A Literal Attack on British Democracy

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-39355505

Reports are sketchy but it seems a guy drove across Tower Bridge "mowing down pedestrians" before dashing through the gates to the Palace of Westminster and stabbing a Police Officer. Then he was shot by another Police Officer shortly thereafter.

Ministers and MPs evacuated, apparently they've put the Lords in a Panic room in the basement, no other news as yet.

[Beskar]

Just heard now myself

[Greyblades]

1 dead several in critical condition. Met are assuming terrorism.

[Kagemusha]

My condolences to the victims and their families. These mad men are not off short supply.

[Strike For The South]

2-1 home grown Muslim
5-1 foreign muslim
10-1 disgruntled pro brexiter
25-1 leftist upset about brexit

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

2-1 home grown Muslim
5-1 foreign muslim
10-1 disgruntled pro brexiter
25-1 leftist upset about brexit

You forgot the disgruntled Irish Nationalist out for blood now that Martin McGuiness has died.

With him using his car as a battering ram the likelihood is casualties will rise.

And to what purpose?

[Strike For The South]

You forgot the disgruntled Irish Nationalist out for blood now that Martin McGuiness has died.

With him using his car as a battering ram the likelihood is casualties will rise.

And to what purpose?

Pain.

[Fragony]

Better get used to this

[Sarmatian]

A Scot wanting a second referendum?

A Liverpool fan coming to terms that it's been 27 years?


Met are assuming terrorism.

Smart Met.

"A car won't start. Met are assuming malfunction."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pain.

Well, I'm just angry, and tired.

Tired of not just going to war properly.

[Kagemusha]

Tired of not just going to war properly.

Huh?

[Viking]

This was on the first anniversary (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39350005) of the Brussels attacks.

[Beskar]

2-1 home grown Muslim
5-1 foreign muslim
10-1 disgruntled pro brexiter
25-1 leftist upset about brexit

The pictures purported to be the attacker were reported to be 'brown with Islamic beard'. So it looks like option 1 or 2.

[Tristuskhan]

Three of the wounded were teenagers from Concarneau. My hometown in Brittany. Crap.

Stiff upper lip hard to be kept now... Frag must be right: better get used to it.

[Greyblades]

The pictures purported to be the attacker were reported to be 'brown with Islamic beard'. So it looks like option 1 or 2.

That or a very tanned scot.

[Greyblades]

Abu Izzadeem. British carribean, natural born as trevor brooks, converted to islam 18 years old. Spokesman, fundraiser and inciter for terrorist organisations. Previous convict spent 3 years in jail 2008 to 11. Arrested in hungary for defying court order to report travel plans.

Shot dead in Westminster.

[Sarmatian]

The pictures purported to be the attacker were reported to be 'brown with Islamic beard'. So it looks like option 1 or 2.

So, it's really option 5 - a crazy Brit.

[Husar]

So, it's really option 5 - a crazy Brit.

No tautologies, this is a serious topic. This was obviously aimed at turning Britain into a dictatorship/khanate according to the topic title.
Just very sad for those who died, as always.

[Greyblades]

Death toll is at five and there has been a stabbing at Kennington, unknown if related.

[Fragony]

Five casualties, worst terrorist ever how hard can it be. RIP victims

[Sigurd]

First, my condolences if anyone knew the victims.


Abu Izzadeem. British carribean, natural born as trevor brooks, converted to islam 18 years old. Spokesman, fundraiser and inciter for terrorist organisations. Previous convict spent 3 years in jail 2008 to 11. Arrested in hungary for defying court order to report travel plans.

Shot dead in Westminster.
My paper says Izzadeem is not the man, as he is still in prison. The perpetrator is still unknown?

[Pannonian]

Five casualties, worst terrorist ever how hard can it be. RIP victims

Four killed (not including the terrorist). Numerous injured, some "catastrophic".


First, my condolences if anyone knew the victims.


My paper says Izzadeem is not the man, as he is still in prison. The perpetrator is still unknown?

No names officially given, but a house in Birmingham raided, where the man lived.

[Gilrandir]

After attacks in Germany, France and Belgium it was only a question of time for the UK.

[Pannonian]

After attacks in Germany, France and Belgium it was only a question of time for the UK.

After an attack in the UK, it was only question of time for the UK. We're producing them ourselves. The perpetrator, from what's been released, was another homegrown.

[rory_20_uk]

After an attack in the UK, it was only question of time for the UK. We're producing them ourselves. The perpetrator, from what's been released, was another homegrown.

Instead of letting them go off to their perceived homeland where with any luck they'll get killed we prevent them leaving which increases the risk of attacks here.

Immigration is fine when coupled with integration. But there does need to be this expectation.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No tautologies, this is a serious topic. This was obviously aimed at turning Britain into a dictatorship/khanate according to the topic title.
Just very sad for those who died, as always.

I am old enough to remember the concrete barriers around Westminster Palace, outside Downing Street etc. By attacking the centre of government they are trying to shut our democracy off from ordinary people, trying to get us to lock off Westminster, keep people out of the public galleries...

So, you see, this is an attack on our democracy.

[Beskar]

Tired of not just going to war properly.

I know Kagemusha highlighted this earlier, but is it possible to give clarification on what you mean by this statement, Philippus Flavius Homovallumus ?

Just so it is clear.

[Pannonian]

Instead of letting them go off to their perceived homeland where with any luck they'll get killed we prevent them leaving which increases the risk of attacks here.

Immigration is fine when coupled with integration. But there does need to be this expectation.

~:smoking:

I still think we should formally recognise IS and strip UK citizenship from those who go there.

[rory_20_uk]

I still think we should formally recognise IS and strip UK citizenship from those who go there.

In an ideal world, I agree. Having SIS monitor their role in ISIS is probably sufficient.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Khalid Masood was known to police but not subject of surveillance (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/mar/23/westminster-attack-parliament-resumes-tributes-keith-palmer-live)

Masood, 52, was born in Kent and detectives believe he was most recently living in the West Midlands. Masood was also known by a number of aliases, police said in a statement.

Scotland Yard said Masood was not the subject of any current investigations and there was no prior intelligence about his intent to mount a terrorist attack.

However, he was known to police and had a range of previous convictions for assaults, including GBH, possession of offensive weapons and public order offences.

His first conviction was in November 1983 for criminal damage and his last conviction was in December 2003 for possession of a knife.

He had not been convicted for any terrorism offences.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know @Kagemusha (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=11472) highlighted this earlier, but is it possible to give clarification on what you mean by this statement, @Philippus Flavius Homovallumus (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=12280) ?

Just so it is clear.

Our Society has moved onto a war footing, we have been that way since 2001 to a greater or lesser degree. Despite this we have not geared our economy for war and as a result we do not have the manpower to wage war effectively oversees against the likes of IS. What IS wants is for us to go over there and fight them so they can label us "Crusaders" but instead of indulging them we draw down our Forces further, so they continue to poke and prod us.

They're trying to goad us into war and by not indulging them we invite ever more heinous attacks at home.

It's exhausting, and our society is still suffering the social repression of being "at war" without war being declared.

[Pannonian]

Our Society has moved onto a war footing, we have been that way since 2001 to a greater or lesser degree. Despite this we have not geared our economy for war and as a result we do not have the manpower to wage war effectively oversees against the likes of IS. What IS wants is for us to go over there and fight them so they can label us "Crusaders" but instead of indulging them we draw down our Forces further, so they continue to poke and prod us.

They're trying to goad us into war and by not indulging them we invite ever more heinous attacks at home.

It's exhausting, and our society is still suffering the social repression of being "at war" without war being declared.

The enemy isn't "over there", they're "over here". Unless we define things so that we can isolate the enemy, we can't properly fight a shooting war. One step we can take that would move towards this is to recognise IS, so we can have something "over there", that we can deport problematic individuals to without running into the problem of leaving them with no nationality. Then it becomes a relatively clear issue of moving problematic individuals out of "here" and moving them over "there", whilst reducing the instance of problematic individuals "here". Note that none of this necessarily involves shooting or dropping bombs.

The closest lesson we can draw from previous wars isn't the declaration of war, but internment. That is, the redefinition of our society into a clear us/them divide, with "them" all accounted for. There are any number of degrees on that scale, but declaring war, going onto a war economy, etc. is irrelevant to the problem.

[Montmorency]

I still think we should formally recognise IS and strip UK citizenship from those who go there.

That would create problems for the desired national order, most acutely with respect to Russian irredentism. On the most basic level, we don't recognize just any band of rebels and renegades, and certainly not one whose imminent eradication is guiding policy.


Our Society has moved onto a war footing, we have been that way since 2001 to a greater or lesser degree. Despite this we have not geared our economy for war and as a result we do not have the manpower to wage war effectively oversees against the likes of IS. What IS wants is for us to go over there and fight them so they can label us "Crusaders" but instead of indulging them we draw down our Forces further, so they continue to poke and prod us.

They're trying to goad us into war and by not indulging them we invite ever more heinous attacks at home.

It's exhausting, and our society is still suffering the social repression of being "at war" without war being declared.

This is a quasi-fascist sentiment of course, and the only saving grace is that you might claim democratic agents would eventually demand a reassessment under the weight of prolonged war mobilization.

But there isn't money for it anyway, the cost is unjustifiable for projected results.

Military response is unlikely to have a dampening effect on local attacks, arguably the opposite.

[Pannonian]

That would create problems for the desired national order, most acutely with respect to Russian irredentism. On the most basic level, we don't recognize just any band of rebels and renegades, and certainly not one whose imminent eradication is guiding policy.

This is a quasi-fascist sentiment of course, and the only saving grace is that you might claim democratic agents would eventually demand a reassessment under the weight of prolonged war mobilization.

But there isn't money for it anyway, the cost is unjustifiable for projected results.

Military response is unlikely to have a dampening effect on local attacks, arguably the opposite.

If the above is what matters more, then you just sucks up what yer given, and stop complaining. Or, as AFAIK you don't live here, since that's what matters more to you, then we just sucks up what we're given, and we should stop complaining.

[Idaho]

Biggest attack?
19553
The media love this. The 24 news stations are desperate for content. They don t care that hyping these things makes them more likely.

https://youtu.be/xcLUZP1DSio

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is a quasi-fascist sentiment of course, and the only saving grace is that you might claim democratic agents would eventually demand a reassessment under the weight of prolonged war mobilization.

But there isn't money for it anyway, the cost is unjustifiable for projected results.

Military response is unlikely to have a dampening effect on local attacks, arguably the opposite.

The desire for a "stand up war" we can fight and win vs this interminable situation where we are prodded and pecked at, this is quasi-Fascist?

Politically, socially, rhetorically, we are at war - but we are not fighting a war.

Shades of 1984.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

2-1 home grown Muslim
5-1 foreign muslim
10-1 disgruntled pro brexiter
25-1 leftist upset about brexit

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/23/violent-extremist-dropped-polices-radar/

5-1

Radicalised local, white mother, black father - original name "Adrian Elms".

[Kagemusha]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/23/violent-extremist-dropped-polices-radar/

5-1

Radicalised local, white mother, black father - original name "Adrian Elms".

Maybe the place to fight would be the home of the Wahhabist, Saudi-Arabia, which is yours and US key ally at Middle East. Likelihood to that to happen.....

[Pannonian]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/23/violent-extremist-dropped-polices-radar/

5-1

Radicalised local, white mother, black father - original name "Adrian Elms".

IMHO, we should automatically monitor anyone who's converted to Islam since 11th September 2001.

[Montmorency]

The desire for a "stand up war" we can fight and win vs this interminable situation where we are prodded and pecked at, this is quasi-Fascist?

Politically, socially, rhetorically, we are at war - but we are not fighting a war.

Shades of 1984.

But...there is no stand-up fight, so desiring a war footing for the economy is indeed a fascistic impulse.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But...there is no stand-up fight, so desiring a war footing for the economy is indeed a fascistic impulse.

I do not desire a "war footing" for the economy, I desire a "peace-footing" for society in the absence of a war.

That is not a Fascistic impulse, and nor is the desire to face your enemy in the light of day across a battlefield.

I observed recently that throwing the term "Fascist" around with abandon cheapened it, clearly I was right if you believe I am a Fascist.

[Greyblades]

You noticed only recently?

[Fragony]

When a gutmensch is out of arguments and takes out his magic wand and casts FACISMUS it only amuses us here really, that spell has the negative perk of becoming less powerful when cast too much

[Husar]

The word Gutmensch is completely overused by fascists, it's almost like the words have lost their original meaning (good person).

[Montmorency]

Our Society has moved onto a war footing, we have been that way since 2001 to a greater or lesser degree. Despite this we have not geared our economy for war and as a result we do not have the manpower to wage war effectively oversees against the likes of IS. What IS wants is for us to go over there and fight them so they can label us "Crusaders" but instead of indulging them we draw down our Forces further, so they continue to poke and prod us.

They're trying to goad us into war and by not indulging them we invite ever more heinous attacks at home.

It's exhausting, and our society is still suffering the social repression of being "at war" without war being declared.

Here is what you said, which suggests a disoriented public consciousness (and moral diffidence?) resulting from a disturbed peace, and one which receives an erratic response. There is some tension that wants resolution.

You proceed by accepting the terms that the tension can be resolved through a 'traditional' battle, and that this is what the people must be driven toward to resolve the distortions made to an increasingly-brittle public by a visceral moment that has largely only been worked at in confidential government operations. So the priority is to fix the torpor, to engineer morale (or perhaps indirectly morality, even virtue), and that's what our political and economic priorities should bend toward. And this looks like a decisive confrontation at arms to properly mobilize, galvanize, and straighten out the public spirit.

I'm suggesting the idea that permanent security state is detrimental to social cohesion or institutions is not the fascistic thing, but the sentiment on how the associated ills can or should be cured could certainly be identifiable as one.


I do not desire a "war footing" for the economy, I desire a "peace-footing" for society in the absence of a war.

That is not a Fascistic impulse, and nor is the desire to face your enemy in the light of day across a battlefield.

That in itself we can charitably say is naive or fantastical.


I observed recently that throwing the term "Fascist" around with abandon cheapened it, clearly I was right if you believe I am a Fascist.

Why should believe I you are a fascist? Think about that.

[Fragony]

The word Gutmensch is completely overused by fascists, it's almost like the words have lost their original meaning (good person).

nono, someoneone who really actually believes he's morally superior, the self-congratulating moral ubermensch. They tend to see facism everywhere but never recognise it when looking in the mirror, a gutmensch can be relentless. Like all borderlinrs his greatest fear is social exclusion, excommunication from other gutmenschen. That comfort-zone also pays well, also worth mentioning

[Greyblades]

Of course it pays well; Old Scratch looks after his own.

[Sarmatian]

Wir schaffen das.

[Kagemusha]

nono, someoneone who really actually believes he's morally superior, the self-congratulating moral ubermensch. They tend to see facism everywhere but never recognise it when looking in the mirror, a gutmensch can be relentless. Like all borderlinrs his greatest fear is social exclusion, excommunication from other gutmenschen. That comfort-zone also pays well, also worth mentioning

So you are a gutmench for not supporting some strange fantasies of fighting an open war against an enemy you cant pinpoint and even so if that war will not directly involve one personally, but wanting to send other people to die in such "glorious" way?

The Peshmerga and YPG are welcoming foreign fighters with open hands to join fighting ISIS. If the wish is so pressing, contact them and have ones war. Of course it could just be that one can live with much more ease when one can blame any hindrances life brings forth to "enemies", real or imagined.

[Husar]

nono, someoneone who really actually believes he's morally superior, the self-congratulating moral ubermensch.

Are they the reason you really believe to be morally inferior, know that you're wrong and congratulate yourself for having them figured out in every second post? ~;)

And how does that relate to the thread? A little bit of context, please. :smash:

[Fragony]

How much more context than political-correctness do you need

[Husar]

How much more context than political-correctness do you need

What political correctness? Is it in this thread or did you just randomly post something? There's a thread in the Frontroom for random thoughts.

[Beskar]

What is actually wrong with Political Correctness?

If you think about it, walking around calling someone "Overweight Fat Bitch" isn't polite or pleasant. Is it because people want to insult others, so instead of addressing someone politely as a gay male, they want to call them 'bum burgler' or 'arse wrangler' instead. I remember someone complaining about political correctness because they were called racist for addressing black people as 'Coons', more accurately putting a certain f-word infront of it too.

[Pannonian]

What is actually wrong with Political Correctness?

If you think about it, walking around calling someone "Overweight Fat Bitch" isn't polite or pleasant. Is it because people want to insult others, so instead of addressing someone politely as a gay male, they want to call them 'bum burgler' or 'arse wrangler' instead. I remember someone complaining about political correctness because they were called racist for addressing black people as 'Coons', more accurately putting a certain f-word infront of it too.

I was brought up to be politically correct. Except it was called respect and regard for others back then. I also learned to respect proper Tories and small c conservatives, who practically had a similar worldview to my socialist-tending liberalism, but from a different direction. For individual rights, read respecting boundaries between people. For communities working together, read communal responsibility. That's why I have more in common with lifelong Tory voters than revolutionaries of any colour.

[Fragony]

What political correctness? Is it in this thread or did you just randomly post something? There's a thread in the Frontroom for random thoughts.

What's so random about it, only an idiot would deny that we are at war with an ideoligy for years and will be for years to come. There are going to more attacks and everybody knows that. Pavlov-doggies are naturally stumbling over eachother crying that it has nothing to do with islam while fully knowing that it really really does. Or they really don't understand that it really really does has everything to do with iislam.

Beskar, those are just hating assholes

[Husar]

What's so random about it, only an idiot would deny that we are at war with an ideoligy for years and will be for years to come. There are going to more attacks and everybody knows that. Pavlov-doggies are naturally stumbling over eachother crying that it has nothing to do with islam while fully knowing that it really really does. Or they really don't understand that it really really does has everything to do with iislam.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?144262-Random-Thoughts-Thread

I ask you where the political correctness is in this thread and you reply with some rant about a war, it doesn't get much more random.

[Fragony]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?144262-Random-Thoughts-Thread

I ask you where the political correctness is in this thread and you reply with some rant about a war, it doesn't get much more random.

In a topic called 'A literal attack on British democracy' what I said is random? Are you sure you are good at this?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Here is what you said, which suggests a disoriented public consciousness (and moral diffidence?) resulting from a disturbed peace, and one which receives an erratic response. There is some tension that wants resolution.

You proceed by accepting the terms that the tension can be resolved through a 'traditional' battle, and that this is what the people must be driven toward to resolve the distortions made to an increasingly-brittle public by a visceral moment that has largely only been worked at in confidential government operations. So the priority is to fix the torpor, to engineer morale (or perhaps indirectly morality, even virtue), and that's what our political and economic priorities should bend toward. And this looks like a decisive confrontation at arms to properly mobilize, galvanize, and straighten out the public spirit.

I'm suggesting the idea that permanent security state is detrimental to social cohesion or institutions is not the fascistic thing, but the sentiment on how the associated ills can or should be cured could certainly be identifiable as one.

No, a real war with real, horrible bloodshed is preferable to this:


IMHO, we should automatically monitor anyone who's converted to Islam since 11th September 2001.

You see, we are losing the war of ideas - bit by bit, day by day.

I am getting older, and watching my country destroy itself because it can't fight this enemy it can't pin down is, frankly, exhausting.


That in itself we can charitably say is naive or fantastical.

Just old fashioned.


Why should believe I you are a fascist? Think about that.

I think the most charitable explanation is that you have not been paying attention.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lets apply some conflict narrative analysis to this conflict (and narrative analysis is one appropriate tool as many (most) people are more "narratively" motivated than are "ratio-legally" motivated.

Questions to ask the parties to the conflict:

What would victory look like?

What routes, if any, can generate such a victory as you have defined it?

What tools and resources are available to pursue these routes?

What is your history of this conflict?

What makes the other party's (ies') view of this conflict incorrect?

[Kagemusha]

Lets apply some conflict narrative analysis to this conflict (and narrative analysis is one appropriate tool as many (most) people are more "narratively" motivated than are "ratio-legally" motivated.

Questions to ask the parties to the conflict:

What would victory look like?

What routes, if any, can generate such a victory as you have defined it?

What tools and resources are available to pursue these routes?

What is your history of this conflict?

What makes the other party's (ies') view of this conflict incorrect?

War against Windmills

see: Cervantes

[Pannonian]

You see, we are losing the war of ideas - bit by bit, day by day.

I am getting older, and watching my country destroy itself because it can't fight this enemy it can't pin down is, frankly, exhausting.

A shooting war of the kind you hanker after is still irrelevant though. There's no point in winning an irrelevant war while the relevant points remain unaddressed. It's why the Iraq war was stupid, and I said so from the start.

[Pannonian]

Lets apply some conflict narrative analysis to this conflict (and narrative analysis is one appropriate tool as many (most) people are more "narratively" motivated than are "ratio-legally" motivated.

Questions to ask the parties to the conflict:

What would victory look like?

What routes, if any, can generate such a victory as you have defined it?

What tools and resources are available to pursue these routes?

What is your history of this conflict?

What makes the other party's (ies') view of this conflict incorrect?

There will be victory when British Muslims aggressively define themselves as British rather than Muslim. Why aggressively? Because laissez faire is looked down on by those who tend towards these actions.

[Greyblades]

There will be victory when British Muslims aggressively define themselves as British rather than Muslim. Why aggressively? Because laissez faire is looked down on by those who tend towards these actions.
Hmm...

I was brought up to be politically correct. Except it was called respect and regard for others back then.

Either you have rebelled against your upbringing or there's a Princess Bride quote about the meaning of words that I think is appropriate here.

[Pannonian]

Hmm...

Either you have rebelled against your upbringing or there's a Princess Bride quote about the meaning of words that I think is appropriate here.

Or that you've missed the point entirely. I actually went on to explain, with examples, what I meant. But even spelling it out isn't enough for you.

[Greyblades]

No, I understood you point exactly. Political correctness does not mean what you think it means.

[Pannonian]

No, I understood you point exactly. Political correctness does not mean what you think it means.

So what does it mean?

[Beskar]

So what does it mean?

According to Define: Political Correctness in google...

political correctness
noun
noun: political correctness; noun: political correctitude

The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

[Montmorency]

I think the most charitable explanation is that you have not been paying attention.

You don't mean here that I should consider you a fascist.

[Greyblades]

So what does it mean?

'The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.'

There is no qualifier on what determines whose perception of that expression or action as offensive is to be adhiered to or what socially disadvantaged or discriminated entails. This means that political correctness is a term encompasses all scenarios where a person's perception of exclusion, marginalization or insult against a socially disadvantaged or discriminated person or group, regardless of reason on the part of the person.

The mere lack of acknowledgment is an aggressive exclusion, ignorance is active hate, a 1/16th cherokee billionaire is a poor discriminated minority and a black mayor with an excellent track record but running on a republican ticket is a uncle tom. All these views are technically valid under the umbrella of political correctness, for it makes no accomidation for the value of the perceptions regardless of the political motive or mental stability behind them.

This results in a term that covers the spectrum of reason, from the eminently rational principle adopted by nearly everyone that calling a black man a nigger makes the speaker an asshole, to the irrational dictum held by various ex communists that to even imply or suggest immigrants should assimilate in any way regardless of social status, as you did, makes the person expressing the view a racist or other non person.

You were brought up to have respect and regards for others. Political correctness has no claim to be the name of this style of upbringing; being taught to "respect proper Tories and small c conservatives", "respect boundaries between people" and adheir to "communal responsibility" is not being brought up to be politically correct any more than being taught the skill of plucking a chicken means you were brought up to be an animal abuser.

[Pannonian]

According to Define: Political Correctness in google...

political correctness
noun
noun: political correctness; noun: political correctitude

The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

That's what I thought. But according to GB, in his inimitable way, I don't get the meaning of the term. So I'm wondering what it is that I don't get, especially as in my previous post I'd specifically explained myself, in detail, with examples.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You don't mean here that I should consider you a fascist.

I mean that nobody who has known me for over half a decade, as you have, should have any reason to think me a Fascist. If you entertain the possibility then, clearly, you have not been paying attention.

You probably don't know that Strike is a Jewish-lapsed-Baptist who works in a Butcher's shop, either.

Or that he has some interesting jewellery.

[Pannonian]

'The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.'

There is no qualifier on what determines whose perception of that expression or action as offensive is to be adhiered to or what socially disadvantaged or discriminated entails. This means that political correctness is a term encompasses all scenarios where a person's perception of exclusion, marginalization or insult against a socially disadvantaged or discriminated person or group, regardless of reason on the part of the person.

This results in a term that covers the spectrum of reason, from the eminently rational principle adopted by nearly everyone that calling a black man a nigger makes the speaker a bigot, to the irrational dictum held by various ex communists that to even imply or suggest immigrants should assimilate in any way regardless of social status, as you did, makes the person expressing the view a racist or other non person.

You were brought up to have respect and regards for others. Political correctness has no claim to be the name of this style of upbringing; being taught to "respect proper Tories and small c conservatives", "respect boundaries between people" and adheir to "communal responsibility" is not being brought up to be politically correct any more than being taught the skill of plucking a chicken means you were brought up to be an animal abuser.

Political correctness, as a term, is usually used to decry how social norms means one can't be as offensive as one wishes to be. Having lived amongst proper, old school Tories for a while, I've never lived in a community where being deliberately offensive was a social norm. The kind of tip-toeing that criticism of political correctness defines as characteristic of that idea, was also part of the Tory values I've seen.

[Greyblades]

Political correctness, as a term, is usually used to decry how social norms means one can't be as offensive as one wishes to be. Having lived amongst proper, old school Tories for a while, I've never lived in a community where being deliberately offensive was a social norm. The kind of tip-toeing that criticism of political correctness defines as characteristic of that idea, was also part of the Tory values I've seen.

That is your bias showing.

Those old school Tories act like the punks of old, rebelling against the establishment by being intentionally offensive. Political correctness as a term is used to decry how social norms are being twisted and exploited to silence speech that the listener dislikes and I dare say all of your Tory neighbours will say the same, but because you come from a different political camp you dont want to believe they mean it and so you look upon them with the same derisive eye those old school tories once held for the thuggish delinquents so long ago.

[Pannonian]

That is your bias showing.

Those old school Tories act like the punks of old, rebelling against the establishment by being intentionally offensive. Political correctness as a term is used to decry how social norms are being twisted and exploited to silence speech that the listener dislikes and I dare say all of your Tory neighbours will say the same, but because you come from a different political camp you dont want to believe they mean it and so you look upon them with the same derisive eye those old school tories once held for the thuggish delinquents so long ago.

The old school Tories I'm talking about were the establishment. Or at least they supported the established order, CofE, pre-WW2 lifestyle, and all the rest of it. Read up on Wellington for the archetypal Tory, seen in a rather milder form in my old neighbours, but with the same mindset.

[Greyblades]

That is irrelevant; they havent been the establishment for over 25 years.

Tories have long been unable to dictate how people dress or act or speak or think; They have yet to discredit the marks of shame that thier rivals weild effectively and they have yet to develop a new scarlet letter.

What power they have had has been solely legal, not social, and with the left's domination in the field the tory's mindset has become rebellion in this age.

[Pannonian]

That is irrelevant; they havent been the establishment for over 25 years.

Tories have long been unable to dictate how people speak or dress or act; They have yet to discredit the marks of shame that thier rivals weild effectively and they have yet to develop a new scarlet letter.

As such the tory's mindset has become rebellion in this age.

Well, I did say old school Tories. That is, born and bred Tories for generations, with family members who are well and truly part of the establishment. The type who are entirely comfortable and confident with who they are, without any sense of needing to put others down.

[Greyblades]

The old establisment are the new rebels, to be socially conservative is to be controversial this liberal age, though the pendulum is begining to swing back.

C'est La Vive

[Pannonian]

The old establisment are the new rebels, to be socially conservative is to be controversial this liberal age, though the pendulum is begining to swing back.

C'est La Vive

Erm, you've missed my point, that I made in post 54. To old school Tories of the kind I've lived amongst in the past, social conservatism and "political correctness" amount to the same thing in practice, even if approached from different directions. What liberals do out of respect for different cultures, they do out of good manners.

[Greyblades]

Which I addressed that post 69, that political correctness covers much more than what conservatives do out of politeness and to equate the two is bluntly wrong.

[Husar]

In a topic called 'A literal attack on British democracy' what I said is random? Are you sure you are good at this?

Where in the topic is the political correctness?

[Montmorency]

I mean that nobody who has known me for over half a decade, as you have, should have any reason to think me a Fascist.

What I said was that I don't - think of you as a fascist.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What I said was that I don't - think of you as a fascist.

Then use proper English!

For Pete's sake man, why is there a hyphen in the middle of a sentence with a single clause here?

I think you have succumbed to some sort of exaggerated prose style, it's frankly border-line unintelligible at times.

[Fragony]

Where in the topic is the political correctness?

hmmmm, look above

[Husar]

hmmmm, look above

Unbelievable...

[Fragony]

Unbelievable...

What is ubelievable, you found that candy you knew you had in your pocket and you knew was there all the time but couldn't find? What else is unbelievable.

[Idaho]

I haven't read the thread, but I assume there is a noisy majority suggesting some vague war of civilisations and that we should "get tougher" while a few drowned voices are trying to point out the futility and brainlessness of such a contention?

If someone can summarise, much obliged etc

[Greyblades]

Advocating inaction is shown to be closer to insanity with each murder.

[Husar]

If someone can summarise, much obliged etc

You just did. ~;)


Advocating inaction is shown to be closer to insanity with each murder.

Implying that everything other than going to a war economy and full-scale war against an insurgency equals inaction is beyond insanity.

[Greyblades]

Which I didnt

Have you lost the ability to tell me and PVC apart?

Did you ever have it to begin with?

[Sarmatian]

So, what would be the appropriate response?

[Greyblades]

So, what would be the appropriate response?
Off the top of my head:

Minimum:
Complete moratorioum on international funding for islamic religious institutions. A mosque should be sustained by their congregation, not by the funding of a foreign power.
Regular investigations into every mosque and islamic college in Britain for radicalization.
Ensure those convicted of spreading islamic radicalization serve their sentances in solitary confinement, with offer of exile as an alternative sentance.
Investigation of anyone who visited the middle east outside of official capacity in the last 17 years.
Increase legal punishment for rotheram-esque inaction by law enforcement.
Harsh legal consequences for false reports of racial or religious discrimination on the part of law enforcement.

Best result:
Provde incetives for the disbanding of islamic ghettos and regulatons against further high density islamic hot spots forming.
Police baiting of Islamic ghettos, any who are easily provoked into harassing or attacking a non muslim undercover cop wandering into thier turf should find themeselves quickly disuaded as they end up spending a few nights in the slammer.

Personal suggestion:
Extend an offer to fund voluntary self exile for muslim citizens. Give them say 5 grand and a plane ticket to saudi arabia or quatar, record thier fingerprints, irises, DNA etc on the way out and not allow them to ever return to the country unless they repay the cost and burn a quran or something equally anathema.
Ensure Islamic terrorists are publically buried in sewn up pig skins, the stupider elements of islam might think it would ruin thier chances of going to heaven and be disuaded.

[Husar]

Which I didnt

Have you lost the ability to tell me and PVC apart?

Did you ever have it to begin with?

And who advocated inaction in this thread?

At least you followed Sarmatian's question with some content.

It's way too much police state (lots of stick, little to no carrot) for me and leaves some questions.
Like where does the punishment for false reports come from?
What would the incentives for disbanding ghettos look like?
How is an Islamic ghetto defined?
And how do you think this would affect relations and radicalization in gerneral to basically turn all muslims into second class citizens? Is it true to democratic values?

[Greyblades]

And who advocated inaction in this thread?Montomorency who calls frustration at inaction as "quasi fascistic".
Idaho who who calls getting tougher; "futile and brainless."

Both provide no alternatives; only snubbing all courses of action laid before them.

At least you followed Sarmatian's question with some content. Amazing what a question free of malice can get you.

It's way too much police state (lots of stick, little to no carrot) There are few carrots that can outweigh concerns of retaliation from neighbours, especially from a group that is prone going to extremes to enact such retaliations over matters of mere honor or apostacy.

Like where does the punishment for false reports come from? Fines and light jail time. Accusations of racism has too often been used as a weapon to shield wrongdoing and to throw accusations without regard to accuracy must carry consequences, but the consequences must not be so harsh as to dissuade legitimate reporting.

What would the incentives for disbanding ghettos look like? Subsidising the moving of residence out of the ghetto.

How is an Islamic ghetto defined? Good question, start with everywhere a sharia court and/or sharia police operates and go from there.

And how do you think this would affect relations and radicalization in gerneral to basically turn all muslims into second class citizens? It is not much of a concern to me, if anything we have been treating them like a privledged class; no other community have been allowed to implement thier own courts, nor had criticism decried with such rigor, yet their members keep lashing out with unparalleled violence.
Addressing such concerns of the islamic community have been a primary objective of the governments of the last 16 years and they have failed to improve relations, prevent radicalization nor stop the type of violence we saw wednesday from being a popular choice for the disgruntled. It is futile to keep handling muslim communities with greater care for feelings than we do any other community that breaks the peace with similar regularity.

Is it true to democratic values? I have no idea what you consider democratic values. They can still vote, cant they?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Montomorency who calls frustration at inaction as "quasi fascistic".
Idaho who who calls getting tougher; "futile and brainless."

Both provide no alternatives; only snubbing all courses of action laid before them.

Because, in their assessment, no robust action will address the problem. They want the individual episodes handled as the crimes they are, but no policies which attempt to take a more aggressive response because they believe that response will encourage racism/xenophobia, consume excessive treasure that could be better spent on other problems, provide more excuses for the borderline fanatics to become radicalized than they already have, and probably not do anything meaningful to curtail such attacks.

Essentially, you should accept such crimes as the very rare "cost of doing business" attendant upon pursuing life under the rules of Western culture. While galling, such attacks are vanishingly rare. After all, far more people are killed by hit-and-run car accidents in any given 10 year period than are killed by acts of terrorism, to speak nothing of medical conditions that are preventable/treatable. Why should billions in specie be spent to halt something that is, threat-wise, nearly as unlikely as being struck dead by lightning? Aren't efforts at robotic traffic management, improved medical therapies, and education/regulation to curtail obesity and tobacco use going to generate far more value to your polity than the robust efforts to counter terror attacks?

And that's setting aside the whole issue regarding individual liberty and privacy curtailments....

[Montmorency]

Montomorency who calls frustration at inaction as "quasi fascistic".

Nah. Try again.

[Kagemusha]

Off the top of my head:

Minimum:
Complete moratorioum on international funding for islamic religious institutions. A mosque should be sustained by their congregation, not by the funding of a foreign power.
Regular investigations into every mosque and islamic college in Britain for radicalization.
Ensure those convicted of spreading islamic radicalization serve their sentances in solitary confinement, with offer of exile as an alternative sentance.
Investigation of anyone who visited the middle east outside of official capacity in the last 17 years.
Increase legal punishment for rotheram-esque inaction by law enforcement.
Harsh legal consequences for false reports of racial or religious discrimination on the part of law enforcement.

Best result:
Provde incetives for the disbanding of islamic ghettos and regulatons against further high density islamic hot spots forming.
Police baiting of Islamic ghettos, any who are easily provoked into harassing or attacking a non muslim undercover cop wandering into thier turf should find themeselves quickly disuaded as they end up spending a few nights in the slammer.

Personal suggestion:
Extend an offer to fund voluntary self exile for muslim citizens. Give them say 5 grand and a plane ticket to saudi arabia or quatar, record thier fingerprints, irises, DNA etc on the way out and not allow them to ever return to the country unless they repay the cost and burn a quran or something equally anathema.
Ensure Islamic terrorists are publically buried in sewn up pig skins, the stupider elements of islam might think it would ruin thier chances of going to heaven and be disuaded.

Why are you so scared?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just watching an ad with Abu Muntasir, a former Jihadi, asking young Muslim men not to fight IS.

Yes - he's still a devout Muslim.

Those who say I want to manufacture a war to "heal the national consciousness" confuse a desire for a standup fight with a wish to create one.

When Pannanion and Greyblades are both essentially saying we should eject all Muslims you have to allow that by not fighting a war is just a path to defeat.

Do I want to go fix all the problem in the ME? No, but I would not be averse to deploying 50,000 men into Syria and scouring out IS whilst there's still something left of Palmaya.

[Greyblades]

Eject all outright? No, But I am tired of waiting for reform. If British muslims as a group do not moderate thier own's behavior then they must have the law enforced without timidity.

Leaving them to thier own devices just makes the lives of everyone else worse, native or immigrant.


Because, in their assessment, no robust action will address the problem. They want the individual episodes handled as the crimes they are, but no policies which attempt to take a more aggressive response because they believe that response will encourage racism/xenophobia, consume excessive treasure that could be better spent on other problems, provide more excuses for the borderline fanatics to become radicalized than they already have, and probably not do anything meaningful to curtail such attacks.
Any response may incite racism/xenophobia in the minority but a lack of response most certainly incites it in the majority. A lack of response consumes in lives a price more precious than the treasure we spend on prevention and provides encouragement for the borderline fanatics to radicalize due to lack of consequence.

The folly of further action you claim is spotted with maybes, but the doom of inaction is a certainty, brought closer with every madman that slips through our nation's tattered net.


Essentially, you should accept such crimes as the very rare "cost of doing business" attendant upon pursuing life under the rules of Western culture.While galling, such attacks are vanishingly rare. After all, far more people are killed by hit-and-run car accidents in any given 10 year period than are killed by acts of terrorism, to speak nothing of medical conditions that are preventable/treatable. Why should billions in specie be spent to halt something that is, threat-wise, nearly as unlikely as being struck dead by lightning? Aren't efforts at robotic traffic management, improved medical therapies, and education/regulation to curtail obesity and tobacco use going to generate far more value to your polity than the robust efforts to counter terror attacks?
Terrorism is not the cost of doing business under the rules of Western culture it is the cost of pretending imported barbarism can be shed on it's own.

I care not for the numerical proportion of death terrorism causes compared to accidents; the very idea that an attack on the tribe by self declared outsiders should holds as little weight as an accident reeks of the insanity of ideolgues.

The death of a man's the soul is to drown itself in such sociopathic apathy.

[Montmorency]

Just watching an ad with Abu Muntasir, a former Jihadi, asking young Muslim men not to fight IS.

Yes - he's still a devout Muslim.

Those who say I want to manufacture a war to "heal the national consciousness" confuse a desire for a standup fight with a wish to create one.

When Pannanion and Greyblades are both essentially saying we should eject all Muslims you have to allow that by not fighting a war is just a path to defeat.

Do I want to go fix all the problem in the ME? No, but I would not be averse to deploying 50,000 men into Syria and scouring out IS whilst there's still something left of Palmaya.

Neither am I, but from - as I mentioned in another thread - the angle of asserting an international mandate to pacify the area and manage displaced populations while checking multiple regional powers in their ambitions, rather than because I see it as a step in challenging radical Islam or refreshing national spirit. If these are a possible result, that's all well and good. They just can't be an expectation or motivation.


Eject all outright? No, But I am tired of waiting for reform. If British muslims as a group do not moderate thier own's behavior then they must have the law enforced without timidity.

Leaving them to thier own devices just makes the lives of everyone else worse, native or immigrant.

An issue is that they aren't being left to their own devices, but past attempts are and have been too antagonistic and top-down. Government policy should enable the community to police itself rather than polarizing it for the sake of informant scraps. And even so, you will notice that most leads on terrorism cases come from concerned Muslims dissuading or informing on radicalized individuals in their networks.


A lack of response consumes in lives a price more precious than the treasure we spend on prevention

An ironic thought in this day and age.


The folly of further action you claim is spotted with maybes, but the doom of inaction is a certainty

What's that? Right-wing fanaticism? Maybe we should focus on repressing that. As the proverb goes, better a dog in the backyard than a bear in the kitchen.


the very idea that an attack on the tribe by self declared outsiders should holds as little weight as an accident reeks of the insanity of ideolgues.

How's that?

[Sarmatian]

Off the top of my head:


Complete moratorioum on international funding for islamic religious institutions. A mosque should be sustained by their congregation, not by the funding of a foreign power.

Islamic religious institutions are generally most vocal opponents of terrorism. Making sure they have less means to get their voice heard is not a smart idea.


Regular investigations into every mosque and islamic college in Britain for radicalization.
This is pretty much what's been going on after 9/11.


Ensure those convicted of spreading islamic radicalization serve their sentances in solitary confinement, with offer of exile as an alternative sentance.
Those feeling disenfranchised by the society are indeed easier to incite to violence against the society so it might have some effect, would be hard to say how much. Even with that though, it would be impossible to make sure that the message doesn't come some other way.

Exile is problematic because you need A) to find a country willing to accept them (terrorists are not very popular in Muslim countries) and B) even when you do, you may just provide them with a lot more people to spread their message to, the thing you're trying to avoid.


Investigation of anyone who visited the middle east outside of official capacity in the last 17 years.
Pretty much what's been happening. It's not a coincidence that police can tell you what a particular terrorist has been doing for the last 10 years, half an hour after he's been identified.


Increase legal punishment for rotheram-esque inaction by law enforcement.
?


Harsh legal consequences for false reports of racial or religious discrimination on the part of law enforcement.

You'd have to seriously change the legal system for this to work. At this day and age, it's not up to reporter of a potential crime to decide whether it is an actual crime. Courts do that. That's pretty much their only purpose.


Best result:
Provde incetives for the disbanding of islamic ghettos and regulatons against further high density islamic hot spots forming.

That usually means investing money in them which conservatives oppose. The second part practically means no freedom of movement for citizens because of their faith, which, besides being morally questionable works also to disenfranchise to affected even further. As a plus, it is very hard to enforce.


Police baiting of Islamic ghettos, any who are easily provoked into harassing or attacking a non muslim undercover cop wandering into thier turf should find themeselves quickly disuaded as they end up spending a few nights in the slammer.

Baiting people into committing violence is never a good solution, but even if we put that aside, that's a great way to make sure those prone to violence get together with their like minded friends for a few nights in the slammer and start talking. Not enough solitary confinement areas for each.

The underlying idea of stronger police oversight of such areas is not bad, though, but that's pretty much being done already and most western countries already have harsher punishments for attacks on law enforcement officers.


Extend an offer to fund voluntary self exile for muslim citizens. Give them say 5 grand and a plane ticket to saudi arabia or quatar, record thier fingerprints, irises, DNA etc on the way out and not allow them to ever return to the country unless they repay the cost and burn a quran or something equally anathema.

You're demanding them to renounce their faith and at the same time insult every other member of their faith?


Ensure Islamic terrorists are publically buried in sewn up pig skins, the stupider elements of islam might think it would ruin thier chances of going to heaven and be disuaded.

The "stupider" elements will listen to those who incite them to violence. The "smarter" elements would be aware that it doesn't matter. You'd be desecrating the dead for no good reason and invoke a totally justified backlash from pretty much the entire world.

Up until this last point I may have been persuaded that you've actually given some thought to this in an attempt to provide an actual solution, but this is pathetic.

[Brenus]

"Ensure Islamic terrorists are publically buried in sewn up pig skins, the stupider elements of islam might think it would ruin their chances of going to heaven and be dissuaded." Just for reference: In order to access to Heaven, in the Muslim Faith, you are supposed to arrive complete (reason why Muslim Warriors used to cut a part of a enemy body. I was witness of this in Bosnia, by the way). So, blowing yourself-up is de facto a ban to go in Heaven (in case of bits missing). Didn't stop one of them to do so.
The problem is studies (can link one if your read French) shows that the "foot-criminals" of this faith have NOT A CLUE of Islam and Quran. They are lead by ones who have, so they are not Uleman nor Doctors of the Faith. The ones in France would be completely unable to READ the Quran, to understand it or comment it.

[Pannonian]

Islamic religious institutions are generally most vocal opponents of terrorism. Making sure they have less means to get their voice heard is not a smart idea.

This is pretty much what's been going on after 9/11.

Those feeling disenfranchised by the society are indeed easier to incite to violence against the society so it might have some effect, would be hard to say how much. Even with that though, it would be impossible to make sure that the message doesn't come some other way.

Exile is problematic because you need A) to find a country willing to accept them (terrorists are not very popular in Muslim countries) and B) even when you do, you may just provide them with a lot more people to spread their message to, the thing you're trying to avoid.

Pretty much what's been happening. It's not a coincidence that police can tell you what a particular terrorist has been doing for the last 10 years, half an hour after he's been identified.

?

You'd have to seriously change the legal system for this to work. At this day and age, it's not up to reporter of a potential crime to decide whether it is an actual crime. Courts do that. That's pretty much their only purpose.

That usually means investing money in them which conservatives oppose. The second part practically means no freedom of movement for citizens because of their faith, which, besides being morally questionable works also to disenfranchise to affected even further. As a plus, it is very hard to enforce.

Baiting people into committing violence is never a good solution, but even if we put that aside, that's a great way to make sure those prone to violence get together with their like minded friends for a few nights in the slammer and start talking. Not enough solitary confinement areas for each.

The underlying idea of stronger police oversight of such areas is not bad, though, but that's pretty much being done already and most western countries already have harsher punishments for attacks on law enforcement officers.

You're demanding them to renounce their faith and at the same time insult every other member of their faith?

The "stupider" elements will listen to those who incite them to violence. The "smarter" elements would be aware that it doesn't matter. You'd be desecrating the dead for no good reason and invoke a totally justified backlash from pretty much the entire world.

Up until this last point I may have been persuaded that you've actually given some thought to this in an attempt to provide an actual solution, but this is pathetic.

Thinking about it, maybe the Libyan venture may have a silver lining after all. Make a settlement with the Libyan government for a 100 year loan of part of their territory, picked as the most inhospitable and least revenue-friendly they have. Pay them handsomely for use of this territory. Give this territory a name and a jurisdiction, with a governor general and everything. If any European Muslims would otherwise go to jail (where radicalisation frequently takes place), strip them of their European citizenships and give them citizenship of this place instead, and transport them there. The ancestors of the Aussies managed to make a success of it, so there's something for them to look forward to.

[Husar]

Montomorency who calls frustration at inaction as "quasi fascistic".
Idaho who who calls getting tougher; "futile and brainless."

Both provide no alternatives; only snubbing all courses of action laid before them.

That's the same thing you accused me of when I said you insinuate that everything but all out war equals inaction. Except that here you seem to prove me right to some extent (your idea of getting tougher and spending tons of money on it is not far away from the war rhetoric) and make the same mistake as shown by Monty saying that's absolutely not what he said. Montmorency wasn't just snubbing all courses of action, he also discussed with PVC why he thought that way.


Amazing what a question free of malice can get you.

Yeah, on that note:


I care not for the numerical proportion of death terrorism causes compared to accidents; the very idea that an attack on the tribe by self declared outsiders should holds as little weight as an accident reeks of the insanity of ideolgues.

The death of a man's the soul is to drown itself in such sociopathic apathy.

Are you calling your opposition in this thread insane and sociopathic without even explaining WHY you think so?
To me this looks like tribalism since you even use the word tribe yourself. A return to such outdated structural thought patterns does not appeal to me at all, especially not when the "tribe" I'm supposed to associate with is the size of a nation. I only associate with people as "my tribe" when I've personally vetted them and to that end I already know of quite a few people in this nation who I don't want to be associated with...


There are few carrots that can outweigh concerns of retaliation from neighbours, especially from a group that is prone going to extremes to enact such retaliations over matters of mere honor or apostacy.

As others have said, moderate muslims often report on the crazy ones. By removing all carrots and treating the moderate ones like criminals, you remove their incentive to do so. You're also creating an artificial divide between yourself and the moderates that evidently doesn't exist for them at the moment as they're obviously trying to help us all fight the crazies. You're making the situation worse for everyone because you try to turn a complicated situation into one where you can easily separate people based on religion or travel destination etc.


Fines and light jail time. Accusations of racism has too often been used as a weapon to shield wrongdoing and to throw accusations without regard to accuracy must carry consequences, but the consequences must not be so harsh as to dissuade legitimate reporting.

I asked where it is coming from, not where it is going to. To put it in your words, I'd like to see a few of your primary sources on racism accusations being used as a weapon. And what is "on the part of law enforcement"? It sounded like you were accusing the police of false reporting of hate crimes.


Subsidising the moving of residence out of the ghetto.

And where to? As Fragony likes to say, a lot of our good people tend to move away when muslims move into the neighborhood. What makes you think they would want to subsidize such movement with their taxes? Of course we don't have a problem with xenophobia as saying that would be self-flagellation. (Or maybe it's time to stop pretending that we're not a superficial society with some xenophobia problems)


Good question, start with everywhere a sharia court and/or sharia police operates and go from there.

Such things shouldn't have been allowed to erxist in the first place. That's one of the things where I'd also advocate for a police crackdown and potential repatriation/long jail time. Whether it should be used to paint everyone in the neighborhood with the same brush is the real question though.


It is not much of a concern to me, if anything we have been treating them like a privledged class; no other community have been allowed to implement thier own courts, nor had criticism decried with such rigor, yet their members keep lashing out with unparalleled violence.

That's only partially true as they have certainly not been privileged by their "fellow citizens", who gave them lower chances of employment, worse jobs, strange looks, insults, sometimes violent attacks and so on. The other part that is only half true is "their members" as it insinuates that all muslims are somehow in a group with the crazies. Even the parents often disagree with their children on these things. It would be more worthwhile to think about why that could be the case rather than disenfranchise the parents as well, no?


Addressing such concerns of the islamic community have been a primary objective of the governments of the last 16 years and they have failed to improve relations, prevent radicalization nor stop the type of violence we saw wednesday from being a popular choice for the disgruntled. It is futile to keep handling muslim communities with greater care for feelings than we do any other community that breaks the peace with similar regularity.

Yes, and if we were talking about taxes, you'd blame the failure of the government instead of the taxpayers. But when it comes to muslims, questioning the attempts of the government somehow stops as we already know it's the fault of the muslims alone? As I said above, there is also a difference between how the government tries to treat muslims and what they have to endure by racists and other members of society, sometimes on a daily basis.


I have no idea what you consider democratic values. They can still vote, cant they?

Wow...So the fact they can still vote somehow justifies a tyranny of the majority? That's like saying Christians, Kurds and journalists can still vote in Turkey, why don't we let them into the EU already? Surely you'd agree based on how Turkey shares all your democratic values?


Eject all outright? No, But I am tired of waiting for reform. If British muslims as a group do not moderate thier own's behavior then they must have the law enforced without timidity.

Yeah, well, social change and reform usually didn't come around within a short timeframe historically. To some extent it took us 40-50 years to disenfranchise the local muslims and notice that those abroad hate us a lot. Now you expect it all to be rolled back in a timeframe of around 15 years when a bit of thinking may tell you that it's much quicker to inflict a wound than to heal it or to destroy something than to repair it. Also consider that oppressive methods as you suggest them tend to widen the wound instead of healing it.

You're also once more dividing people into arbitrary groups you made up just so you can use neat, straight lines. That's how your ancestors already ruined Africa and the Middle East and here you are doing it again, thinking it will work this time...


Leaving them to thier own devices just makes the lives of everyone else worse, native or immigrant.

So they need to be treated like children by a nanny state?


Any response may incite racism/xenophobia in the minority but a lack of response most certainly incites it in the majority. A lack of response consumes in lives a price more precious than the treasure we spend on prevention and provides encouragement for the borderline fanatics to radicalize due to lack of consequence.

Once more you only care about the concerns of the majority and see them as the standard for any action to be taken. That is the same approach that people like Putin and Erdogan as well as many Middle Eastern dictators take. Suppress minority concerns until they're too intimidated to complain or revolt. That's not democratic or fair, it's just another kind of oppression. You're also stating a lot of things that you have not proven at all. That a lack of consequence encourages those who are on the fence for example. Or that it encourages them more than oppression would. Or that inaction was even suggested by anyone as a viable alternative to your ideas...
I'd much rather work towards a society where differences like those in religion matter less rather than more and where social mobility goes up and the wealth divide down. By making them matter less, you actually tear down the differences that make people feel disenfranchised and remove the incentive to listen to fanatics to improve their lot in life. And by giving people more incentive to work towards an improvement and an actual hope of getting somewhere, you further remove the incentive to blame someone else for their problems.
Of course this whole "blame yourself" idea is already a thing, but as I see it, it's a fake thing at the moment that is used to oppress people.


The folly of further action you claim is spotted with maybes, but the doom of inaction is a certainty, brought closer with every madman that slips through our nation's tattered net.

Terrorism is not the cost of doing business under the rules of Western culture it is the cost of pretending imported barbarism can be shed on it's own.

Useless rhetoric that sounds like you copied it from alt-right propaganda.

[Fragony]

Can you please leave what I say to me saying it, kthx

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Eject all outright? No, But I am tired of waiting for reform. If British muslims as a group do not moderate thier own's behavior then they must have the law enforced without timidity.

Leaving them to thier own devices just makes the lives of everyone else worse, native or immigrant.


Any response may incite racism/xenophobia in the minority but a lack of response most certainly incites it in the majority. A lack of response consumes in lives a price more precious than the treasure we spend on prevention and provides encouragement for the borderline fanatics to radicalize due to lack of consequence.

The folly of further action you claim is spotted with maybes, but the doom of inaction is a certainty, brought closer with every madman that slips through our nation's tattered net.


Terrorism is not the cost of doing business under the rules of Western culture it is the cost of pretending imported barbarism can be shed on it's own.

I care not for the numerical proportion of death terrorism causes compared to accidents; the very idea that an attack on the tribe by self declared outsiders should holds as little weight as an accident reeks of the insanity of ideolgues.

The death of a man's the soul is to drown itself in such sociopathic apathy.

Excellent. Now I have you arguing your position the way it should be argued. Btw, I personally stand closer to your side of things than I do to the (hopefully accurate) summary of their position that I made.

[Beskar]

Terrorism is not the cost of doing business under the rules of Western culture it is the cost of pretending imported barbarism can be shed on it's own.

How does hardline policy on immigration resolve homegrown terrorism?

Adrian Russell Ajao (Later: Khalid Masood) was born in 1964 within a non-Muslim family. He was brought up in a seaside resort of Rye in a £300,000 house and later on moved to upmarket Tunbridge Wells, Kent. He was not raised in socioeconomic poverty or have any background with Islam. It was approximately 41 years later that he converted to Islam, in 2005 (suspected).

On another note "lack of response" is inaccurate as the the government has the CONTEST strategy in place, with elements such as PREVENT which involves schools, hospitals, etc. I am even duty bound by my workplace to report terrorism concerns to safeguarding and I am not in any branch of the security services.

As for "If British muslims as a group do not moderate thier own", Khalid Masood was not known by his local Muslim community, even whilst he lived near one. Even then, the Muslim community do moderate their own and I know this second-hand from people who are actually Muslims and tell me these things, who also openly condemn the attacks.

So much for "Doom of Inaction". There are approximately 3 million Muslims in the UK. If there was a grand islamic conspiracy, 3 million people can do a lot of damage. But instead, we get 1 guy who has a known violent history (including stabbings) before even becoming a Muslim, known by Mi5, who decided to wake up and murder some people. Your response? we should condemn everyone of those 3 million and label them as Barbarians.

This view also seems to completely ignore far-right terrorism which is also on the significant rise. From the supposed 'culturally superior' western folk as you're alluding to.

[Montmorency]

Al Qaeda has declared an emphasis on combating the "near enemy". As should we. :evil:

[Fragony]

What far-right terrorism, not that it doesn't exist, that prick Breivik comes to mind, but terrorism is almost exclusive to radical-islam andthe far-left. Of course it's idiotic to hold the muslim community responsibe though, and it's unfair to ask from them to speak out as some would want them to, I would never ash them to do that they have bigger concerns like what's for dinner. But far-right terrorism please.. it isn't on the rise at all, statistically you can claim that it just doesn't exist

[Husar]

What far-right terrorism, not that it doesn't exist, that prick Breivik comes to mind, but terrorism is almost exclusive to radical-islam andthe far-left. Of course it's idiotic to hold the muslim community responsibe though, and it's unfair to ask from them to speak out as some would want them to, I would never ash them to do that they have bigger concerns like what's for dinner. But far-right terrorism please.. it isn't on the rise at all, statistically you can claim that it just doesn't exist

Eh...
http://www.dw.com/en/report-five-times-more-attacks-on-refugee-homes-in-germany-in-2015/a-19011109

[Montmorency]

Terrorism isn't the extent of the issue. It's what comes after that one has to worry about.

[Fragony]

Eh...
http://www.dw.com/en/report-five-times-more-attacks-on-refugee-homes-in-germany-in-2015/a-19011109

Oh more incidents, there are also more mutti-children, comes with incidents as well. Schaff this and keep arms-length

[Husar]

Oh more incidents, there are also more mutti-children, comes with incidents as well. Schaff this and keep arms-length

I take that as an apology, thankyouverymuch.

[Fragony]

I take that as an apology, thankyouverymuch.

Don't care what and how you take it, that belongs in the random thoughts thread you know the link

[Husar]

Don't care what and how you take it, that belongs in the random thoughts thread you know the link

Do I really need to explain it?


But far-right terrorism please.. it isn't on the rise at all, statistically you can claim that it just doesn't exist
->
http://www.dw.com/en/report-five-times-more-attacks-on-refugee-homes-in-germany-in-2015/a-19011109
->

Oh more incidents, there are also more mutti-children, comes with incidents as well. Schaff this and keep arms-length

I really don't see what's so hard to understand. Your point that far-right terrorism is almost non-existent is plain wrong and what you said afterwards does not make it right in the slightest.

[Fragony]

n n no you youknow uh no you d don't have t t explain it's r r really st t t raightforward

[Beskar]

Had Jo Cox murder Brexit-terrorism last year too, by Mr Thomas 'death to traitors, freedom for Britain' Mair.
There is also Combat 18, English Defense League, Britain First, National Action and other right-wing terrorist organisations.

A recent article here "Terror Arrests of Right-Wing Extremists (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/09/far-right-neo-nazi-terror-arrests-double/)" doubled.

You also had the stabbing in New York which was overshadowed by the attack in London by a White Veteran Extremist (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/24/new-york-hate-crime-stabbing-james-jackson-timothy-caughman). The various mass-shootings in the USA too, such as Dylann Roof (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/dylann-roof-sentenced-to-death-charleston-church-shooting).

[Sarmatian]

Had Jo Cox murder Brexit-terrorism last year too, by Mr Thomas 'death to traitors, freedom for Britain' Mair.
There is also Combat 18, English Defense League, Britain First, National Action and other right-wing terrorist organisations.

A recent article here "Terror Arrests of Right-Wing Extremists (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/09/far-right-neo-nazi-terror-arrests-double/)" doubled.

You also had the stabbing in New York which was overshadowed by the attack in London by a White Veteran Extremist (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/24/new-york-hate-crime-stabbing-james-jackson-timothy-caughman). The various mass-shootings in the USA too, such as Dylann Roof (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/dylann-roof-sentenced-to-death-charleston-church-shooting).

None of that matters to Fragony. The root of all that is that people are pissed about Muslim immigrants, therefore it is Muslims' fault. If those immigrants weren't here, there wouldn't have been any attacks.

On a serious note, people need to understand that Muslim terrorist are the fringe element of the Muslim society. Even that is understatement - a Muslim terrorist is literally one in a million. The proper way to combat that isn't to lump that 0.0001% with the rest and treat them all the same, but to isolate them even further.

Second important thing to understand is that there is no solution that takes care of this problem right away, even if you raise the entire army and police force and institute martial law in the country.

Third issue, the actual danger of terrorist attacks needs to be put in perspective. More people are killed by bee stings than by terrorism. 25,000 people a year are killed by dogs in the world.

Forth, people in western world are now safer than they were 10 years ago, or 50 years ago. In 2001, if you were in USA, you had a 1 in 100 000 chance to die from terrorism. 10 to 15 years later, the chance is roughly 1 in 56 million.

Fifth, us Europeans are actually much more effective terrorists than Muslims, at least when it comes to killing civilians. You had a 1 in 25 000 chance to die of terrorism in Ulster. ETA and IRA were actually responsible for many more civilian deaths in Europe than Muslim terrorists.

So, what needs to be done is:

1) stop the scaremongering
2) continue supporting Muslim societies, give them more exposure. Their condemnation of terrorism is much more effective than ours.
3) continue surveillance of potential terrorists.

... re-evaluating and tweaking 2) and 3) based on feedback.

[Pannonian]

None of that matters to Fragony. The root of all that is that people are pissed about Muslim immigrants, therefore it is Muslims' fault. If those immigrants weren't here, there wouldn't have been any attacks.

On a serious note, people need to understand that Muslim terrorist are the fringe element of the Muslim society. Even that is understatement - a Muslim terrorist is literally one in a million. The proper way to combat that isn't to lump that 0.0001% with the rest and treat them all the same, but to isolate them even further.

Second important thing to understand is that there is no solution that takes care of this problem right away, even if you raise the entire army and police force and institute martial law in the country.

Third issue, the actual danger of terrorist attacks needs to be put in perspective. More people are killed by bee stings than by terrorism. 25,000 people a year are killed by dogs in the world.

Forth, people in western world are now safer than they were 10 years ago, or 50 years ago. In 2001, if you were in USA, you had a 1 in 100 000 chance to die from terrorism. 10 to 15 years later, the chance is roughly 1 in 56 million.

Fifth, us Europeans are actually much more effective terrorists than Muslims, at least when it comes to killing civilians. You had a 1 in 25 000 chance to die of terrorism in Ulster. ETA and IRA were actually responsible for many more civilian deaths in Europe than Muslim terrorists.

So, what needs to be done is:

1) stop the scaremongering
2) continue supporting Muslim societies, give them more exposure. Their condemnation of terrorism is much more effective than ours.
3) continue surveillance of potential terrorists.

... re-evaluating and tweaking 2) and 3) based on feedback.

In the British experience, European terrorists are predictable, reasonable, and aim for goals that can be generally accommodated within our political framework. The worst Troubles-related attack was Omagh, and pretty much every republican group distanced themselves from the act and actors afterwards, and used all their muscle to clamp down on any repeats. In comparison, what happened after 7/7? An attempted repeat in south London a couple of months later. And various other attempts since, not to mention the successful attacks on the continent. Islamists have no goal that can be accommodated within the existing framework or anything that we're willing to tolerate, and they respond to atrocities by trying to further the bodycount.

[Beskar]

As for "Sitting back doing nothing", the ACT Campaign is about and currently advertising at the moment.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUZ8vrw_dxo

Sponsored Content on Facebook: http://www.playbuzz.com/npccmx10/i-helped-to-make-nothing-happen-and-saved-hundreds-of-lives?
Act Website: https://act.campaign.gov.uk/

[Fragony]

Wht the focus on the statistics of getting killed in an attack, of course it's unlikely that you will. There are much bigger issues with islam as it's a conflicting ideoligy

[Gilrandir]

More people are killed by bee stings than by terrorism. 25,000 people a year are killed by dogs in the world.



And how many of them are killed by Muslim dogs? :inquisitive:

[Sir Moody]

Good question, start with everywhere a sharia court and/or sharia police operates and go from there.
It is not much of a concern to me, if anything we have been treating them like a privledged class; no other community have been allowed to implement thier own courts, nor had criticism decried with such rigor, yet their members keep lashing out with unparalleled violence.

I just had to delurk for this - I cant believe no one else brought Greyblades to task for such utter ignorance.

1) There are no "Sharia courts" in the UK. There are Sharia councils who offer arbitration but their rulings are not law and have no legal standing in actual courts.
2) They are not the only religious councils offering arbitration - the Jewish community has had its own (the Beth Din) for centuries and other Christian councils are also in existence.

[Fragony]

Just because they have no legal bearing doesn't mean they don't exist, and are a huge problem especially for women, the ultimate judge is their society. You know that's true. There isn't anything that can be done against it but if you value women's rights it doesn't resonate very well with reality if you just sqy they aren't officially binding, a verdict can have terrible consequences regardless, that shouldn't be dismissed. At least we should strongly distantiate ourselves from sharia-courts and give not an inch, that's all we can and should do. Alas we don't, respect and all that, screw respect I'd say, I've had things under my shoe I respect more

[Sir Moody]

Just because they have no legal bearing doesn't mean they don't exist, and are a huge problem especially for women, the ultimate judge is their society. You know that's true. There isn't anything that can be done against it but if you value women's rights it doesn't resonate very well with reality if you just sqy they aren't officially binding, a verdict can have terrible consequences regardless, that shouldn't be dismissed. At least we should strongly distantiate ourselves from sharia-courts and give not an inch, that's all we can and should do. Alas we don't, respect and all that, screw respect I'd say, I've had things under my shoe I respect more

I am not really sure you understand what I am saying - they are not courts and as such cannot give verdicts or make rulings.


They are totally limited to arbitrating disputes between two willing parties.


Ill agree they are problematic when it comes to sexism (the Beth Din has been accused of favouring Men many times to my knowledge) but singling out the Muslim councils is far worse when arguable they are all equally as bad.

[Fragony]

I am not really sure you understand what I am saying - they are not courts and as such cannot give verdicts or make rulings.


They are totally limited to arbitrating disputes between two willing parties.



Do you honestly think that there are two willing parties, sorry but I find that realy naive. We can't do anything against it legally but we can ridicule the fuck out their ways of handling things. Everybody knows that women have less rights in these courts and that being branded is basicly a (social) death-sentence, bye friends, bye family, total solitude

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Do you honestly think that there are two willing parties, sorry but I find that realy naive. We can't do anything against it legally but we can ridicule the fuck out their ways of handling things. Everybody knows that women have less rights in these courts and that being branded is basicly a (social) death-sentence, bye friends, bye family, total solitude

And the cultural impact is greater. Family -- in the sense of the extended, not nuclear family -- is of more value that the individual in most of the cultures wherein Islam is the primary religion. The "family" cultures of the West tend toward more of a nuclear family definition. The idea of "clan" faded in the West. Exclusion and outcast status is much more compelling a punishment to such a culture than it ever could be to anyone from one of the more ratio-legally driven Western cultures.

[Fragony]

-snip-

[Husar]

I actually agree with Fragony in this case. These courts may only make suggestions but there is most likely an incredible peer pressure to follow these "suggestions". And for people who want no part in this, it's very hard to get out of that "system". If these communities also send out a "shariah police" that tells everyone, including non-muslims how to behave in the area according to shariah law, it's an obvious attempt to create a parallel society where members cannot rely on the protection of the British or other local government anymore. This is absolutely unacceptable as it tends to go strongly against our democratic values and oppresses people in our midst. It's an attempt to undermine the freedoms that we claim to guaranteee in our democracies.

If other religions have similarly oppressive structures that people cannot easily escape from, it is equally wrong. Out of the top of my head I can think only of Scientology. I know fundamental Christians and they would try to convince you and so on, but not oppress you or use violence or threats thereof to bring people in line. To deny that fundamentalist muslims are sometimes even willing to even kill their own family members in order to enforce religious ideas would indeed be naive.

While the solution can't be mass punishment, these structures need to be broken nonetheless. It basically seems very similar to domestic abuse of the kind we've been fighting for a long time already, solutions could possibly be found there, while any attempts at patrolling around as shariah police and so on should be punishable as attempts at undermining the rule of law and impersonation of officers. IIRC that's how the police treat them here.

[Montmorency]

And the cultural impact is greater. Family -- in the sense of the extended, not nuclear family -- is of more value that the individual in most of the cultures wherein Islam is the primary religion. The "family" cultures of the West tend toward more of a nuclear family definition. The idea of "clan" faded in the West. Exclusion and outcast status is much more compelling a punishment to such a culture than it ever could be to anyone from one of the more ratio-legally driven Western cultures.

While it's true that Americans are a relatively-mobile people, and small-town residents where there is a strong religious bent have a tradition of 'getting the heck out ASAP', you shouldn't take emigration for granted as a matter of course, even forgetting those who can't or don't leave, or those who must be raised there.

It's not the sort of community to explicitly couple enforcement with violence - that's what corrupt sherrifs are for - but it is quite forgiving and encouraging of patriarchal violence between private individuals, and public complaint tends to receive public censure against the complainer.

[Idaho]

Off the top of my head:

Minimum:
Complete moratorioum on international funding for islamic religious institutions. A mosque should be sustained by their congregation, not by the funding of a foreign power.
Regular investigations into every mosque and islamic college in Britain for radicalization.
Ensure those convicted of spreading islamic radicalization serve their sentances in solitary confinement, with offer of exile as an alternative sentance.
Investigation of anyone who visited the middle east outside of official capacity in the last 17 years.
Increase legal punishment for rotheram-esque inaction by law enforcement.
Harsh legal consequences for false reports of racial or religious discrimination on the part of law enforcement.

Best result:
Provde incetives for the disbanding of islamic ghettos and regulatons against further high density islamic hot spots forming.
Police baiting of Islamic ghettos, any who are easily provoked into harassing or attacking a non muslim undercover cop wandering into thier turf should find themeselves quickly disuaded as they end up spending a few nights in the slammer.

Personal suggestion:
Extend an offer to fund voluntary self exile for muslim citizens. Give them say 5 grand and a plane ticket to saudi arabia or quatar, record thier fingerprints, irises, DNA etc on the way out and not allow them to ever return to the country unless they repay the cost and burn a quran or something equally anathema.
Ensure Islamic terrorists are publically buried in sewn up pig skins, the stupider elements of islam might think it would ruin thier chances of going to heaven and be disuaded.

Congratulations on this parade of personal foolishness.

[Fragony]

I find it rather indignified to call for things like burying bomblims in pig-skin but I can kinda understand why people want to hurt them that way. I could never be in favor of it but terrorist-attacks are also symbolic. Wouldn't call someone who says we should do that stupid people alwatys are angry after an attack, only ask him to think things over after a good night of sleep

[Husar]

Congratulations on this parade of personal foolishness.

Not very helpful criticism.


I find it rather indignified to call for things like burying bomblims in pig-skin but I can kinda understand why people want to hurt them that way. I could never be in favor of it but terrorist-attacks are also symbolic. Wouldn't call someone who says we should do that stupid people alwatys are angry after an attack, only ask him to think things over after a good night of sleep

The same could be said about terrorists. I think it is called stooping down to their level.

[Pannonian]

I actually agree with Fragony in this case. These courts may only make suggestions but there is most likely an incredible peer pressure to follow these "suggestions". And for people who want no part in this, it's very hard to get out of that "system". If these communities also send out a "shariah police" that tells everyone, including non-muslims how to behave in the area according to shariah law, it's an obvious attempt to create a parallel society where members cannot rely on the protection of the British or other local government anymore. This is absolutely unacceptable as it tends to go strongly against our democratic values and oppresses people in our midst. It's an attempt to undermine the freedoms that we claim to guaranteee in our democracies.

If other religions have similarly oppressive structures that people cannot easily escape from, it is equally wrong. Out of the top of my head I can think only of Scientology. I know fundamental Christians and they would try to convince you and so on, but not oppress you or use violence or threats thereof to bring people in line. To deny that fundamentalist muslims are sometimes even willing to even kill their own family members in order to enforce religious ideas would indeed be naive.

While the solution can't be mass punishment, these structures need to be broken nonetheless. It basically seems very similar to domestic abuse of the kind we've been fighting for a long time already, solutions could possibly be found there, while any attempts at patrolling around as shariah police and so on should be punishable as attempts at undermining the rule of law and impersonation of officers. IIRC that's how the police treat them here.

Conservative Muslims have plenty in common with the now extinct extremely conservative Christians. Which makes it odd for certain strains of the Left to be so vocal in their support. I'm minded of Orwell's piece on why strains of the British Left were so supportive of the USSR. They take the default position that the Anglo-Americans are in the wrong, and therefore anything that opposes them is the side to take. Resulting in the far Left supporting the USSR, and nowadays Islamism, despite these foreign movements being so opposed to liberal ideals that the Left are supposed to hold dear.

[Idaho]

Not very helpful criticism.

No, but what can you say? After the IRA bombs in the 70s and 80s, we didn't stop the Catholics from building churches. We didn't try and break up and disperse the population of Kilburn.

His ideas are a combination of the unjust, the unworkable (investigate everyone who's been to the middle east?) and the plain daft.

[Montmorency]

Conservative Muslims have plenty in common with the now extinct extremely conservative Christians. Which makes it odd for certain strains of the Left to be so vocal in their support. I'm minded of Orwell's piece on why strains of the British Left were so supportive of the USSR. They take the default position that the Anglo-Americans are in the wrong, and therefore anything that opposes them is the side to take. Resulting in the far Left supporting the USSR, and nowadays Islamism, despite these foreign movements being so opposed to liberal ideals that the Left are supposed to hold dear.

To some extent it is less support for Islamism than opposition to those who invoke it as a club.

[Fragony]

To some extent it is less support for Islamism than opposition to those who invoke it as a club.

Yet the double standard remains obvious. The left sees the islam as a project it seems

[Sarmatian]

Conservative Muslims have plenty in common with the now extinct extremely conservative Christians. Which makes it odd for certain strains of the Left to be so vocal in their support.

I'd agree that there are a lot of leftists who automatically support different cultures/religions because "it's what you do as a leftist".

But where liberals and conservatives disagree is in the nature of Islam itself. A liberal tends to see perverted interpretation of Islam as the problem, while conservatives see Islam itself as the problem.

[Fragony]

I'd agree that there are a lot of leftists who automatically support different cultures/religions because "it's what you do as a leftist".

But where liberals and conservatives disagree is in the nature of Islam itself. A liberal tends to see perverted interpretation of Islam as the problem, while conservatives see Islam itself as the problem.

Muslims can't agree on the nature of islam, I am much more interested in why leftists defend the islam by default. I think I know why, leftism is a religion as well and leftists are in fact deeply religious. Christianity is a competer with the leftist church, islam an ally just because it's different

[Pannonian]

I'd agree that there are a lot of leftists who automatically support different cultures/religions because "it's what you do as a leftist".

But where liberals and conservatives disagree is in the nature of Islam itself. A liberal tends to see perverted interpretation of Islam as the problem, while conservatives see Islam itself as the problem.

I see Islam as an extra-national state as the problem. If British Muslims think of themselves as British first and Muslim second, as just about every other culture in Britain does, then the worst aspects of conservative Islam are ameliorated. If they think of themselves as Muslim first and overwhelmingly, then they're well on the way to becoming a problem.

[Idaho]

Yet the double standard remains obvious. The left sees the islam as a project it seems

The left have traditionally been supportive of freedom of thought and conscience. The right have traditionally mandated a "main culture" (that of the ruling majority) and claimed that this culture was under siege.

[Idaho]

I see Islam as an extra-national state as the problem. If British Muslims think of themselves as British first and Muslim second, as just about every other culture in Britain does, then the worst aspects of conservative Islam are ameliorated. If they think of themselves as Muslim first and overwhelmingly, then they're well on the way to becoming a problem.

I see myself as humanist first and English second. Does that mean I should be marched off to the camps?

[Pannonian]

I see myself as humanist first and English second. Does that mean I should be marched off to the camps?

How many people have been killed by humanist terrorist attacks?

[Pannonian]

The left have traditionally been supportive of freedom of thought and conscience. The right have traditionally mandated a "main culture" (that of the ruling majority) and claimed that this culture was under siege.

Which is why it's puzzling that the radical Left ally themselves with conservative Islam, which is as anti freedom of thought as Christianity at its worst. Well, it's not puzzling if you understand that their starting point is that the Anglo-Americans are wrong, and go from there, as Orwell saw back in the 1930s when it was the USSR that was their vehicle of choice.

[Montmorency]

Which is why it's puzzling that the radical Left ally themselves with conservative Islam, which is as anti freedom of thought as Christianity at its worst. Well, it's not puzzling if you understand that their starting point is that the Anglo-Americans are wrong, and go from there, as Orwell saw back in the 1930s when it was the USSR that was their vehicle of choice.

Let's start associating: near enemy over far enemy; better a dog in the backyard than a bear in the kitchen.
Why should leftists oppose Islam on rightist terms, when rightists oppose Islam on the same terms they oppose the left?

[Pannonian]

Let's start associating: near enemy over far enemy; better a dog in the backyard than a bear in the kitchen.
Why should leftists oppose Islam on rightist terms, when rightists oppose Islam on the same terms they oppose the left?

Read Orwell's essays from the 1930s/1940s, when the far right were an existential threat, and the far left were looking to the USSR for guidance. He makes the case for a moderate left, based on liberal principles.

[Kagemusha]

Let's start associating: near enemy over far enemy; better a dog in the backyard than a bear in the kitchen.
Why should leftists oppose Islam on rightist terms, when rightists oppose Islam on the same terms they oppose the left?

The Moderate left together with moderate right have pretty much built our world as we know it. Far left and far right are just fringe groups that will hopefully remain so also in the future. Same goes with the religious extremists, no matter of religion. So all three groups have in common is that they have to be somewhat tolerated until they act criminally.

[Fragony]

The left have traditionally been supportive of freedom of thought and conscience. The right have traditionally mandated a "main culture" (that of the ruling majority) and claimed that this culture was under siege.

No offense intended but I really have to just dismiss that

[Idaho]

How many people have been killed by humanist terrorist attacks?

I suppose you could argue that the leftist terror groups of the 60s and 70s were a kind of humanist.

[Idaho]

Which is why it's puzzling that the radical Left ally themselves with conservative Islam...
I'm not sure they do. I think they are just suspicious of the right and its habit of picking simplistic enemies.

[Pannonian]

I suppose you could argue that the leftist terror groups of the 60s and 70s were a kind of humanist.

Way before my time then. My only experience of non-Islamist terror is the IRA, and by the time I'd grown up to notice the news, they'd progressed to specifically targeted attacks, and nuisance bombings preceded by phoned warnings. Other than Omagh, nothing as indiscrimnatory as the Islamists, and unlike the republican response to Omagh, the Islamist response to 7/7 was an attempted repeat a few weeks later.

[Pannonian]

I'm not sure they do. I think they are just suspicious of the right and its habit of picking simplistic enemies.

Orwell disliked both the far left and far right. That he disliked the far right is self-explanatory, having taken up arms against them in Spain and volunteering again in 1939. He also disliked the far left for taking the stance I described above, and consequently taking orders from the USSR (who also despised these "useful idiots"). He recognised a small c conservatism among the English that guarded against both, and found a streak of liberalism in English traditions that he reckoned was worth cultivating against revolutionaries and reactionaries. That progressivism is the moderate left that he argues for, something that has been generally ascendant for the past couple of centuries. Note his quote about the working class throwing off their chains.

[Sarmatian]

Muslims can't agree on the nature of islam, I am much more interested in why leftists defend the islam by default. I think I know why, leftism is a religion as well and leftists are in fact deeply religious. Christianity is a competer with the leftist church, islam an ally just because it's different

It depends. I guess the main reason is that Islam (or whatever other religion) doesn't really affect their lives nearly as Christianity does.
Some probably believe that we can't impose our values by force to people in other countries, they must (and eventually will) reach "enlightment" themselves. Some probably think that we (Europeans) have a debt to pay for mistreating many Muslims during our rule.
There are those that are doing it by inertia, because in their mind it is a liberal thing to do, without really understanding the core of the issue.

There are many possible reasons.


I see Islam as an extra-national state as the problem. If British Muslims think of themselves as British first and Muslim second, as just about every other culture in Britain does, then the worst aspects of conservative Islam are ameliorated. If they think of themselves as Muslim first and overwhelmingly, then they're well on the way to becoming a problem.

Jew are often seen as being like that, and yet there's no outcry. We ridicule the people who dare to voice those concerns.

[Greyblades]

What's that? Right-wing fanaticism? Maybe we should focus on repressing that. As the proverb goes, better a dog in the backyard than a bear in the kitchen.
The bear doesnt want me dead and wants to kill the dog for savaging it's family. That it is the only one who wants to do anything about the violent dog our of everyone present makes me think I should let the bear into the yard.

Your analogy is as weak as your arguments. Claims of antagonistsm sound hollow when you take into account any of the abuses of justice we have allowed muslim communities to get away with.

Polarized? If this is the result of apathy perhaps we should want them to be polarized. Best our muslim citizens be divided between the loyal and the antagonistic, so the antagonistic cannot help but stand out instead of being hidden in the mass of the uncaring.

Or do you belive that the majority of muslims would polarize towards ISIS? If that is the case I would think that would prove the right wing fanatics right.


Islamic religious institutions are generally most vocal opponents of terrorism. Making sure they have less means to get their voice heard is not a smart idea. The wahhabist mosques and schools that foreign powers fund are our greatest source of radicalization. Even the germans know this. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/saudi-arabia-funding-islamic-extremism-west-german-vice-chancellor-sigmar-gabriel-a6763366.html)


Those feeling disenfranchised by the society are indeed easier to incite to violence against the society so it might have some effect, would be hard to say how much. Even with that though, it would be impossible to make sure that the message doesn't come some other way.

Perhaps, but at the moment our prisons are hotbeds of radicalization (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32194671). Leaving it like it is will only increase our problems.


Exile is problematic because you need A) to find a country willing to accept them (terrorists are not very popular in Muslim countries) and B) even when you do, you may just provide them with a lot more people to spread their message to, the thing you're trying to avoid.
Yes, but they wouldnt be doing it here, which is my main concern. Putting yet more wahhabi preachers in saudi arabia or qatar will change nothing. We can dump them on the coast for all I care.


? Rotheram... the case where a paedophile sex ring was allowed to operate for years because the police were more concerned about looking racist than preventing the molestation of children. How have you not heard of it?


You'd have to seriously change the legal system for this to work. At this day and age, it's not up to reporter of a potential crime to decide whether it is an actual crime. Courts do that. That's pretty much their only purpose.

No we wouldnt, merely treat accusations of racism like we do lible and slander. If you cannot substantiate the claim you must pay for the losses incured by the accusation.


Baiting people into committing violence is never a good solution, but even if we put that aside, that's a great way to make sure those prone to violence get together with their like minded friends for a few nights in the slammer and start talking. Not enough solitary confinement areas for each. There are people on british streets who will accost any woman who approaches thier turf not in modest dress.

I would have the police treat them like they would drug dealers: get them to commit the same crime they do on everyone else on or within sight of a undercover cop and arrest them for it, no special provocation.


You're demanding them to renounce their faith and at the same time insult every other member of their faith? If all that would incite them to renounce citizenship and run away to saudi arabia is the promise of a mere five grand, yes.


The "stupider" elements will listen to those who incite them to violence. The "smarter" elements would be aware that it doesn't matter. You'd be desecrating the dead for no good reason and invoke a totally justified backlash from pretty much the entire world. No the stupider elements will think to themselves "his promise of paradise is worthless if we are buried in the skin of an unclean animal" and not agree to suicide bomb people.

The rest of the world, those that dont allready want us dead, wont care what we do to the bodies of a suicide attacker.


Up until this last point I may have been persuaded that you've actually given some thought to this in an attempt to provide an actual solution, but this is pathetic. What's pathetic is your understanding of the situation in the UK, yet you continue to act like an authority.


Just for reference: In order to access to Heaven, in the Muslim Faith, you are supposed to arrive complete (reason why Muslim Warriors used to cut a part of a enemy body. I was witness of this in Bosnia, by the way). So, blowing yourself-up is de facto a ban to go in Heaven (in case of bits missing). Didn't stop one of them to do so.
The problem is studies (can link one if your read French) shows that the "foot-criminals" of this faith have NOT A CLUE of Islam and Quran. They are lead by ones who have, so they are not Uleman nor Doctors of the Faith. The ones in France would be completely unable to READ the Quran, to understand it or comment it.

Then we should exploit this reliance on islamic teachers and propaganize one who is willing to say into the camera "you will go to hell if they bury your body incomplete or in a pig skin".

I say pig skin because the concept of it being an unclean animal the foot soldiers do know and would thus give it extra weight.



I had to take a few days off to study. Husar's next.

[Pannonian]

Jew are often seen as being like that, and yet there's no outcry. We ridicule the people who dare to voice those concerns.

When was the last Jewish terrorist attack on Britain? 1948? Heck, I'm willing to give the Irish republicans something of a pass, and their terrorism is within my living memory.

[Greyblades]

Are you calling your opposition in this thread insane and sociopathic without even explaining WHY you think so? I would have thought it would be obvious from the bit you didnt put in bold; that considering "an attack on the tribe by self declared outsiders should holds as little weight as an accident" is what is insane.


To me this looks like tribalism since you even use the word tribe yourself. A return to such outdated structural thought patterns does not appeal to me at all, especially not when the "tribe" I'm supposed to associate with is the size of a nation. I only associate with people as "my tribe" when I've personally vetted them and to that end I already know of quite a few people in this nation who I don't want to be associated with...
You are ignorant on the concept of the tribe if you think it is outdated. Settle yourself in for a lesson in human nature.

All forms of civilization are tribes, tribalism expanded to a greater group through fealty, religion or identity. The whole point of those bindings are to expand the tribe beyond the 150 odd people the human brain is capable of maintaining individual relationships with. I know I am of the same tribe as PVC without having to include him in my life in any meaningful way because we both share the identity as british to differing extent. Because we can do this humans can create tribes of massive size without sacrificing cohesion and thus we can expand the capabilities of our society to a degree that make the limits of species like chimpanzees seem absolutely miniscule.

This all relys on the shared identy, we can mostly keep working together regardless of our differences because we all identify and conform to the same group; the kings men, good christians, British what have you. We split into subgroup along religion, race, ideology, these are subtribes, but as long as that main tribe is seen as supreme in it's member's eyes it lets us put those aside, or at least keeps us from killing eachother. When the main identity is weak it will be subverted by lower identities, such as how the unity of christendom was subverted by the ambition of kings or yugoslavia devolved into it's component nations.

It does not surprise me that you believe such things outdated; your main tribe is one that has become notoriously shy and subject to subversion from more abstract and intolerant tribes, ones based not on blood and soil but on religion and ideological ties and are highly intollerant to dissent. Whether it be to islamism, communism, progressivism their members all decry the national identity as worthless, attacking it with accusations of tribalism while ignorant or uncaring that they have merely traded one top tribe with another more fickle and less centralized one.

Members of my tribe have been killed by people who declare themselves as part of another tribe. It would be insane for me to think I should let it stand.

As others have said, moderate muslims often report on the crazy ones. By removing all carrots and treating the moderate ones like criminals, you remove their incentive to do so. You're also creating an artificial divide between yourself and the moderates that evidently doesn't exist for them at the moment as they're obviously trying to help us all fight the crazies. You're making the situation worse for everyone because you try to turn a complicated situation into one where you can easily separate people based on religion or travel destination etc. Tell me, where have I advocated removeing the carrots? Is outside funding a carrot we've offered them? Sharia police? Ghettos? Easily retractable self exile to a terrorist hotspot?


I asked where it is coming from, not where it is going to. To put it in your words, I'd like to see a few of your primary sources on racism accusations being used as a weapon. And what is "on the part of law enforcement"? It sounded like you were accusing the police of false reporting of hate crimes.
I refer to the climate of suppression that was the main culprit of the rotheram scandal where by city officials suppressed the existance of a report on pakistani paedophiles, and whose response to an investigator bringing a report to the council was to book her on a two-day ethnicity and diversity course to "raise her awareness of ethnic issues" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-29012571)

As for origin of this climate, I point to the common response to criticism of islam and pakistani people by the press and politicians of the last two and a half decades, encapsulated rather nicely by the entirety of ex EDL leader Tommy Robinson's experience with public attention. And before you go on about deserved or not; it is irrelevant, the point is the intensity of the reaction this man and his movement produced was highly disproportitionate to his actual influence for the sole reason of being openly xenophobic.


And where to? As Fragony likes to say, a lot of our good people tend to move away when muslims move into the neighborhood. What makes you think they would want to subsidize such movement with their taxes? Of course we don't have a problem with xenophobia as saying that would be self-flagellation. (Or maybe it's time to stop pretending that we're not a superficial society with some xenophobia problems) I would have them dispersed into the general population, with a limit on muslims per square kilometer. The point is to softly dismantle the sheild against assimilation that is the muslmi ghettos, with incentive to leave and regulation against returning the enclaves should bleed population until dispersed completely. As for funding I am sure that people would be willing to pay to know that the phenomenon that caused them to move in the first place may never appear again.


That's only partially true as they have certainly not been privileged by their "fellow citizens", who gave them lower chances of employment, worse jobs, strange looks, insults, sometimes violent attacks and so on. The other part that is only half true is "their members" as it insinuates that all muslims are somehow in a group with the crazies. Even the parents often disagree with their children on these things. It would be more worthwhile to think about why that could be the case rather than disenfranchise the parents as well, no?The group is a religion not a race, one whose membership is theoretically voluntary that has horrendously hostile members while recieving both direct and indirect legal priveledges that rotheram proved was for a time enough to far outweigh the costs you refer to, costs that are actively discouraged from occuring by the powers that be. They are a priveledged group in society every way you look at it, and increasingly are resented for it as a result.


Yes, and if we were talking about taxes, you'd blame the failure of the government instead of the taxpayers. But when it comes to muslims, questioning the attempts of the government somehow stops as we already know it's the fault of the muslims alone?

You dont see the absurdity of saying this when quoting a passage of me questioning the government's policy?


Wow...So the fact they can still vote somehow justifies a tyranny of the majority? That's like saying Christians, Kurds and journalists can still vote in Turkey, why don't we let them into the EU already? Surely you'd agree based on how Turkey shares all your democratic values?
Funny, I thought those were humanist values. Or western values. Or republican values. Or christian values.
My point is that democratic values is a vague term that could refer to all sorts of things and has only one constant; the voting system. I have no idea what you meant beyond that, and they can vote.


Yeah, well, social change and reform usually didn't come around within a short timeframe historically. To some extent it took us 40-50 years to disenfranchise the local muslims and notice that those abroad hate us a lot. Now you expect it all to be rolled back in a timeframe of around 15 years when a bit of thinking may tell you that it's much quicker to inflict a wound than to heal it or to destroy something than to repair it. Also consider that oppressive methods as you suggest them tend to widen the wound instead of healing it. They are repeatedly inflicting wounds on us despite us being non oppresive, if any social change is to succeed it must be completed before the wounds get so heavy the people give up trying and remove them by force. Pussyfooting around wont give the speed needed.


You're also once more dividing people into arbitrary groups you made up just so you can use neat, straight lines. That's how your ancestors already ruined Africa and the Middle East and here you are doing it again, thinking it will work this time...
They failed not because of the lines but because your war made us leave before they could become stable dominions. And it's not an arbitrary line; it's a voluntary faith, few lines are so natural.


So they need to be treated like children by a nanny state? Bit of a tone shift from this:


Once more you only care about the concerns of the majority and see them as the standard for any action to be taken. That is the same approach that people like Putin and Erdogan as well as many Middle Eastern dictators take. Suppress minority concerns until they're too intimidated to complain or revolt. That's not democratic or fair, it's just another kind of oppression. You're also stating a lot of things that you have not proven at all. That a lack of consequence encourages those who are on the fence for example. Or that it encourages them more than oppression would. Or that inaction was even suggested by anyone as a viable alternative to your ideas...
The first two is covered under human nature of which before this post I was under the impression you understood. As for the third, Hi Idaho.


I'd much rather work towards a society where differences like those in religion matter less rather than more and where social mobility goes up and the wealth divide down. By making them matter less, you actually tear down the differences that make people feel disenfranchised and remove the incentive to listen to fanatics to improve their lot in life. And by giving people more incentive to work towards an improvement and an actual hope of getting somewhere, you further remove the incentive to blame someone else for their problems.
Of course this whole "blame yourself" idea is already a thing, but as I see it, it's a fake thing at the moment that is used to oppress people.A nice utopia, but a utopia requires everyone to agree to play along; a group that defines themself by a religion stands out for being exceptionally resistant to it, violently so at times, so what do you do?


Useless rhetoric that sounds like you copied it from alt-right propaganda. Keep going as is and right wing dominance is assured with all that entails. Islamic terrorism is in no way inevitable consequence of western civilization. You accusation of rhetoric is an excuse for a lack of meaningful answer to those statements.


I just had to delurk for this - I cant believe no one else brought Greyblades to task for such utter ignorance.

1) There are no "Sharia courts" in the UK. There are Sharia councils who offer arbitration but their rulings are not law and have no legal standing in actual courts.
2) They are not the only religious councils offering arbitration - the Jewish community has had its own (the Beth Din) for centuries and other Christian councils are also in existence.

As husar demolished you for me, you might want to relurk.

Beskar and Idaho are next, in the morning.

[Husar]

I would have thought it would be obvious from the bit you didnt put in bold; that considering "an attack on the tribe by self declared outsiders should holds as little weight as an accident" is what is insane.

And why is that insane? That's still not an explanation, I don't find any of this insane. Eating a banana to get from London to Peking is insane, how does this compare?


You are ignorant on the concept of the tribe if you think it is outdated. Settle yourself in for a lesson in human nature.

All forms of civilization are tribes, tribalism expanded to a greater group through fealty, religion or identity. The whole point of those bindings are to expand the tribe beyond the 150 odd people the human brain is capable of maintaining individual relationships with. I know I am of the same tribe as PVC without having to include him in my life in any meaningful way because we both share the identity as british to differing extent. Because we can do this humans can create tribes of massive size without sacrificing cohesion and thus we can expand the capabilities of our society to a degree that make the limits of species like chimpanzees seem absolutely miniscule.

This all relys on the shared identy, we can mostly keep working together regardless of our differences because we all identify and conform to the same group; the kings men, good christians, British what have you. We split into subgroup along religion, race, ideology, these are subtribes, but as long as that main tribe is seen as supreme in it's member's eyes it lets us put those aside, or at least keeps us from killing eachother. When the main identity is weak it will be subverted by lower identities, such as how the unity of christendom was subverted by the ambition of kings or yugoslavia devolved into it's component nations.

It does not surprise me that you believe such things outdated; your main tribe is one that has become notoriously shy and subject to subversion from more abstract and intolerant tribes, ones based not on blood and soil but on religion and ideological ties and are highly intollerant to dissent. Whether it be to islamism, communism, progressivism their members all decry the national identity as worthless, attacking it with accusations of tribalism while ignorant or uncaring that they have merely traded one top tribe with another more fickle and less centralized one.

Members of my tribe have been killed by people who declare themselves as part of another tribe. It would be insane for me to think I should let it stand.

That's just a load of BS that waters down a tribe to the level of any arbitrary group. I might as well claim your tribe of alt-rightists is attacking my tribe of leftists. Given your definition, what would make the word tribe distinct from the word group?


Tell me, where have I advocated removeing the carrots? Is outside funding a carrot we've offered them? Sharia police? Ghettos? Easily retractable self exile to a terrorist hotspot?

What are you talking about? Carrot in this context refers to something that makes it attractive for them not to despise us or to leave the ghetto etc.


I would have them dispersed into the general population, with a limit on muslims per square kilometer. The point is to softly dismantle the sheild against assimilation that is the muslmi ghettos, with incentive to leave and regulation against returning the enclaves should bleed population until dispersed completely. As for funding I am sure that people would be willing to pay to know that the phenomenon that caused them to move in the first place may never appear again.

Since we were just on the topic of insanity...
How would you enforce a muslim per square kilometer ratio and would you separate families to enforce it etc.?
Do you seriously think it would encourage them to assimilate? Do you force them to live in areas where they can't afford the rent? Will the neighbors gladly pay their rent?


The group is a religion not a race, one whose membership is theoretically voluntary that has horrendously hostile members while recieving both direct and indirect legal priveledges that rotheram proved was for a time enough to far outweigh the costs you refer to, costs that are actively discouraged from occuring by the powers that be. They are a priveledged group in society every way you look at it, and increasingly are resented for it as a result.

That's bullshit, it's well-proven that they're less likely to get jobs and so on. Some government measures alone do not make a group privileged. As for religious membership being voluntary and the related bullshit, why do we have freedom of religion in modern democracies then? It's also just an a-hole move to say on the one hand that the group is oppressing some of its members to conform to its values and then to justify group punishments based on group membership being voluntary...


You dont see the absurdity of saying this when quoting a passage of me questioning the government's policy?

You weren't advocating punishing the government but the muslims for the failed government initiatives, there is no absurdity to be found in questioning that. If your point is that the muslims are so terrible that the government's great ideas didn't work on them, then you're not questioning the government...otherwise why punish the muslims for that?


Funny, I thought those were humanist values. Or western values. Or republican values. Or christian values.
My point is that democratic values is a vague term that could refer to all sorts of things and has only one constant; the voting system. I have no idea what you meant beyond that, and they can vote.

That's also bullshit, how can a democracy work well if a significant part of the voters is oppressed? A dictatorship of the majority is not a true democracy. HoreTore already explained this numerous times. A simple Google search also results in several sources on the subject of core democratic values.


They are repeatedly inflicting wounds on us despite us being non oppresive, if any social change is to succeed it must be completed before the wounds get so heavy the people give up trying and remove them by force. Pussyfooting around wont give the speed needed.

That's a simplified and biased view. Your country conquered most of theirs and still wages war down there for its own interests. So you keep hurting them just as well. How much one-sided islamic terrorism existed in Europe before colonialism? The whole scary scenario about the people rising against them sounds more like a threat or something you hope for than something that people who can distinguish between normal muslims and islamic terrorists would actually do.


They failed not because of the lines but because your war made us leave before they could become stable dominions. And it's not an arbitrary line; it's a voluntary faith, few lines are so natural.

Arrogant colonialist bullshit. Your country ruined half the planet with its glory-searching conquest parade and now you try to blame others for the result.


The first two is covered under human nature of which before this post I was under the impression you understood. As for the third, Hi Idaho.

Your impression is irrelevant, your explanation makes no sense.


A nice utopia, but a utopia requires everyone to agree to play along; a group that defines themself by a religion stands out for being exceptionally resistant to it, violently so at times, so what do you do?

Perhaps NOT throw all the social achievements of the last 300 years over board to give in to some arbitrary fear and your shitty tribalist ideals?


Keep going as is and right wing dominance is assured with all that entails. Islamic terrorism is in no way inevitable consequence of western civilization. You accusation of rhetoric is an excuse for a lack of meaningful answer to those statements.

You have to prove those statements first before I need to answer them. As long as you're just bullshitting around I don't need any meaningful answers as you can't even prove your bullshit. "the doom of inacion is a certainty" is not only so vague that you could weasel out of almost any reply by saying you meant something else, it is also just a statement that you can't prove. Hence useless rhetoric.

[Fragony]

@Sarmatarian, affecting their lives would make sense for the older generation but not for mine. My sister is a prime example of a leftie with a blind spot, ridiculing everything christian is the hight of intellect but ohohoh if you say anything bad about the islam you could as well have skinned a kitten alive. It's just xenophilae I'd say

[Idaho]

Way before my time then. My only experience of non-Islamist terror is the IRA, and by the time I'd grown up to notice the news, they'd progressed to specifically targeted attacks, and nuisance bombings preceded by phoned warnings. Other than Omagh, nothing as indiscrimnatory as the Islamists, and unlike the republican response to Omagh, the Islamist response to 7/7 was an attempted repeat a few weeks later.

They bombed indiscriminately during the 70s. The switch to warnings and property damage occurred after negotiations started after the Brighton bomb where they almost took out much of the cabinet. THAT was an attack on democracy. Yet the press response was muted, cautious and referred to it as a criminal act.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing

Compare that to one nutter running over some people and killing a policeman.. An act that some of those with a tendency to hysteria are claiming is a sign of the end times. Please.

[Pannonian]

They bombed indiscriminately during the 70s. The switch to warnings and property damage occurred after negotiations started after the Brighton bomb where they almost took out much of the cabinet. THAT was an attack on democracy. Yet the press response was muted, cautious and referred to it as a criminal act.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_hotel_bombing

Compare that to one nutter running over some people and killing a policeman.. An act that some of those with a tendency to hysteria are claiming is a sign of the end times. Please.

The republicans eventually stopped, didn't they? Who do we talk to to get the Islamists to stop?

[Idaho]

Orwell disliked both the far left and far right. That he disliked the far right is self-explanatory, having taken up arms against them in Spain and volunteering again in 1939. He also disliked the far left for taking the stance I described above, and consequently taking orders from the USSR (who also despised these "useful idiots"). He recognised a small c conservatism among the English that guarded against both, and found a streak of liberalism in English traditions that he reckoned was worth cultivating against revolutionaries and reactionaries. That progressivism is the moderate left that he argues for, something that has been generally ascendant for the past couple of centuries. Note his quote about the working class throwing off their chains.


The republicans eventually stopped, didn't they? Who do we talk to to get the Islamists to stop?

Why did they stop?

How long did negotiations go on for?

What were their grievances?

Which grievances have been resolved?

Was there further violence after agreement?

Read the history, understand the situation and don't be a knee jerk, driven to emotional over reaction by the press and demagogues.

[Sir Moody]

As husar demolished you for me, you might want to relurk.

Beskar and Idaho are next, in the morning.

Husar rightfully pointed out there are problems with religious arbitration (which I agree with completely) - nothing he said disagrees with what I said - your statements were just wrong.

oh and on the "Sharia police" thing - can you point to where this is happening - I didn't mention it in my previous post because I literally cannot find any reliable source on it being an actual thing in the UK - there were cases in Germany but nothing outside of the usual Papers for here.

edit

I have finally found some sources on it - it seems to be related to several groups in East London.

Here I can agree whole heartily with you -these patrols are wrong and should be clamped down on harder than it seems we are currently (3 convictions and 2 antisocial orders are the only punishments I can find).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The left have traditionally been supportive of freedom of thought and conscience. The right have traditionally mandated a "main culture" (that of the ruling majority) and claimed that this culture was under siege.

That's true for the last, what, 50 years in the Anglo-American context.

It's not true in the immediate Post-War situation, further back it's hardly true at all because the concept of "Main Culture" was not a matter of Concern for the Anglo-American peoples. On the other hand, one can point to Revolutionary France or post-Revolutionary Russia where it was the Left which violently suppressed "deviant" minorities. Hell, the Left in France still supports repression far more than any other Left-ist movement I can think of.

Repression is not an inherently Left or right-Wing attribute.

[Idaho]

In application, I agree. In theory or belief, I think the left at least gives lip service to tolerance and multiplicity. The right is often ideologically suspicious of different.

[Pannonian]

In application, I agree. In theory or belief, I think the left at least gives lip service to tolerance and multiplicity. The right is often ideologically suspicious of different.

The moderate centre practices tolerance and multiplicity. The radical fringes, whatever lip service they give to liberal ideals, dehumanise actual people in favour of abstract theory. Well, the far left does. The far right fetishises individuals.

[Idaho]

And yet centrist capitalism slowly grinds the poor to be poorer and inexorably focuses power and wealth to a small clique.

[Husar]

The moderate centre practices tolerance and multiplicity. The radical fringes, whatever lip service they give to liberal ideals, dehumanise actual people in favour of abstract theory. Well, the far left does. The far right fetishises individuals.


And yet centrist capitalism slowly grinds the poor to be poorer and inexorably focuses power and wealth to a small clique.

But then capitalism is a far right ideology since it fetishises individuals and their greed. And at the same time it is far left since it dehumanises all the individuals who are losers to favor abstract theories like trickle down and growing pies. :dizzy2:
Does that make it centrist or just buddhist yin/yang?

[Pannonian]

And yet centrist capitalism slowly grinds the poor to be poorer and inexorably focuses power and wealth to a small clique.

Read Orwell's essay on the working class and their chains.


But then capitalism is a far right ideology since it fetishises individuals and their greed. And at the same time it is far left since it dehumanises all the individuals who are losers to favor abstract theories like trickle down and growing pies. :dizzy2:
Does that make it centrist or just buddhist yin/yang?

The far right fetishises Great Men. Not individuals in theory (that's liberalism). Specific individuals.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In application, I agree. In theory or belief, I think the left at least gives lip service to tolerance and multiplicity. The right is often ideologically suspicious of different.

I think the Left and Right just view the "other" through a different lens.

For the Right the "Other" is from a different geographical place, for the Left a different social strata.

Five minutes on the comment section of the Guardian should illustrate that - I actually saw someone once say "I have no shared humanity with Tory scum".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But then capitalism is a far right ideology since it fetishises individuals and their greed. And at the same time it is far left since it dehumanises all the individuals who are losers to favor abstract theories like trickle down and growing pies. :dizzy2:
Does that make it centrist or just buddhist yin/yang?

No,it makes it moronic, like all "isms"

[Beskar]

As husar demolished you for me, you might want to relurk.

Beskar and Idaho are next, in the morning.

:laugh4: As ominous as that sounds, you probably actually agree with me far than that you actually appear to do. I think some of your 'hard line' talk is just fluff, trying to turn the situation black and white instead of the 50 shades of grey.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Read Orwell's essay on the working class and their chains.

This is bad practice for forum about discussion. Could you please reference the title and at least give the main point with a link to the text?

[Pannonian]

This is bad practice for forum about discussion. Could you please reference the title and at least give the main point with a link to the text?

The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius. Context: written at a time when Britain were standing alone against a German-conquered continent, who were in cahoots with their Soviet allies (pre-Barbarossa). Orwell disliked both Fascists and Communists, at a time when these terms were formal descriptions.

[Idaho]

I think the Left and Right just view the "other" through a different lens.

For the Right the "Other" is from a different geographical place, for the Left a different social strata.

Five minutes on the comment section of the Guardian should illustrate that - I actually saw someone once say "I have no shared humanity with Tory scum".

That's minor compared to the front pages of the right wing press screaming about the poor or foreign being sub human.

The guardian isn't really left wing. It's smug, middle class and blairite.

[Fragony]

That's minor compared to the front pages of the right wing press screaming about the poor or foreign being sub human.

The guardian isn't really left wing. It's smug, middle class and blairite.

Not subhuman but hostie, don't pretend you don't know that. Feel free to think as you do, but should you, and perhaps you have everything wrong, if it's just a thought it's no accusation no

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's minor compared to the front pages of the right wing press screaming about the poor or foreign being sub human.

The guardian isn't really left wing. It's smug, middle class and blairite.

You mean the Sun, the Mirror and the Daily Fail?

They're just, bluntly, rags for idiots to confirm their prejudices. They're significantly less "Right Wing" than the Guardian is "Left Wing".

Your point of Comparison is the Torygraph, which while being anti-mass immigration does not treat foriegners as "sub human".

[Husar]

Aren't they all/mostly owned by rich white foreigner anyway? A rich white foreigner who claims Downing Street does whatever he wants.... :sweatdrop:
As a German political comedian recently said, it's no wonder that the rich are getting richer and noone cares or changes that if people always read the business part of newspapers owned by rich people.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Aren't they all/mostly owned by rich white foreigner anyway? A rich white foreigner who claims Downing Street does whatever he wants.... :sweatdrop:
As a German political comedian recently said, it's no wonder that the rich are getting richer and noone cares or changes that if people always read the business part of newspapers owned by rich people.

Well, that depends on whether you consider an Australian "foreign" I suppose. Probably don't, really, in the UK.

I take your point though, the rich control the press.

[Greyblades]

How does hardline policy on immigration resolve homegrown terrorism?

Adrian Russell Ajao (Later: Khalid Masood) was born in 1964 within a non-Muslim family. He was brought up in a seaside resort of Rye in a £300,000 house and later on moved to upmarket Tunbridge Wells, Kent. He was not raised in socioeconomic poverty or have any background with Islam. It was approximately 41 years later that he converted to Islam, in 2005 (suspected).
My words was a response to the idea that islamic terrorism was a "cost of doing business" of a western culture. This is false due to the unavoidable fact that if it werent for the presence of a wholey imported religion such events would not occur here. If we had not allowed islamic adheirants into our country this would not have been happening; this 50+ year old's conversion would have been extremely unlikely and his radicalization unthinkable.


On another note "lack of response" is inaccurate as the the government has the CONTEST strategy in place, with elements such as PREVENT which involves schools, hospitals, etc. I am even duty bound by my workplace to report terrorism concerns to safeguarding and I am not in any branch of the security services. I am aware of the government's anti-terror efforts; it is the main reason why we havent really had any successful paris style terrorist attack.

However what they have failed to do, in the eyes of the public, is counter the need for such efforts. in the past 4 years there have been at least thirteen terror plots concieved and foiled from the british muslim community, the ghettos have continued to fester unabated and intergration is still stalling because of it.


As for "If British muslims as a group do not moderate thier own", Khalid Masood was not known by his local Muslim community, even whilst he lived near one. Even then, the Muslim community do moderate their own and I know this second-hand from people who are actually Muslims and tell me these things, who also openly condemn the attacks.And yet we still have to police thier areas and combat thier dissidents to a much greater extent than any other minority group.

If they are infact trying to policing themselves to the degree that is needed then their competence is clearly abysmal.


So much for "Doom of Inaction". There are approximately 3 million Muslims in the UK. If there was a grand islamic conspiracy, 3 million people can do a lot of damage. But instead, we get 1 guy who has a known violent history (including stabbings) before even becoming a Muslim, known by Mi5, who decided to wake up and murder some people. Your response? we should condemn everyone of those 3 million and label them as Barbarians.I name thier religion barbarious, tiaxes, their personal civility is dependant on thier ability to reject that which makes thier religion barbarous.

Regardless you have missed my point; the doom isnt ours Tiaxes. Bloodshed will come in time should the muslims not improve and whne it comes the blood spilled will be thiers; the frankly near unparalelled tolerance of the british people is not infinite and should no civil alternative to the status quo present itself there will be a breaking point where the natives choose keeping them is no longer worth the cost in blood.

Best case scenario; mass eviction, police brutalization and deportation reserved only for the ne'redowells, but we both know the bear can rarely so easily distunguish the tame and the rabid.


This view also seems to completely ignore far-right terrorism which is also on the significant rise. From the supposed 'culturally superior' western folk as you're alluding to.
Far right terrorism is about as prevelant in England as unicorns, and is absolutely dwarfed when compared to the islamic variety. The constant referral in these matters to what is currently an insignificance is the diversion of those who do not want to acknowledge the greater concern of radical islam.


Congratulations on this parade of personal foolishness.

Thank you, and may I express my condolances for your testacles, I know social eunuchs are fasionable among the left wing social scene but it's still a pity you had to take it quite so literally.

[Greyblades]

And why is that insane? That's still not an explanation, I don't find any of this insane. Eating a banana to get from London to Peking is insane, how does this compare?

That's just a load of BS that waters down a tribe to the level of any arbitrary group. I might as well claim your tribe of alt-rightists is attacking my tribe of leftists. Given your definition, what would make the word tribe distinct from the word group? There isnt one in this context, that's the point; your identifying with a group called liberal or progressive or whatever, produces the same behavior as to those who identify with the group called british. Both nation and all the other groupings of humanity hold and produce the same tendancy and capacity towards moderation, extremism, support for the fellow and hostility to the dissenter.

Trying to lable the national idenity as an "outdated structural thought pattern" is an arbitrary dismissal by one who has fooled himself into believeing that the protection his national identity providee is no longer needed.

In more modern terms, I am a briton, I am obligated to do my bit and even die to defend my countrymen in their time of need because I know that every member would do the same for me.

It is because it is the national identity that provides the greatest protection to myself that to allow such ambivilence at the fate of a tribesman in myself is insane. It will only encourage such reluctance among my fellow tribe members thus weaken the tribe's structure a whole and undermine it's ability to protect me. It is insane because undermining it goes against the human survival instinct.


What are you talking about? Carrot in this context refers to something that makes it attractive for them not to despise us or to leave the ghetto etc.
If being intolerant of sharia police, ghettos and easily retractable self exile to a terrorist hotspots are viewed as sticks to them 0then I dont want them here.
Also, what, subsidizing their buying of new homes isnt a carrot for leaving the ghetto?


Since we were just on the topic of insanity...
How would you enforce a muslim per square kilometer ratio and would you separate families to enforce it etc.?
Do you seriously think it would encourage them to assimilate? Do you force them to live in areas where they can't afford the rent? Will the neighbors gladly pay their rent?I would deny them the priveledge to buy housing in areas that have reached a predetermined limit of muslim households. The assimilation encouragment comes from no longer living in a place where not assimiliating is an easy option, where not knowing the language or the customs of the locals is as hard a status to maintain as it is for every other minority group.

I think you are mistaking "Thought mutti merkel forbade" for insanity, again.


That's bullshit, it's well-proven that they're less likely to get jobs and so on. Some government measures alone do not make a group privileged. As for religious membership being voluntary and the related bullshit, why do we have freedom of religion in modern democracies then? It's also just an a-hole move to say on the one hand that the group is oppressing some of its members to conform to its values and then to justify group punishments based on group membership being voluntary... Why are you so certain the reasons they are less likely to get jobs are not caused at least in part by thier own behavior and customs? For example if they cant speak english, as 22% of muslim women in the UK cannot, (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35338413) it is ludicrous think the burden of fault is on racism that these people would have trouble getting jobs in an english society. I find your assumption of one sided fault on the local's part for the muslim community's state as shallow and ideologically motivated.

Priveledge: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
"education is a right, not a privilege"
synonyms: advantage, right, benefit, prerogative, entitlement, birthright, due;

They recive tolerances that no other group recieves from the government and society, intentionally and otherwise, by definition they are priveledged.


You weren't advocating punishing the government but the muslims for the failed government initiatives, there is no absurdity to be found in questioning that. If your point is that the muslims are so terrible that the government's great ideas didn't work on them, then you're not questioning the government...otherwise why punish the muslims for that? Punishment indicates retaliation, these measures are not retaliatory but precautionary. I acknowledge the theoretical nature of islam being voluntary in the post you quote but what remains is a group whose majority reject any internal and external attempts to amend the philosophy which regularly drive members to violence.

The government failed, and was replaced by one who promised to try harder than the previous. The muslims are the constant, their communities uncooperative, members often abusive to eachother and everyone around them. Occasionaly they turn violent, even treasonous.

Such a state is intolerable, the public's patience is finite and their eventual retaliation is unpleseant to contemplate. I would avoid such a break by undermining that which prevents integration, if I have to suspend their indulgeances so be it, to do otherwise would be to accept eventual bloodshed and if they do not like it they can leave.


That's also bullshit, how can a democracy work well if a significant part of the voters is oppressed? A dictatorship of the majority is not a true democracy. HoreTore already explained this numerous times. A simple Google search also results in several sources on the subject of core democratic values. It is a strange form of democratic oppresion that does not impede their ability to partake the democratic process.


That's a simplified and biased view. Your country conquered most of theirs and still wages war down there for its own interests. So you keep hurting them just as well. How much one-sided islamic terrorism existed in Europe before colonialism? The whole scary scenario about the people rising against them sounds more like a threat or something you hope for than something that people who can distinguish between normal muslims and islamic terrorists would actually do. There wasnt any significant amount of islam in western europe to commit islamic terrorism before colonialism. You mistake acknowledgement of a course of action's inevitable outcome for desire, if I and those like me wanted it to happen we would merely have to keep our mouths shut and watch the west march towards the precepice.


Arrogant colonialist bullshit. Your country ruined half the planet with its glory-searching conquest parade and now you try to blame others for the result. Petty, post colonial, borderline marxist, twaddle.

Do you miss the atlantic slave route? The arabian slave markets? The Baraby corsairs? The French Empire?

The Third Reich?

The USSR?


Your impression is irrelevant, your explanation makes no sense.
Come now man, a child knows that the lack of consequence to a taboo only encourages indulgance, though they'd say it with less eloquence, like "who cares, noones watching".


Perhaps NOT throw all the social achievements of the last 300 years over board to give in to some arbitrary fear and your shitty tribalist ideals?
Well your lack of action is making tolerance is going the way of the dodo, so I'd say your utopia is screwed.


You have to prove those statements first before I need to answer them. As long as you're just bullshitting around I don't need any meaningful answers as you can't even prove your bullshit. "the doom of inacion is a certainty" is not only so vague that you could weasel out of almost any reply by saying you meant something else, it is also just a statement that you can't prove. Hence useless rhetoric.

How out of touch are you that I need to prove that the right wing is dominant due to left wing obstinance? That Islamic terrorism isnt some component part of the western democracy?

Have you heard of le pen? She's kind of a big deal these days.

[Dâriûsh]

I would deny them the priveledge to buy housing in areas that have reached a predetermined limit of muslim households. The assimilation encouragment comes from no longer living in a place where not assimiliating is an easy option, where not knowing the language or the customs of the locals is as hard a status to maintain as it is for every other minority group.


Hi. I filled out my Muslim-housing-application-form, mister Greyblades. Can I please live in your neighbourhood?

I happen to know that old Fakhruddin passed away last week, and I know that the elder child of the Hamid family is moving to Stockholm to study next month. So if my girlfriend and I moves in, that should balance the Muslim-budget, right? We sincerely hope our presence will not offend or frighten you too much.

One thing, though. Our cat might be Muslim. Will this upset the balance?

[Gilrandir]

One thing, though. Our cat might be Muslim.

OMG! Have you circumsized him?

[Dâriûsh]

OMG! Have you circumsized him?

Nah, but he keeps meowing in a way that sounds like "Aloha Snackbar" or something.

[Husar]

DP...forum acting up today...

[Husar]

My words was a response to the idea that islamic terrorism was a "cost of doing business" of a western culture. This is false due to the unavoidable fact that if it werent for the presence of a wholey imported religion such events would not occur here. If we had not allowed islamic adheirants into our country this would not have been happening; this 50+ year old's conversion would have been extremely unlikely and his radicalization unthinkable.

If it weren't for us "importing" these people as you say, we wouldn't have this western culture that we have and we'd be more like the countries many of them flee from. How would that be an improvement?


There isnt one in this context, that's the point; your identifying with a group called liberal or progressive or whatever, produces the same behavior as to those who identify with the group called british. Both nation and all the other groupings of humanity hold and produce the same tendancy and capacity towards moderation, extremism, support for the fellow and hostility to the dissenter.

Trying to lable the national idenity as an "outdated structural thought pattern" is an arbitrary dismissal by one who has fooled himself into believeing that the protection his national identity providee is no longer needed.

In more modern terms, I am a briton, I am obligated to do my bit and even die to defend my countrymen in their time of need because I know that every member would do the same for me.

It is because it is the national identity that provides the greatest protection to myself that to allow such ambivilence at the fate of a tribesman in myself is insane. It will only encourage such reluctance among my fellow tribe members thus weaken the tribe's structure a whole and undermine it's ability to protect me. It is insane because undermining it goes against the human survival instinct.

First of all, then your definition of tribalism is useless and not at all what I was talking about originally.
Secondly, I said outdated tribalism, not nationalism, or are you saying tribalism, nationalism and groups are all synonyms now?
The rest is a terribly illogical fallacy because the tribal segregation does not increase your security at all if it leads to even bigger conflicts. One of the results can be seen in the new "conflict" over Gibraltar, you'd have to explain how a nuclear exchange or huge conventional wars over inter-tribal conflicts makes you more secure than a few terror attacks.


If being intolerant of sharia police, ghettos and easily retractable self exile to a terrorist hotspots are viewed as sticks to them 0then I dont want them here.
Also, what, subsidizing their buying of new homes isnt a carrot for leaving the ghetto?

I would deny them the priveledge to buy housing in areas that have reached a predetermined limit of muslim households. The assimilation encouragment comes from no longer living in a place where not assimiliating is an easy option, where not knowing the language or the customs of the locals is as hard a status to maintain as it is for every other minority group.

I think you are mistaking "Thought mutti merkel forbade" for insanity, again.

It's a privilege to buy housing where it is available for sale? What's next? A planned economy and total surveillance?
You're mistaking 1984 for the bible again.


Why are you so certain the reasons they are less likely to get jobs are not caused at least in part by thier own behavior and customs? For example if they cant speak english, as 22% of muslim women in the UK cannot, (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35338413) it is ludicrous think the burden of fault is on racism that these people would have trouble getting jobs in an english society. I find your assumption of one sided fault on the local's part for the muslim community's state as shallow and ideologically motivated.

Priveledge: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
"education is a right, not a privilege"
synonyms: advantage, right, benefit, prerogative, entitlement, birthright, due;

They recive tolerances that no other group recieves from the government and society, intentionally and otherwise, by definition they are priveledged.

I'm not certain that none of it is due to "their own behavior and customs", but that would require inviting them to an interview in the first place. Denying them that based on the cultural connotations of a name is either racism or just a big prejudice, certainly not them being privileged. The reason I find this important is in the bible:

In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Matthew 7:3 - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_7:3
Your assumption that I see only one fault is entirely wrong, I see both and the most immediate one to fix is usually your own, then you get the moral highground to demand that the other fix theirs.

What tolerances do they receive that others do not? They get arrested if they try to kill you, that is not tolerance. Religious freedom counts for everyone and so on.


Punishment indicates retaliation, these measures are not retaliatory but precautionary. I acknowledge the theoretical nature of islam being voluntary in the post you quote but what remains is a group whose majority reject any internal and external attempts to amend the philosophy which regularly drive members to violence.

How do you know this? Can you even know this to a sufficient degree of certainty?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Polls
You might as well ask yourself why Germany gets all the good muslims and you get the bad ones. :dizzy2:
If the only differing factors the host country and a different number of them believe terrorism is justified, then maybe that difference is caused by the behavior of the host country or the culture of the country of origin and not an inherent trait of muslims/the religion they have in common.
So much for "rejecting any external attempts" and their "philosophy" being the sole problem.

And of course it is punishment, you keep citing all the terror attacks that happened or were prevented as evidence for the necessity of your proposed actions and then you say they're precautionary....


The government failed, and was replaced by one who promised to try harder than the previous. The muslims are the constant, their communities uncooperative, members often abusive to eachother and everyone around them. Occasionaly they turn violent, even treasonous.

Such a state is intolerable, the public's patience is finite and their eventual retaliation is unpleseant to contemplate. I would avoid such a break by undermining that which prevents integration, if I have to suspend their indulgeances so be it, to do otherwise would be to accept eventual bloodshed and if they do not like it they can leave.

Rubbish, the constant is how society and the changing governments tried to "fix the muslims", I showed above that muslim behavior is not constant depending on which Western nation they live in. Changing your government does not matter if the new government and society at large continue with the same attitude towards muslims. That's where the constant can be found.

As for the lynch mob you keep threatening with, you're just painting a very ugly pciture of British idiots there, that's about it. Since when do you think government policy should adapt to such blackmailing with a threat of genocide? Might as well ask the government to do what ISIS demands then.


It is a strange form of democratic oppresion that does not impede their ability to partake the democratic process.

You keep harping on about that when I already explained why you're wrong. Can't help you there, my time is also limited.


There wasnt any significant amount of islam in western europe to commit islamic terrorism before colonialism. You mistake acknowledgement of a course of action's inevitable outcome for desire, if I and those like me wanted it to happen we would merely have to keep our mouths shut and watch the west march towards the precepice.

Yes, back then there was "merely" a sultan besieging Vienna and a caliphate or two in Spain. And a few crusadfes into their lands with a massacre or two. Everything was a lot more peaceful. :dizzy2:
The actual question though was why e.g. their soldiers didn't commit suicide terror attacks en masse if that is somehow an inherent part of their faith? They didn't commit terror attacks when their armies could compete with ours. And colonialism is part of the reason many of them live in Britain today in the first place. So as I said the situation today is really your own fault.


Petty, post colonial, borderline marxist, twaddle.

Do you miss the atlantic slave route? The arabian slave markets? The Baraby corsairs? The French Empire?

The Third Reich?

The USSR?

None of that has any relevance to your colonialism ruining half the planet...it's merely a distraction, a smokescreen to hide behind.


Come now man, a child knows that the lack of consequence to a taboo only encourages indulgance, though they'd say it with less eloquence, like "who cares, noones watching".

And that is an answer to the following (my original post you were referring to), how?


Once more you only care about the concerns of the majority and see them as the standard for any action to be taken. That is the same approach that people like Putin and Erdogan as well as many Middle Eastern dictators take. Suppress minority concerns until they're too intimidated to complain or revolt. That's not democratic or fair, it's just another kind of oppression. You're also stating a lot of things that you have not proven at all. That a lack of consequence encourages those who are on the fence for example. Or that it encourages them more than oppression would. Or that inaction was even suggested by anyone as a viable alternative to your ideas...

Oppression is the same as consequence to a taboo? Is a "Christian" Saudi Arabia the kind of country you desire?


Well your lack of action is making tolerance is going the way of the dodo, so I'd say your utopia is screwed.

What lack of action? You keep fighting windmills.


How out of touch are you that I need to prove that the right wing is dominant due to left wing obstinance? That Islamic terrorism isnt some component part of the western democracy?

Have you heard of le pen? She's kind of a big deal these days.

How big is your lack of understanding of my argument that you assume that I think that islamic terrorism were a component part of western democracy? You're fighting windmills again.
How big a deal Le Pen is and whether she stands for right wing dominance will be seen after the French election. Right wing in general was already a big deal for centuries, not sure why you would think I missed that.

[Fragony]

Something that has absolutily nothing to do with Islam just happened n Sweden. Same style, truck-> crowd. What's so fun about it

sometiiiimes I tell myseeelf I'm better of without you *enter saxophone*

ouch, https://mobile.twitter.com/GenvisecInfomap/status/850343914615820288/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geenstijl.nl%2F Not well integrated, when they said you need to spread it out they meant the butter on your bread, put lukefish on it and some pickles

[Kagemusha]

Something that has absolutily nothing to do with Islam just happened n Sweden. Same style, truck-> crowd. What's so fun about it

sometiiiimes I tell myseeelf I'm better of without you *enter saxophone*

ouch, https://mobile.twitter.com/GenvisecInfomap/status/850343914615820288/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geenstijl.nl%2F Not well integrated, when they said you need to spread it out they meant the butter on your bread, put lukefish on it and some pickles

So was the St.Petersburg subway terrorist attack also caused by bad immigration policies. Damn those darn gutmensch liberal Russkies right?

Little more flesh to the Stockholm attack: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/07/truck-crashes-crowd-people-stockholm/

[Fragony]

These are probably stumbling over eachother proving their correctness is the most powerful, like in kungfu-movies

Stockholm, fitting

[Husar]

These are probably stumbling over eachother proving their correctness is the most powerful, like in kungfu-movies

Stockholm, fitting

One could almost think you're stumbling over yourself cheering on the terrorists for attacking the target that proves your correctness the most powerful. But that's just a crazy thought from a crazy wrong person who ain't know kungfu.

[Gilrandir]

So was the St.Petersburg subway terrorist attack also caused by bad immigration policies. Damn those darn gutmensch liberal Russkies right?



There have been opinions expressed that the attack in Petersburg was an FSB product, much as the ones that happened in Russia soon after Putin's ascention. Back then he had needed to consolidate his power and start a war on Chechens. There are some reasons why he needs to tighten the screws now.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/27/europe/russia-protests-explainer/

[Brenus]

And 9/11 was a CIA inside job...

[Fragony]

One could almost think you're stumbling over yourself cheering on the terrorists for attacking the target that proves your correctness the most powerful. But that's just a crazy thought from a crazy wrong person who ain't know kungfu.

I am just the guy that isn't surprised at all, nothing more

[Elmetiacos]

More hysteria from politicians and the meeja, more copycats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok).

[Fragony]

Going amok, must be aswang. #loliknowindonesianwords

[Fragony]

Hilarious http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2017/04/het_syndroom_van_stockfoto.html If you insist on photoshopping use the same resolution dear Swedish media, making it not obvious, you must..

Swedes are even bad at being dumb

[Beskar]

Hilarious http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2017/04/het_syndroom_van_stockfoto.html If you insist on photoshopping use the same resolution dear Swedish media, making it not obvious, you must..

Swedes are even bad at being dumb

? Nothing on the link refers to photoshop.

[Fragony]

? Nothing on the link refers to photoshop.

It just takes comparing resolutions, you'll see. What does it matter anyway, Sweden has commited suicide years ago.

[Greyblades]

If it weren't for us "importing" these people as you say, we wouldn't have this western culture that we have and we'd be more like the countries many of them flee from. How would that be an improvement? Your education is sorely lacking if you think western culture is defined by national suicde.

In fact I dont think you know what western culture is; you impose your self hatred upon the identity and think the self destructive impulse is a core part of the western world.

That may be german culture but it most certainly isnt western.


First of all, then your definition of tribalism is useless and not at all what I was talking about originally.
Secondly, I said outdated tribalism, not nationalism, or are you saying tribalism, nationalism and groups are all synonyms now?
The rest is a terribly illogical fallacy because the tribal segregation does not increase your security at all if it leads to even bigger conflicts. One of the results can be seen in the new "conflict" over Gibraltar, you'd have to explain how a nuclear exchange or huge conventional wars over inter-tribal conflicts makes you more secure than a few terror attacks.
Gibraltar wont turn into a conflict precisely because my tribe is too strong for the spanish to attack.

You panic over posturing and miss the point completely. Tribalism and groups are synonymous, Nationalism is a form of tribe, by your quiet abandonment of the "National identity is outdated" angle and not adopting an argument that your identity is somehow different or superior to national identity, my definition has proven it's worth.


It's a privilege to buy housing where it is available for sale? What's next? A planned economy and total surveillance?
You're mistaking 1984 for the bible again.

It is a privledge for foreigners to dwell wherever they want in a country and there is nothing more foreign than those who desire a ghetto.

Even in america there is no right of free residence.


I'm not certain that none of it is due to "their own behavior and customs", but that would require inviting them to an interview in the first place. Denying them that based on the cultural connotations of a name is either racism or just a big prejudice, certainly not them being privileged. The reason I find this important is in the bible:

Your assumption that I see only one fault is entirely wrong, I see both and the most immediate one to fix is usually your own, then you get the moral highground to demand that the other fix theirs.

What tolerances do they receive that others do not? They get arrested if they try to kill you, that is not tolerance. Religious freedom counts for everyone and so on. They didnt get arrested if they fucked kids for 16 years.

Even now to criticize islam comes at great political risk compared to any other group: just last election the labour party was promising to impose a blasphemy law (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417612/outlawing-islamophobia-would-be-folly-mr-miliband-charles-c-w-cooke) against those accused of islamaphobia.

I refer you to the words of the late Christopher Hitchens for a more comprehensive assessment of the state of the nation when it comes to islam:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0Q6DtfUynQ

He also covers the word's use and nebulous definition.


How do you know this? Can you even know this to a sufficient degree of certainty?
The quran cannot be changed, that is a core tenat of islam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Polls
You might as well ask yourself why Germany gets all the good muslims and you get the bad ones. :dizzy2:
If the only differing factors the host country and a different number of them believe terrorism is justified, then maybe that difference is caused by the behavior of the host country or the culture of the country of origin and not an inherent trait of muslims/the religion they have in common.
So much for "rejecting any external attempts" and their "philosophy" being the sole problem.
Those numbers are from 2007, from before you stopped vetting your muslims to a greater degree than ours. I think you are underestimating the german muslim demographics of the time; you favoured the secular state of turkey and thus got secular turkish muslims, we favoured the islamic pakistan and ended up with islamist pakistani muslims.

I point to the fairly recent poll that shows islamic communities out of step with the majority of the British population on many issues the most glaring being the issue of homosexuality.
52% do not believe that homosexuality should be legal in Britain (http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/c4-survey-and-documentary-reveals-what-british-muslims-really-think)
The survey also shows 23% support the introduction of Sharia Law, 32% refuse to condemn those who take part in violence against those who mock the Prophet, 39% agree that “wives should always obey their husbands” and that only 34% would inform the police if they thought somebody they knew was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria.

The islamic population still exhibits such views in spite of the continuing constant, nigh propagandic, push in the favour of progressivism in the 9 years between your poll and mine. This tells me islam has a resistance to change that outshines every other demographic.


And of course it is punishment, you keep citing all the terror attacks that happened or were prevented as evidence for the necessity of your proposed actions and then you say they're precautionary.... ...What, you think that there isnt any more attempts on the horizon?

Stop wasting my braincells with such embarrasing attempts at imprinting base motive, When the logic is sound and the need apparant the angle of the advocate is insignificant.


Rubbish, the constant is how society and the changing governments tried to "fix the muslims", I showed above that muslim behavior is not constant depending on which Western nation they live in. Changing your government does not matter if the new government and society at large continue with the same attitude towards muslims. That's where the constant can be found.

As for the lynch mob you keep threatening with, you're just painting a very ugly pciture of British idiots there, that's about it. Since when do you think government policy should adapt to such blackmailing with a threat of genocide? Might as well ask the government to do what ISIS demands then.
You are souless or stupid if you think even the most tolerant of people has no breaking point; even your own saintly germans are starting to turn against the abusive guests, at a greater rate than my own I might add.

Blackmail indicates that the person proclaiming it could stop it if they wanted. You cant stop resentment without stopping the source and the source is the adheirants of islam raping your children.


You keep harping on about that when I already explained why you're wrong. Can't help you there, my time is also limited. You havent; thats why I harp, you want to waste time by clinging to a warped definition of demicratic why shouldnt I waste yours?


Yes, back then there was "merely" a sultan besieging Vienna and a caliphate or two in Spain. And a few crusadfes into their lands with a massacre or two. Everything was a lot more peaceful. :dizzy2: Vienna didnt fall and the spanish caliphate's influence was exterminated after the reconquiesta. Islam didnt stick.


The actual question though was why e.g. their soldiers didn't commit suicide terror attacks en masse if that is somehow an inherent part of their faith? They didn't commit terror attacks when their armies could compete with ours. And colonialism is part of the reason many of them live in Britain today in the first place. So as I said the situation today is really your own fault.
They didnt commit terror attacks because terror attacks require civillian infiltation, which was impossible due to the absence of islam in the west and a complete rejection of islamic peoples in the border areas. As for suicide attacks, you've never heard of the forlorne hope?


None of that has any relevance to your colonialism ruining half the planet...it's merely a distraction, a smokescreen to hide behind.
Again. Petty, post colonial, borderline marxist, twaddle.

Those thing were ended by the british empire and it's offspring, half of them likely would still be here were it not for us.

Truly it was to ruin to the world that we decided to kill slavery where we found it(!)

The longer most places were under us the better off they turned out and it was your empire that cut the process short.


And that is an answer to the following (my original post you were referring to), how?

Oppression is the same as consequence to a taboo? Is a "Christian" Saudi Arabia the kind of country you desire?

That a lack of consequence encourages those who are on the fence for example. Or that it encourages them more than oppression would.
If a child wants to do something his parents have disallowed and he thinks he can get away with it unnoticed he will try. That impulse does not magically dissapear with adulthood. People pirate things all the time despite illegality because it is beneficial to them and almost impossible to be caught.
Thus a lack of consequence encourages those who are on the fence, and that it encourages them more than "oppression" would.

Incidentally your referring to the removal of funding from terror states, consequences for harrassmnent of non muslims and advocating islamic extremism as "oppression" is as absurd as the pirate calling the possibility of being sued for copyright infringement: oppression.


What lack of action? You keep fighting windmills. Windmills that try to cover up the raping of kids and downplay murdering with trucks. See you and sweden.

How you can keep denying reality at this point is beyond me.


How big is your lack of understanding of my argument that you assume that I think that islamic terrorism were a component part of western democracy? You're fighting windmills again.

You have to prove those statements first before I need to answer them
*drops mic*

[Greyblades]

Stockholm attack driver 'deliberately targeted young children' as he drove hijacked lorry into crowd (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/07/truck-crashes-crowd-people-stockholm/)

Your nation bends over backwards to accomidate islam, you stay out of wars against their friends, you pay millions into supporting their relatives at home, you drive yourself towards bankruptcy to accomidate their refugees and still someone will try to kill your kids in the name of allah.

[Gilrandir]

Incidentally Your referring to the removal of funding from terror states, consequences for harrassmnent of non muslims and advocating islamic extremism as "oppression" is as absurd as the pirate calling the possibility of being sued for copyright infringement: oppression.


Most likely it is accidental, but I like the look of it. Sounds almost like Your Grace or Your Highness.

[Husar]

Your education is sorely lacking if you think western culture is defined by national suicde.

In fact I dont think you know what western culture is; you impose your self hatred upon the identity and think the self destructive impulse is a core part of the western world.

That may be german culture but it most certainly isnt western.

That's such terrible propaganda full of loaded alt-right-PC-language that I once again tell you good bye, rest was tl;dr for that reason.

Pointless to bother with this any further.

[Fragony]

Stockholm attack driver 'deliberately targeted young children' as he drove hijacked lorry into crowd (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/07/truck-crashes-crowd-people-stockholm/)

Your nation bends over backwards to accomidate islam, you stay out of wars against their friends, you pay millions into supporting their relatives at home, you drive yourself towards bankruptcy to accomidate their refugees and still someone will try to kill your kids in the name of allah.

The land of the Stephard Husbands is simply commiting suicide. With a smile.

I don't know this site or it's content, havent looked, but this cartoon is Sweden in a nutshell https://www.google.nl/search?q=are+you+blind+too&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj90duy9J7TAhVkB8AKHUaYCVEQ_AUIBigB&biw=1280&bih=611#safe=active&tbm=isch&q=are+you+blind+too+islam&imgrc=M8ofIFYoQ3g4uM:

[Greyblades]

That's such terrible propaganda full of loaded alt-right-PC-language that I once again tell you good bye, rest was tl;dr for that reason.

Pointless to bother with this any further.

It's easier to call a challenge propaganda and flee than stand to defend the core of your beliefs. just as it is easier to call ideas alt right than attempt to debate them.

Run, Coward. Die for your leaders' selfish persuit of virtuous legacy if you must, but spare us the posturing of your blind indoctrination.

[Sarmatian]

You have to put an argument worth debating for someone to engage in a debate with you.

Immigrants are good because there are elephants in Africa! Debate me, coward!

[Montmorency]

бесполезно

[Strike For The South]

Cyrillic is trash

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Cyrillic is trash

Should that be Cyrillic is Корзина?

[Montmorency]

Should that be Cyrillic is Корзина?

Cyrillic in a basket?

[Sarmatian]

Stop ruining the bestest alphabet in the world.

[Gilrandir]

Should that be Cyrillic is Корзина?

Trash is literally мусор.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trash is literally мусор.

My google trans effort has failed yet again

[Brenus]

My google trans effort has failed yet again

Long time ago, I wrote a book about my adventures in Bosnia, in French. I wanted to share it with English friends, and started to use google trans. The result was a disaster... So, the book being more than 100 pages, I just stopped,:laugh4:

[Gilrandir]

It is amazing to see how a thread on terrorism in Britain has devolved into discussing the shortcomings of Cyrillic alphabet and Google translator.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Long time ago, I wrote a book about my adventures in Bosnia, in French. I wanted to share it with English friends, and started to use google trans. The result was a disaster... So, the book being more than 100 pages, I just stopped,:laugh4:

You didn't translate it yourself?

I wanted to read it :(

[Montmorency]

Long time ago, I wrote a book about my adventures in Bosnia, in French. I wanted to share it with English friends, and started to use google trans. The result was a disaster... So, the book being more than 100 pages, I just stopped,:laugh4:

Send it to Martin Windrow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Windrow)? :P

[Sarmatian]

It is amazing to see how a thread on terrorism in Britain has devolved into discussing the shortcomings of Cyrillic alphabet and Google translator.

There are no shortcomings of Cyrillic alphabet. It is the Rolls Royce of alphabets. If there was an Olympics for alphabets, Cyrillic would dominate.

[Tristuskhan]

It is amazing to see how a thread on terrorism in Britain has devolved into discussing the shortcomings of Cyrillic alphabet and Google translator.

Cyrilic is great: that's the only thing I did not forget from five years learning russian (well, 30 years ago)

Just too many threads on terrorism... Throwing a "ж" or a "ч" starts the alphabetic war? My bet on the Thai one. I wonder why we keep starting threads for every terrorist act in western europe: motivations are the same, reactions are the same, blood is blood, and orphans, orphans.
SFTS has started a spree of alphabetic brutality: that's most refreshing and I'd love it to keep us happy until the next (true) slaughter. No motivations, no blood, no orphans. Just plain conflict on an abstract matter*.
Thinking about it another way would kick it out of the backroom anyway.

*damn, just like wars of religion, but without tears normally.

[Pannonian]

There are no shortcomings of Cyrillic alphabet. It is the Rolls Royce of alphabets. If there was an Olympics for alphabets, Cyrillic would dominate.

Alphabets are passe. Character sets are where it's at.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There are no shortcomings of Cyrillic alphabet. It is the Rolls Royce of alphabets. If there was an Olympics for alphabets, Cyrillic would dominate.

It's neither Latin, nor Greek, nor Hebrew, nor Han Chinese.

:rtwno:

:knuddel:

[Sarmatian]

It's neither Latin, nor Greek, nor Hebrew, nor Han Chinese.

:rtwno:

:knuddel:

All inferior cultures. Proof? If they weren't inferior, they would have developed Cyrillic alphabet.

[Montmorency]

If they weren't inferior, they would have developed Cyrillic alphabet.

Waiiit a second... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_Cyril_and_Methodius)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All inferior cultures. Proof? If they weren't inferior, they would have developed Cyrillic alphabet.

Actually, the Greeks DID develop it.

To teach the Slavs about God.

[Sarmatian]

They developed Glagolitic alphabet, on which Cyrillic is based.

Greeks are slightly better than the rest of you barbarians.

[Gilrandir]

It's neither Latin, nor Greek, nor Hebrew, nor Han Chinese.


Chinese doesn't use alphabet. The latter is a haphazard number of symbols representing sounds (or combinations of sounds). Chinese characters represent words.

Generally, seeing the ardour of the discussion in this thread I would assume that Cyrillic alphabet is a literal attack on British democracy.

[Gilrandir]

Greeks are slightly better than the rest of you barbarians.

You think so because they don't owe your country anything.

[Pannonian]

Chinese doesn't use alphabet. The latter is a haphazard number of symbols representing sounds (or combinations of sounds). Chinese characters represent words.

Generally, seeing the ardour of the discussion in this thread I would assume that Cyrillic alphabet is a literal attack on British democracy.

It depends on how the alphabet is arranged. There is a (probably apocryphal) story about British bombers dropping leaflets on Germany during the early stages of WWII. An absent-minded bombardier forget to undo the strings of one package before shoving it out of the door, and another crew member admonished him, "Careful, you might hurt somebody like that."

[Gilrandir]

It depends on how the alphabet is arranged.


Traditionally, alphabet has no systematic arrangement. There is no reason why A is followed by B and the latter by C and so on. An attempt to turn it into reasonable system was made by Tolkien when he created Tengwar.
http://www.omniglot.com/conscripts/tengwar.htm

[Montmorency]

Chinese doesn't use alphabet. The latter is a haphazard number of symbols representing sounds (or combinations of sounds). Chinese characters represent words.

Generally, seeing the ardour of the discussion in this thread I would assume that Cyrillic alphabet is a literal attack on British democracy.

Chinese characters are broken down into both phonetic and semantic components. The forms are not un-analyzable. As for whether the system is "more" phonetic than semantic, or vice-versa, is debated.

[Pannonian]

Traditionally, alphabet has no systematic arrangement. There is no reason why A is followed by B and the latter by C and so on. An attempt to turn it into reasonable system was made by Tolkien when he created Tengwar.
http://www.omniglot.com/conscripts/tengwar.htm

Like in the example I gave. If you bundle 5 lbs of leaflets written in the Cyrillic alphabet, tie it all up with a bit of string, and chuck the bundle out of an airplane at 10,000 ft, to land on the Houses of Commons, it can be construed as a direct attack on British democracy.

[Beskar]

There is the Shavian Alphabet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavian_alphabet

Effectively it is to give each sound its own letter within the English language. Though someone decided on those shapes to represent the letters, on the basis that it could be done with a single written stroke.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They developed Glagolitic alphabet, on which Cyrillic is based.

Greeks are slightly better than the rest of you barbarians.

I love the irony of this, since we have that word thanks to the ancient Greeks....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Like in the example I gave. If you bundle 5 lbs of leaflets written in the Cyrillic alphabet, tie it all up with a bit of string, and chuck the bundle out of an airplane at 10,000 ft, to land on the Houses of Commons, it can be construed as a direct attack on British democracy.

Does Keeping up with the Kardashians also constitute such an attack or does it represent a more broadly targeted terrorist effort?

[Pannonian]

Does Keeping up with the Kardashians also constitute such an attack or does it represent a more broadly targeted terrorist effort?

If the bindings hold, then it constitutes a targeted terrorist strike. If the bindings come undone, so the pages fly out all over London, then it's the equivalent of a dirty bomb, with a wide area of contamination.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They developed Glagolitic alphabet, on which Cyrillic is based.

Greeks are slightly better than the rest of you barbarians.

Damn it, if I only had three legions I'd show you what for!

#MakeRomeGreatAgain

[Pannonian]

Damn it, if I only had three legions I'd show you what for!

#MakeRomeGreatAgain

Are you trying to make yourself a king? Consuls make do with two legions.

[Sarmatian]

Maybe he was channeling his inner Varus.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Are you trying to make yourself a king? Consuls make do with two legions.

They used 8 at Cannae....albeit not well enough.

[Gilrandir]

Chinese characters are broken down into both phonetic and semantic components. The forms are not un-analyzable. As for whether the system is "more" phonetic than semantic, or vice-versa, is debated.

Not all characters are complex, there are simple ones, unanalyzable. But even in the two-component hieroglyphs the phonetic element doesn't represent a sound or a combination of sounds, but rather shows the way the whole symbol is pronounced. Moreover, the number of characters (several dozens thousands) is definitely greater than alphabetical systems include (several dozens). So in no way Chinese script can be counted among alphabetic ones.