one has yet disagreed with the hypothetical situations that I've outlined.
Basically, if you don't want me to use examples, then I phrase my stance like this:
1. Random searches do not *stop* a terrorist attack if one is being planned. There are simply too many ways to avoid them.
Therefore:
2. It is an invasion of privacy that does not serve any purpose, and it alienates Muslims (who are obviously targeted by this) and anyone with brown skin. The man shot 7 times in the head would not (IMO) have been so quickly executed if he happened to have white skin.
Also:
3. It is a waste of police resources, that could be better used on the police's normal duties, or tracking down other terrorists.
These are the main points of my argument.
I'm happy to call it a day, but I'll have to start another thread to debate on...
We appear to have frightened off other people, so maybe we should stop debating quite so loudly After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Posted:*puts on a chicken suit for some light relief for the benefit of this thread*
I cant debate at this level. it is too intense and theres too many words and too many ideas to follow. I want to add what I think is relevant, but I dont know a) if it is relevant b) if it has already been stated before c) how useful it is. I cant debate in chat cos its full of shite. I cant debate in discussion for the reason given above.
More tea, vicar?
I cant debate at this level. it is too intense and theres too many words and too many ideas to follow. I want to add what I think is relevant, but I dont know a) if it is relevant b) if it has already been stated before c) how useful it is. I cant debate in chat cos its full of shite. I cant debate in discussion for the reason given above.
More tea, vicar?
Delete
Posted:You could add whatever you want and we'll let you know if it's already been said
Tea? Only with a slice of lemon in it...
Tea? Only with a slice of lemon in it...
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Posted:Tis ok Jon, don't be put off, your opinions are as valid as anyone elses. 
This is obviously an issue people feel strongly about - and it's grand if we don't share the same view (life would be boring if we did
)
Thanks for everyone's input and the valiant efforts to achieve clarity. I enjoyed it
This is obviously an issue people feel strongly about - and it's grand if we don't share the same view (life would be boring if we did
)Thanks for everyone's input and the valiant efforts to achieve clarity. I enjoyed it
Getting to the other side 
Posted:Written by: BBC
Tony Blair has proposed a raft of anti-terror measures. Here are the main points of the plans:
New grounds for deporting and excluding people from the UK - including fostering hatred or advocating and justifying violence to further beliefs. The powers will cover statements already on record.
Amend human rights laws, if necessary, to prevent legal obstacles to new deportation rules.
Home secretary automatically to consider deporting any foreigner involved in listed extremist bookshops, centres, organisations and websites.
Make justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere an offence.
Consult on setting a maximum time limit for extraditions to other countries - Mr Blair said it was unacceptable that Rashid Ramda, wanted for the Paris Metro bombing 10 years ago, was still in the UK.
Examine calls for police to be able to hold terror suspects for longer before pressing charges.
Use more control orders against British terror suspects, who cannot be deported.
Increase the number of special judges hearing terror cases.
Review the threshold for gaining British citizenship and establish, with the Muslim community, a commission to advise how to better integrate parts of the community "presently inadequately integrated".
Create a list of foreign preachers who will be kept out of the UK and consult on creating new powers to close places of worship used to forment extremism.
Use biometric visas for those from designated countries and compiling a database so people whose views or activities pose a threat to UK security can be kept out of the country. They could only appeal against the decision from overseas.
If I was a Muslim, I think I'd be pretty pissed off. So, who said that England was not going to introduce laws that infringed Human Rights?
Voltaire: "I disagree with what you are saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
Not anymore.
Tony Blair has proposed a raft of anti-terror measures. Here are the main points of the plans:
New grounds for deporting and excluding people from the UK - including fostering hatred or advocating and justifying violence to further beliefs. The powers will cover statements already on record.
Amend human rights laws, if necessary, to prevent legal obstacles to new deportation rules.
Home secretary automatically to consider deporting any foreigner involved in listed extremist bookshops, centres, organisations and websites.
Make justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere an offence.
Consult on setting a maximum time limit for extraditions to other countries - Mr Blair said it was unacceptable that Rashid Ramda, wanted for the Paris Metro bombing 10 years ago, was still in the UK.
Examine calls for police to be able to hold terror suspects for longer before pressing charges.
Use more control orders against British terror suspects, who cannot be deported.
Increase the number of special judges hearing terror cases.
Review the threshold for gaining British citizenship and establish, with the Muslim community, a commission to advise how to better integrate parts of the community "presently inadequately integrated".
Create a list of foreign preachers who will be kept out of the UK and consult on creating new powers to close places of worship used to forment extremism.
Use biometric visas for those from designated countries and compiling a database so people whose views or activities pose a threat to UK security can be kept out of the country. They could only appeal against the decision from overseas.
If I was a Muslim, I think I'd be pretty pissed off. So, who said that England was not going to introduce laws that infringed Human Rights?
Voltaire: "I disagree with what you are saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
Not anymore.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Posted:^^
Lets see.
1. The odds are probably 50-50 that you are going to be stopped and searched.
2. You are banned from visiting some mosques. If you went to them, or know anyone who does, then you're probably under surveillence. You can also be arrested for belonging to a religious group, some of which are moderate and *do not* condone violence.
3. You can be deported for saying "Maybe the bombers have got a legitimate complaint here".
4. You can be held for a proposed 3 months without trial or charge.
5. You will have a "special" visa/passport so that the government can track your movements.
Add to this the trampling of the "Right to Free speech".
Add to this the discrimmination and victimisation that you will be subject to.
Add to this the alienation that comes with suspicion.
And you ask me why they might be upset?
Lets see.
1. The odds are probably 50-50 that you are going to be stopped and searched.
2. You are banned from visiting some mosques. If you went to them, or know anyone who does, then you're probably under surveillence. You can also be arrested for belonging to a religious group, some of which are moderate and *do not* condone violence.
3. You can be deported for saying "Maybe the bombers have got a legitimate complaint here".
4. You can be held for a proposed 3 months without trial or charge.
5. You will have a "special" visa/passport so that the government can track your movements.
Add to this the trampling of the "Right to Free speech".
Add to this the discrimmination and victimisation that you will be subject to.
Add to this the alienation that comes with suspicion.
And you ask me why they might be upset?
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Posted:One the other hand, a lot of Muslims are quite keen on separating themselves from extremists. They want to say that in fact the terrorist extremists aren't actually Muslims at all because true Muslims would not kill innocent civilians.
So those kind of Muslims would perhaps be inclined to support some of the proposed measures.
So those kind of Muslims would perhaps be inclined to support some of the proposed measures.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Posted:True, however upon leaving a mosque in London, BBC news was unable to find *anyone* who supported the new measures.
Remember what I said a few posts ago? "I'm just waiting for them to introduce laws like that [the PATRIOT act] here"
Sometimes I scare myself. (and everyone else too
)
Remember what I said a few posts ago? "I'm just waiting for them to introduce laws like that [the PATRIOT act] here"
Sometimes I scare myself. (and everyone else too
)After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Posted:Written by: Firepoise
"I'd say the number is slight."
Slight is still more than one. And one less person killed, one less family ripped apart IS worth it.
couldn't that be used to justify just about ANYTHING?
right up to us having to catalogue our every posession for the police to come and check along with our every privacy?
in Theory I'd agree - but some kinda limitation has to be placed on that sentence... I'm sure you said it with one in mind, but it's a scary sentence
Written by:
bag searches at stations introduce an element that marginally reduces the certainty with which they see their actions succeeding and thus the searches act as a deterrent, at least to carrying a bomb onto the tube network.
it may well mean that they change their plans and try to bomb somewhere else instead.
What like the guy who walked onto a bus instead and killed the second largest number of people?
Random bag searches might confuse things a little, but the very events of 7/7 show us that they do not work. There's the evidence people wanted....
And there's lots of mentions of "big bags" - you can make a bomb large enough to cause chaos the size of a cigarette packet. Stop people with bags and I am willing to bet a fiver that the next bombing will be 20 odd smaller bombs. And they're past the searches.
No victory. No help at all... sadly. It could, but if we with less motivation and 5 mins thinking can work out a way around it then they will do much better. Even those fancy GE Ion Tracker devices can be worked around with a little intelligence and other people to package things/sterilise and clean.
The thing that saddens me the most about the current turn of events is that the UK is losing it's right to free speech and belief - extremist stores/clerics/etc are now being monitored and those who frequent them being pulled and put under investigation
This is outrageous.
Rather than taking this as a warning that the goverment is screwing up bigtime and needs to address the root causes of what's upsetting people enough that there's a problem they're trying to stamp out the problem while apparently ignoring the base cause
I've seen too many arguements lately about how this is all about some high-lofted philosophical issue rather than simple anger and determination... as though we are helpless before their beliefs and nothing we do can help - [censored].
Ask young muslims what they're pissed off about - the times did a survey...
Written by:
A YouGov survey commissioned by the London Telegraph last week, however, shows that Hayat and other pro-Western Muslim leaders are facing an uphill battle.
Twenty-four percent of 500 Muslims responding said they sympathize with the suicide bombers. More troubling still, 6 percent said the attacks were necessary.
6 percent is around 100,000 people nationwide.
We need to address their concerns, not crush these people... they too deserve to be listened to. But if millions of people marching doesn't matter one jot to Blair/Bush why would they.
My 2p for this week heh.
"I'd say the number is slight."
Slight is still more than one. And one less person killed, one less family ripped apart IS worth it.
couldn't that be used to justify just about ANYTHING?
right up to us having to catalogue our every posession for the police to come and check along with our every privacy?
in Theory I'd agree - but some kinda limitation has to be placed on that sentence... I'm sure you said it with one in mind, but it's a scary sentence
Written by:
bag searches at stations introduce an element that marginally reduces the certainty with which they see their actions succeeding and thus the searches act as a deterrent, at least to carrying a bomb onto the tube network.
it may well mean that they change their plans and try to bomb somewhere else instead.
What like the guy who walked onto a bus instead and killed the second largest number of people?
Random bag searches might confuse things a little, but the very events of 7/7 show us that they do not work. There's the evidence people wanted....
And there's lots of mentions of "big bags" - you can make a bomb large enough to cause chaos the size of a cigarette packet. Stop people with bags and I am willing to bet a fiver that the next bombing will be 20 odd smaller bombs. And they're past the searches.
No victory. No help at all... sadly. It could, but if we with less motivation and 5 mins thinking can work out a way around it then they will do much better. Even those fancy GE Ion Tracker devices can be worked around with a little intelligence and other people to package things/sterilise and clean.
The thing that saddens me the most about the current turn of events is that the UK is losing it's right to free speech and belief - extremist stores/clerics/etc are now being monitored and those who frequent them being pulled and put under investigation
This is outrageous.
Rather than taking this as a warning that the goverment is screwing up bigtime and needs to address the root causes of what's upsetting people enough that there's a problem they're trying to stamp out the problem while apparently ignoring the base cause
I've seen too many arguements lately about how this is all about some high-lofted philosophical issue rather than simple anger and determination... as though we are helpless before their beliefs and nothing we do can help - [censored].
Ask young muslims what they're pissed off about - the times did a survey...
Written by:
A YouGov survey commissioned by the London Telegraph last week, however, shows that Hayat and other pro-Western Muslim leaders are facing an uphill battle.
Twenty-four percent of 500 Muslims responding said they sympathize with the suicide bombers. More troubling still, 6 percent said the attacks were necessary.
6 percent is around 100,000 people nationwide.
We need to address their concerns, not crush these people... they too deserve to be listened to. But if millions of people marching doesn't matter one jot to Blair/Bush why would they.
My 2p for this week heh.
I can SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Deletecoleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted:yep
there was always going to be new legislation proposed sethis.
but i think the patriot act is more far-reaching and far more invasive than the new legislation that labour has proposed (full text of briefing can be found here).
plus, they still have to get the legislation passed in parliament and there will be a lot of clarification and discussion/debate before that (i hope)...
"We will consult widely on these measures, including with the other political parties of course. It is evidently a heavy agenda to take forward, but it's necessary, and let me also again repeat and make it clear, if legislation can be made ready in time, and the right consensus is achieved, we are ready to recall parliament in September, at least to begin the debate over these measures.
I want to make it clear yet again that this is not in any way whatever aimed at the decent law-abiding Muslim community of Great Britain. We know that this fringe of extremism does not truly represent Islam. We know British Muslims, in general, abhor the actions of the extremists. We acknowledge once again Muslim contribution to our country and welcome it. We welcome those who visit our country from abroad in peace, welcome those who know that in this country the respect and tolerance towards others which we believe in, is the surest guarantee of freedom and progress for people of all religious faiths.
But coming to Britain is not a right, and even when people have come here, staying here carries with it a duty. That duty is to share and support the values that sustain the British way of life. Those that break that duty and try to incite hatred or engage in violence against our country and it's people have no place here. Over the coming months in the courts, in Parliament, in debate and engagement with all parts of our communities, we will work to turn these sentiments into reality, and that is my duty as Prime Minister."
if you assume that when/if they come into being, that the new powers will be abused, then they are a bad idea (duh).
but with that viewpoint, any power that can be abused is dangerous - which by definition, is pretty much all of them
i understand your reservations, but personally, i think religious extremeism directed at inciting violence is a disgusting practice and properly considered legislation against it is not a bad thing in my world.
frosty - the important issue as i see it is not how many young muslims sympathise with terrorist attacks or even how many think they were necessary - it is why they think these things that i am interested in.
when british citizens condone the mass killing of their fellow citizens to bring attention to a ploitical or religious issue, we have a big problem.
how many of the people that said the attacks were 'necessary' actually considered or even support peaceful political action/protest to clarify their views?
as far as i can tell, these people choose religion to be their justification for, and their drive towards, violence.
getting britain to leave iraq is far from the only issue and imho, is not the principle issue for religious extremeists.
i'm pretty sure the taliban were not a figment of my imagination...
cole. x
EDITED_BY: coleman (1123499767)
there was always going to be new legislation proposed sethis.
but i think the patriot act is more far-reaching and far more invasive than the new legislation that labour has proposed (full text of briefing can be found here).
plus, they still have to get the legislation passed in parliament and there will be a lot of clarification and discussion/debate before that (i hope)...
"We will consult widely on these measures, including with the other political parties of course. It is evidently a heavy agenda to take forward, but it's necessary, and let me also again repeat and make it clear, if legislation can be made ready in time, and the right consensus is achieved, we are ready to recall parliament in September, at least to begin the debate over these measures.
I want to make it clear yet again that this is not in any way whatever aimed at the decent law-abiding Muslim community of Great Britain. We know that this fringe of extremism does not truly represent Islam. We know British Muslims, in general, abhor the actions of the extremists. We acknowledge once again Muslim contribution to our country and welcome it. We welcome those who visit our country from abroad in peace, welcome those who know that in this country the respect and tolerance towards others which we believe in, is the surest guarantee of freedom and progress for people of all religious faiths.
But coming to Britain is not a right, and even when people have come here, staying here carries with it a duty. That duty is to share and support the values that sustain the British way of life. Those that break that duty and try to incite hatred or engage in violence against our country and it's people have no place here. Over the coming months in the courts, in Parliament, in debate and engagement with all parts of our communities, we will work to turn these sentiments into reality, and that is my duty as Prime Minister."
if you assume that when/if they come into being, that the new powers will be abused, then they are a bad idea (duh
).but with that viewpoint, any power that can be abused is dangerous - which by definition, is pretty much all of them
i understand your reservations, but personally, i think religious extremeism directed at inciting violence is a disgusting practice and properly considered legislation against it is not a bad thing in my world.
frosty - the important issue as i see it is not how many young muslims sympathise with terrorist attacks or even how many think they were necessary - it is why they think these things that i am interested in.
when british citizens condone the mass killing of their fellow citizens to bring attention to a ploitical or religious issue, we have a big problem.
how many of the people that said the attacks were 'necessary' actually considered or even support peaceful political action/protest to clarify their views?
as far as i can tell, these people choose religion to be their justification for, and their drive towards, violence.
getting britain to leave iraq is far from the only issue and imho, is not the principle issue for religious extremeists.
i'm pretty sure the taliban were not a figment of my imagination...
cole. x
EDITED_BY: coleman (1123499767)
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Posted:Yes, but the difficulty arises when you try to work out what the line is.
Muslim 1: I think the terrorists have the right idea. Where can I join up?
Muslim 2: The terrorists are evil and disgusting and a stain on our people.
Muslim 3: I'm kinda curious as to why anyone feels the need to blow people up. I don't want to myself, but I would like to know what they're thinking.
Under the new legislation, Muslims 1 and 3 are capable of being arrested, and possibly deported. Now I'd call Muslim 1 a bad person, but Muslim 3 sounds like he's almost got my attitude. You can be deported for wanting to get more information on something? That's what the new laws say.
And how do you tell these people apart, when you feel like searching them?
And on the PM's point about the duty to uphold our way of life, sorry, but I don't agree. I would agree that you have a duty to obey the law, but that's as far as it goes. Going by the majority at the moment, then the "Way of life" for teenagers is either being a Chav, or a Stoner. I'm neither, so does that make me guilty of "not conforming to our way of life"? Who says that just because you live in a country you have to lose your individuality? If you went to live in Russia, then I somehow doubt you'd be flying their flag, singing their anthems, and "sustaining the Russian way of life".
I agree that inciting racial and religious hatred is bad. It's against the law already. What I disagree with is the specific targeting of Muslims, when I can point out several fundamentalist Christians who are just as bad.
Muslim 1: I think the terrorists have the right idea. Where can I join up?
Muslim 2: The terrorists are evil and disgusting and a stain on our people.
Muslim 3: I'm kinda curious as to why anyone feels the need to blow people up. I don't want to myself, but I would like to know what they're thinking.
Under the new legislation, Muslims 1 and 3 are capable of being arrested, and possibly deported. Now I'd call Muslim 1 a bad person, but Muslim 3 sounds like he's almost got my attitude. You can be deported for wanting to get more information on something? That's what the new laws say.
And how do you tell these people apart, when you feel like searching them?
And on the PM's point about the duty to uphold our way of life, sorry, but I don't agree. I would agree that you have a duty to obey the law, but that's as far as it goes. Going by the majority at the moment, then the "Way of life" for teenagers is either being a Chav, or a Stoner. I'm neither, so does that make me guilty of "not conforming to our way of life"? Who says that just because you live in a country you have to lose your individuality? If you went to live in Russia, then I somehow doubt you'd be flying their flag, singing their anthems, and "sustaining the Russian way of life".
I agree that inciting racial and religious hatred is bad. It's against the law already. What I disagree with is the specific targeting of Muslims, when I can point out several fundamentalist Christians who are just as bad.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Posted:Written by: coleman
frosty - the important issue as i see it is not how many young muslims sympathise with terrorist attacks or even how many think they were necessary - it is why they think these things that i am interested in.
when british citizens condone the mass killing of their fellow citizens to bring attention to a ploitical or religious issue, we have a big problem.
how many of the people that said the attacks were 'necessary' actually considered or even support peaceful political action/protest to clarify their views?
as far as i can tell, these people choose religion to be their justification for, and their drive towards, violence.
getting britain to leave iraq is far from the only issue and imho, is not the principle issue for religious extremeists.
i'm pretty sure the taliban were not a figment of my imagination...
cole. x
They weren't - but they aren't Al Quaida (sp?) and aren't attacking us.
The religion is a problem because they view themselves as a nation - it's their brothers being attacked and killed... so no Iraq's not the only reason but it's a helluva good motivation. Then you've got the Israel situation... which is BANG out of order IMHO and I'm sure someone better informed could list many more.
They're not just british citizens - they're British Muslims... and see themselves as (comparatively) distant and seperate from us so it's not their fellows that they're attacking.... saying that might seem a bit facile but I've just spent a few hours listening to people bleat on about keeping their seperate identity on Radio 2 and I'm bored of it
Written by:
peaceful political action/protest
I think millions of people marching against the war and the millions who didn't vote for the goverment that got in might have something to do with that - I have to say my view is that it doesn't work either. If it does it's by luck not weight of numbers of worthiness of cause.
the religion unites them, the rest of the world provides the motivation and then goverment leaves them with sod all other option
or that's my view on it and not really seen anything that counters it - the new attempts to simply silence these views only backs it up
frosty - the important issue as i see it is not how many young muslims sympathise with terrorist attacks or even how many think they were necessary - it is why they think these things that i am interested in.
when british citizens condone the mass killing of their fellow citizens to bring attention to a ploitical or religious issue, we have a big problem.
how many of the people that said the attacks were 'necessary' actually considered or even support peaceful political action/protest to clarify their views?
as far as i can tell, these people choose religion to be their justification for, and their drive towards, violence.
getting britain to leave iraq is far from the only issue and imho, is not the principle issue for religious extremeists.
i'm pretty sure the taliban were not a figment of my imagination...
cole. x
They weren't - but they aren't Al Quaida (sp?) and aren't attacking us.
The religion is a problem because they view themselves as a nation - it's their brothers being attacked and killed... so no Iraq's not the only reason but it's a helluva good motivation. Then you've got the Israel situation... which is BANG out of order IMHO and I'm sure someone better informed could list many more.
They're not just british citizens - they're British Muslims... and see themselves as (comparatively) distant and seperate from us so it's not their fellows that they're attacking.... saying that might seem a bit facile but I've just spent a few hours listening to people bleat on about keeping their seperate identity on Radio 2 and I'm bored of it
Written by:
peaceful political action/protest
I think millions of people marching against the war and the millions who didn't vote for the goverment that got in might have something to do with that - I have to say my view is that it doesn't work either. If it does it's by luck not weight of numbers of worthiness of cause.
the religion unites them, the rest of the world provides the motivation and then goverment leaves them with sod all other option
or that's my view on it and not really seen anything that counters it - the new attempts to simply silence these views only backs it up
I can SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Deletecoleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted:Written by: Sethis
Under the new legislation, Muslims 1 and 3 are capable of being arrested, and possibly deported. Now I'd call Muslim 1 a bad person, but Muslim 3 sounds like he's almost got my attitude. You can be deported for wanting to get more information on something? That's what the new laws say.
i don't think they do say that do they?
they have not been set out specifically yet so this is guesswork based on the ramifications of the patriot act no?
and where exactly was the word muslim mentioned before you introduced it...?
as for "wanting to get more information on something", it depends how you try to find out the information.
for me, there is a big difference between pondering what the motivations of the extremeists are and downloading terrorist material/posting on forums that glorify acts of terror.
Written by:
And on the PM's point about the duty to uphold our way of life, sorry, but I don't agree. I would agree that you have a duty to obey the law, but that's as far as it goes. Going by the majority at the moment, then the "Way of life" for teenagers is either being a Chav, or a Stoner. I'm neither, so does that make me guilty of "not conforming to our way of life"? Who says that just because you live in a country you have to lose your individuality? If you went to live in Russia, then I somehow doubt you'd be flying their flag, singing their anthems, and "sustaining the Russian way of life".
the 'way of life' is exemplified by the law of the land.
fundamentalist muslims believe that the laws of the koran are the first and last laws they should have to abide by - no matter what country they are living in.
that's what an 'islamist superstate' is.
the british way of life is not only about how you are free to live and express yourself as an individual but is also about how each member of society plays a part in the national and local communities.
with an exclusionary muslim state within the uk, how exactly can we expect our country to function?
east london is a great example as there are several heavily defined ethnic minority communities that manage to not become separatist - part of the british way of life (imho) is that segregation is abhored while cultural diversity is embraced.
i disagree with your last point - the 'way of life' only restricts individuality when it imposes itself upon others' individualities.
(for example) if you moved to russia and were nationalised, you *should* be sustaining their way of life - i.e. paying taxes, abiding by their laws and respecting the freedoms and restrictions imposed by the government.
your individual choices beyond that are your own and that is what i am happy for the new legislation to aim to protect.
Written by:
I agree that inciting racial and religious hatred is bad. It's against the law already. What I disagree with is the specific targeting of Muslims, when I can point out several fundamentalist Christians who are just as bad.
what specifically made you think that the proposed legislation is directed at muslims over other religions?
cole. x
Under the new legislation, Muslims 1 and 3 are capable of being arrested, and possibly deported. Now I'd call Muslim 1 a bad person, but Muslim 3 sounds like he's almost got my attitude. You can be deported for wanting to get more information on something? That's what the new laws say.
i don't think they do say that do they?
they have not been set out specifically yet so this is guesswork based on the ramifications of the patriot act no?
and where exactly was the word muslim mentioned before you introduced it...?
as for "wanting to get more information on something", it depends how you try to find out the information.
for me, there is a big difference between pondering what the motivations of the extremeists are and downloading terrorist material/posting on forums that glorify acts of terror.
Written by:
And on the PM's point about the duty to uphold our way of life, sorry, but I don't agree. I would agree that you have a duty to obey the law, but that's as far as it goes. Going by the majority at the moment, then the "Way of life" for teenagers is either being a Chav, or a Stoner. I'm neither, so does that make me guilty of "not conforming to our way of life"? Who says that just because you live in a country you have to lose your individuality? If you went to live in Russia, then I somehow doubt you'd be flying their flag, singing their anthems, and "sustaining the Russian way of life".
the 'way of life' is exemplified by the law of the land.
fundamentalist muslims believe that the laws of the koran are the first and last laws they should have to abide by - no matter what country they are living in.
that's what an 'islamist superstate' is.
the british way of life is not only about how you are free to live and express yourself as an individual but is also about how each member of society plays a part in the national and local communities.
with an exclusionary muslim state within the uk, how exactly can we expect our country to function?
east london is a great example as there are several heavily defined ethnic minority communities that manage to not become separatist - part of the british way of life (imho) is that segregation is abhored while cultural diversity is embraced.
i disagree with your last point - the 'way of life' only restricts individuality when it imposes itself upon others' individualities.
(for example) if you moved to russia and were nationalised, you *should* be sustaining their way of life - i.e. paying taxes, abiding by their laws and respecting the freedoms and restrictions imposed by the government.
your individual choices beyond that are your own and that is what i am happy for the new legislation to aim to protect.
Written by:
I agree that inciting racial and religious hatred is bad. It's against the law already. What I disagree with is the specific targeting of Muslims, when I can point out several fundamentalist Christians who are just as bad.
what specifically made you think that the proposed legislation is directed at muslims over other religions?
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted:Written by: frosty
They weren't - but [the taliban] aren't Al Quaida (sp?) and aren't attacking us.
on one hand you say 'the religion unites them' and claim that that gives extremeists the right to act as a 'nation'.
but here you separate two closely linked groups of islamic extremeists from each other with no apparent diffence in context - which is it?
what do you think the 'insurgents' in iraq are fighting for?
most likely, because they are opposed to the new government and wish for a more hard-line govcernment to be in place.
do you think this opinion is the majority opinion in iraq?
one of the major problems for the extremeists with the new government is the fact that it that allows its people the choice of living in iraq under any of the muslim sects or even the choice of not being muslim at all.
i think the opinion they express through murder - that they don't agree with people having that kind of choice and anyone who disagrees with that deserves to die - is abhorrent.
Written by:
The religion is a problem because they view themselves as a nation - it's their brothers being attacked and killed... so no Iraq's not the only reason but it's a helluva good motivation. Then you've got the Israel situation... which is BANG out of order IMHO and I'm sure someone better informed could list many more.
i think its the extremes of the religion that are the problem, not the religion itself.
iraqi insurgents attack and kill members of the iraqi police force - are the police not muslims and their 'brothers and sisters' also?
or do their lives and beliefs suddenly not count because they chose to vote and support the government?
what about the muslims killed in the london bombings?
or do these muslims not count either because they do not have fundamentalist views?
i believe that the overwhelming majority of british (and international) muslims do not hold the view that the citizens of a country deserve to die for their individual religious beliefs (or non-beliefs), nor for the choices of the government that represents them.
Written by:
I think millions of people marching against the war and the millions who didn't vote for the goverment that got in might have something to do with that - I have to say my view is that it doesn't work either. If it does it's by luck not weight of numbers of worthiness of cause.
the religion unites them, the rest of the world provides the motivation and then goverment leaves them with sod all other option.
or that's my view on it and not really seen anything that counters it - the new attempts to simply silence these views only backs it up.
'sod all other option'?!
so you went on the march then - cool, me too
but when our political protest was not sucessful, did you decide it would be a good idea to bomb parliament?
or even better, did you go to a strongly held labour seat during the election and bomb the polling stations?
if you felt strongly enough about it surely you would have taken the only choice left to you - if you were left with 'no other choice' than to kill civilians until the governemnt took notice, why didn't you do it?
one question i've been asking myself recently is if you can't separate politics from extreme religious beliefs (which by definition are not subject to change), how can you possibly have a free society?
but beyond that, is it possible to develop a workable political framework without a religion as the original basis?
cole. x
They weren't - but [the taliban] aren't Al Quaida (sp?) and aren't attacking us.
on one hand you say 'the religion unites them' and claim that that gives extremeists the right to act as a 'nation'.
but here you separate two closely linked groups of islamic extremeists from each other with no apparent diffence in context - which is it?
what do you think the 'insurgents' in iraq are fighting for?
most likely, because they are opposed to the new government and wish for a more hard-line govcernment to be in place.
do you think this opinion is the majority opinion in iraq?
one of the major problems for the extremeists with the new government is the fact that it that allows its people the choice of living in iraq under any of the muslim sects or even the choice of not being muslim at all.
i think the opinion they express through murder - that they don't agree with people having that kind of choice and anyone who disagrees with that deserves to die - is abhorrent.
Written by:
The religion is a problem because they view themselves as a nation - it's their brothers being attacked and killed... so no Iraq's not the only reason but it's a helluva good motivation. Then you've got the Israel situation... which is BANG out of order IMHO and I'm sure someone better informed could list many more.
i think its the extremes of the religion that are the problem, not the religion itself.
iraqi insurgents attack and kill members of the iraqi police force - are the police not muslims and their 'brothers and sisters' also?
or do their lives and beliefs suddenly not count because they chose to vote and support the government?
what about the muslims killed in the london bombings?
or do these muslims not count either because they do not have fundamentalist views?
i believe that the overwhelming majority of british (and international) muslims do not hold the view that the citizens of a country deserve to die for their individual religious beliefs (or non-beliefs), nor for the choices of the government that represents them.
Written by:
I think millions of people marching against the war and the millions who didn't vote for the goverment that got in might have something to do with that - I have to say my view is that it doesn't work either. If it does it's by luck not weight of numbers of worthiness of cause.
the religion unites them, the rest of the world provides the motivation and then goverment leaves them with sod all other option.
or that's my view on it and not really seen anything that counters it - the new attempts to simply silence these views only backs it up.
'sod all other option'?!
so you went on the march then - cool, me too
but when our political protest was not sucessful, did you decide it would be a good idea to bomb parliament?
or even better, did you go to a strongly held labour seat during the election and bomb the polling stations?
if you felt strongly enough about it surely you would have taken the only choice left to you - if you were left with 'no other choice' than to kill civilians until the governemnt took notice, why didn't you do it?
one question i've been asking myself recently is if you can't separate politics from extreme religious beliefs (which by definition are not subject to change), how can you possibly have a free society?
but beyond that, is it possible to develop a workable political framework without a religion as the original basis?
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Posted:Well said Cole
Do you think this really is a free society in the first place? Is it possible to have a free society?
I think it would be difficult to develop any new framework which could not be identified by one group as being influenced by another in some way.
But we could take the essence which connects all religions (do to others as you would have them do to you...) and work from there?!
Incidentally, while I agree (as usual) with your posts, I would also add to this:
"what do you think the 'insurgents' in iraq are fighting for?
most likely, because they are opposed to the new government and wish for a more hard-line govcernment to be in place."
I would add that many insurgents are also acting out of anger towards an invading force and people they see 'supporting' that invading force.
If you treat people with respect, you get respect in return.
If you invade a country, break down their doors in the middle of the night and haul their husbands, fathers and children off to prison for nothing, you'll get resentment and anger.
Do you think this really is a free society in the first place? Is it possible to have a free society?
I think it would be difficult to develop any new framework which could not be identified by one group as being influenced by another in some way.
But we could take the essence which connects all religions (do to others as you would have them do to you...) and work from there?!
Incidentally, while I agree (as usual) with your posts, I would also add to this:
"what do you think the 'insurgents' in iraq are fighting for?
most likely, because they are opposed to the new government and wish for a more hard-line govcernment to be in place."
I would add that many insurgents are also acting out of anger towards an invading force and people they see 'supporting' that invading force.
If you treat people with respect, you get respect in return.
If you invade a country, break down their doors in the middle of the night and haul their husbands, fathers and children off to prison for nothing, you'll get resentment and anger.
Getting to the other side
Posted:I'd love to reply more fully but work's ending and i'm having difficulty keeping track... so apologies if this is a bit piecemeal but I seem to have ended up bringing up lots of different threads :unsure:
Written by: coleman
on one hand you say 'the religion unites them' and claim that that gives extremeists the right to act as a 'nation'.
but here you separate two closely linked groups of islamic extremeists from each other with no apparent diffence in context - which is it?
They're different groups mister - they seperate themselves... I'm not doing it. I didn't mean to imply that it gave them the 'right' to do anything - only the capacity for (possibly misplaced) sympathy. if one muslim sees another muslim being oppressed and shoved around they sympathise. Doesn't make them exactly the same - nor neccesarily an extremist.
The way I see it if I was an angry young religious man who believed very strongly that his religion united all people - and I saw others of my religion being hurt and messed around - thousands and thousands of them dying with only celebration meeting it when a comparative handful die here and the world goes insane - i'd be utterly LIVID... which would be ideal material for someone to mould into a suicide bomber - which is why it doesn't surprise me much that this has all happened
Written by:
what do you think the 'insurgents' in iraq are fighting for?
most likely, because they are opposed to the new government and wish for a more hard-line govcernment to be in place.
I thought they objected to being invaded and under occupation?
I think there's a lot of motivations behind what's going on there and we get prooffered a rather simplified version of events to keep it easy to understand who are the bad guys....
In the end they all live in their country and they all deserve to be listened to and taken into account. That doesn't appear to be happening, if it can happen.
Sad fact is a hardline regime might be what was needed to keep it under control and we might have been FAR better off leaving well alone.
Written by:
i think its the extremes of the religion that are the problem, not the religion itself.
sorry i didn't mean to suggest that the religion itself was the problem - it's just a common thread for them all rather than the root cause of these troubles. Islam should be a good thing in many many ways.
Written by:
if you felt strongly enough about it surely you would have taken the only choice left to you - if you were left with 'no other choice' than to kill civilians until the governemnt took notice, why didn't you do it?
Cos I'm not a nutter - instead I do all I can to ensure this goverment doesn't get re-elected by making sure people know what's going on
And with that I can have some effect - but it's not so personal to me - it's not people I see as my brothers having this done to them and i'm not living in a society that oppresses my religion and where I feel alienated, under pressure and hated.
Written by:
one question i've been asking myself recently is if you can't separate politics from extreme religious beliefs (which by definition are not subject to change), how can you possibly have a free society?
but beyond that, is it possible to develop a workable political framework without a religion as the original basis?
Tis why i think we should become an entirely secular country.... it's the only way or the two always get messed up.
SOOOooooooooooooooo many of our laws are based in religion we easily forget. But yes I reckon it is possible to have a framework without religion as the basis - it's just going to be a very wierd shock for a lot of people
End ramble. Sorry for the mess!
Written by: coleman
on one hand you say 'the religion unites them' and claim that that gives extremeists the right to act as a 'nation'.
but here you separate two closely linked groups of islamic extremeists from each other with no apparent diffence in context - which is it?
They're different groups mister - they seperate themselves... I'm not doing it. I didn't mean to imply that it gave them the 'right' to do anything - only the capacity for (possibly misplaced) sympathy. if one muslim sees another muslim being oppressed and shoved around they sympathise. Doesn't make them exactly the same - nor neccesarily an extremist.
The way I see it if I was an angry young religious man who believed very strongly that his religion united all people - and I saw others of my religion being hurt and messed around - thousands and thousands of them dying with only celebration meeting it when a comparative handful die here and the world goes insane - i'd be utterly LIVID... which would be ideal material for someone to mould into a suicide bomber - which is why it doesn't surprise me much that this has all happened
Written by:
what do you think the 'insurgents' in iraq are fighting for?
most likely, because they are opposed to the new government and wish for a more hard-line govcernment to be in place.
I thought they objected to being invaded and under occupation?
I think there's a lot of motivations behind what's going on there and we get prooffered a rather simplified version of events to keep it easy to understand who are the bad guys....
In the end they all live in their country and they all deserve to be listened to and taken into account. That doesn't appear to be happening, if it can happen.
Sad fact is a hardline regime might be what was needed to keep it under control and we might have been FAR better off leaving well alone.
Written by:
i think its the extremes of the religion that are the problem, not the religion itself.
sorry i didn't mean to suggest that the religion itself was the problem - it's just a common thread for them all rather than the root cause of these troubles. Islam should be a good thing in many many ways.
Written by:
if you felt strongly enough about it surely you would have taken the only choice left to you - if you were left with 'no other choice' than to kill civilians until the governemnt took notice, why didn't you do it?
Cos I'm not a nutter - instead I do all I can to ensure this goverment doesn't get re-elected by making sure people know what's going on
And with that I can have some effect - but it's not so personal to me - it's not people I see as my brothers having this done to them and i'm not living in a society that oppresses my religion and where I feel alienated, under pressure and hated.
Written by:
one question i've been asking myself recently is if you can't separate politics from extreme religious beliefs (which by definition are not subject to change), how can you possibly have a free society?
but beyond that, is it possible to develop a workable political framework without a religion as the original basis?
Tis why i think we should become an entirely secular country.... it's the only way or the two always get messed up.
SOOOooooooooooooooo many of our laws are based in religion we easily forget. But yes I reckon it is possible to have a framework without religion as the basis - it's just going to be a very wierd shock for a lot of people
End ramble. Sorry for the mess!
I can SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
DeleteSimilar Topics
Using the keywords [terrorist* win] we found the following similar topics.1. Forums > LONDON TERRORIST ATTACK- PLEASE CHECK IN IF YOU LIVE/ WORK IN LONDON [311 replies]
2. Forums > And the terrorists win [171 replies]
3. Forums > Iraq now more or less of a terrorist haven? [62 replies]
4. Forums > Why does the Media keep helping the terrorists? [30 replies]
5. Forums > win a trip to space [6 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2017 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.