What's Afro-Caribbean anyway? I mean the Caribean is part of the American continent isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Printable View
What's Afro-Caribbean anyway? I mean the Caribean is part of the American continent isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Were you to say 'African-American' or AfroAmerican, you would be lumping those folks in the Caribean, which has had a different political/cultural/racial history with those who come from the USA. Afro-Caribean allows for you to refer to Jamaicans and Barbadoans as all one group, but not in the same group as Cornell West or Samuel L. Jackson, for example.
Personally, and this is aimed at all of us, not just African folks, the time is long overdue when we should all be answering 'American' and dropping the hyphen.
Okay, I don't have the time or the inclination to read through 5 pages of steam, can somebody condense the arguments a bit for me? This is probably going to knock some of you out of your tree, but personally, I don't see any problem with this... what's the difference between this and say the Knights of Columbus (Catholics) or the Holy Ghost Society (Portugese-Americans, also Catholic?) Free association includes the right to NOT include everyone in your group, should you so choose....
Someone who (well at least used to) plays cricket rather then baseball.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Well A.Saturnus, all I can say is fork you very much, all these non-lefties and their sweeping generalisations huh. This has to be the most insulting post directed at me ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
fu&die.
eh, was a bit too hasty, didn't read the disclaimers afterwards. Still not flattering at all, but I guess I can be insulting to muslim orgers as well.
For your informations, screw these baldies just as much, any extremism scares the crap out of me.
Well one side of the arguement is what you said above, the other side is that some people feel that the themepark shouldn't change just to accomodate Muslims, and that this episode is symptomatic of a lack of willingness of a certain segment of the Muslim population to integrate with the wider British culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
IMO both sides have valid arguements, I fall more into the second group because I feel that is you come here you should make an effort to integrate and blend in. That said I wouldn't expect them to totally give up their culture and certainly not their religion.
We have an old saying here "Don't talk about religion, politics or football." In Britain religion is a private affair reserved for the home and the church, many Muslim immigrants make it the central issue of who they are and how they view others.
That grates on the rest of us.
Trouble with statements like this is that many of those who make them can't define the British culture that the Muslim population are meant to blend in with. Care to have a go an prove me wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
God preserve us from this idea. I don't want to live in a country where people are pressurized to blend in. I want to wear the clothes I want and listen to the music I like and participate in the culture that I enjoy. I don't want to be the same as everyone else. In fact isn't this idea profoundly un-British? Don't we value freedom and diversity?Quote:
blend in
I have never heard the football part, but the reason religion is in the list is that in the not too distant past, we couln't stop fighting about religion and any discussion of it was bound to lead to quarrels and, maybe, violence and this fighting was between Christians. On reflection, these days maybe football belongs in the list.Quote:
We have an old saying here "Don't talk about religion, politics or football."
But do they? I live in Bradford so I meet Moslems every day. The only one who has ever spoken about their religion is my neighbours daughter and she only asked if the food I was cooking was halal.Quote:
In Britain religion is a private affair reserved for the home and the church, many Muslim immigrants make it the central issue of who they are and how they view others.
Don is right. There is no problem with this at all. They pay their money and enjoy Alton Towers in the way they want. They express their freedom to associate with who they want when they want anywhere they can afford. Very British.
The theme park is "British". It caters for lots of different people of different beliefs, ages and skin colours. The only thing required is money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
Some feel that to go there they have had to radically alter what is at the theme park.
In this instance they have to blend in with the usual running of the theme park. To purchase tickets and go to rides like any other British person woud do.
~:smoking:
Exactly, this is the crux of the matter, it really doesn't seem to bother anyone else, just this segment of the Muslim population. When I say blend in I mean try not to rub others up the wrong way and just get along in Britain.
I'll give it a shot.Quote:
Trouble with statements like this is that many of those who make them can't define the British culture that the Muslim population are meant to blend in with. Care to have a go an prove me wrong?
Every year we have weak long celebration of May-day in my town, on the Thursday we crown a little girl May Queen and the children take part in May Pole and traditional country dancing. On the Friday we have the "Round the tree race" where runners run from the start in the town square to a tree stump, around and back. On the Saturday there is a carnival procession with an older "Carnival Queen" and on Sunday we have a church service.
In the spring there are Morris dancering competitions in the city of Exeter, the principal city in the county
On the 11th of November we have a procession down to the memorial including a military guard provided by the local Cadet Detachment.
We have celebrations at Easter and Christmas, admittedly these are quasi-religious but they are accomanied by secular events.
Once or twice a year the Cadet Detachment Beats the Retreat with the town marching band, which compeates with other marching bands in the region.
We have a harvest festival as well, at least when the multi-culturalists aren't telling us we shouldn't, we don't have many of them down here but they did make a fuss in one village and get it stopped that year.
We have local Cricket, Football and Rugby teams.
We have a Mayor and a Council of Aldermen.
In Yorkshire they still have lonsword dancing.
Is that enough culture for you?
[qutoe]I have never heard the football part, but the reason religion is in the list is that in the not too distant past, we couln't stop fighting about religion and any discussion of it was bound to lead to quarrels and, maybe, violence and this fighting was between Christians. On reflection, these days maybe football belongs in the list.[/quote]
It has nothing to do with religious war, its still in circulation in may places. It means if you meet a guy in a pub you should avoid talking about religion, football or politics because all three a private business and you don't need to discuss them with strangers anyway, not least because they can engender stroll feelings.
Its not about avoiding violence, its just about being polite.
I never said it was all Muslims by a long way, but you don't hear people when they don't complain. Your last statement sounds very American but not very English.Quote:
But do they? I live in Bradford so I meet Moslems every day. The only one who has ever spoken about their religion is my neighbours daughter and she only asked if the food I was cooking was halal.
Don is right. There is no problem with this at all. They pay their money and enjoy Alton Towers in the way they want. They express their freedom to associate with who they want when they want anywhere they can afford. Very British.
Have you not noticed that we put up with everything? Well, until we snap.
There is nothing particularly "British" about a theme park and I am not quite sure how they "cater" for different beliefs. However, you are right about the money part, and if you have enough money you can book the whole park and then perhaps sell tickets to whoever you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rory_20_uk
I don't suppose the theme park will be changed at all.
The normal running of the theme park includes the facility to book the whole park. This is what has been done. Why is this not "blending in"?Quote:
In this instance they have to blend in with the usual running of the theme park. To purchase tickets and go to rides like any other British person woud do.
At least you had a go and it's a good list but:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
I have never seen a May pole and I hate country dancing. I think Morris dancing is silly, I find football boring and marching bands terrible. Am I British enough or should I blend in more? Lots of other nations celebrate Christmas and mark 11th November. See the problem?
Check our history and find out when the convention about avoiding discussing religion in polite society started and you will realise it is all about avoiding conflict, violence and, as you say, engendering strong feelings.Quote:
Its not about avoiding violence, its just about being polite.
A horrible thing to say, but now I read it in black and white you may be right. I must lie down and think of roast beef and warm beer.Quote:
Your last statement sounds very American but not very English.
This may be a better description of Britishness than your first effort, but lets not extradite everyone with a quick temper for being un-English.Quote:
Have you not noticed that we put up with everything? Well, until we snap.
But the theme park is in britain, and hence is part of modern britain.
It caters for everybody equally. That was the point. Everyone is treated the same.
By not just going up to it they are not blending in. They have brought rules that would not be out of place in the middle ages.
They are not buying it out as it's a business' yearly money waster. They've done so to ensure that the usual "British" rules can be ignored and nothing will be seen that offends their imported values.
~:smoking:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
What's the name of that excellent curryhouse just past the lights at the top of Leeds Rd......ahh that's Ahkbars, try it out. :2thumbsup:
You will have to book a table though, especially at the weekend (count Thursday in that)...me? I go for the take-away.
Ohh BTW it's probably 'Halal' so be careful. :laugh4:
He's right you know. I live in the same city and I have to say the the Moslems that I know and speak to regard themselves as English. So sort that one out the people on this thread who think the guys should integrate.
Bradford has a lot of Moslems about 35-40% of the population are Moslem, good job I like curry. :laugh4:
Can I point out that I'm less bothered with booking the park than the reasons for it. Citing an un-Islamic environment as the reason for not going. If you read the post made on the Islamic forum you find it strikes an unsettling chord. That's what bothers me. Oh, and they are making changes to some of the park, check the first postQuote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
Thankyou, I am rural though, and Southern, so it isn't all universal but I think I can come up with something more universal:Quote:
At least you had a go and it's a good list but:
I have never seen a May pole and I hate country dancing. I think Morris dancing is silly, I find football boring and marching bands terrible. Am I British enough or should I blend in more? Lots of other nations celebrate Christmas and mark 11th November. See the problem?
Sunday Roast
Fish and Chips
Being for a good war, so long as we're home by the next bank holiday
Being tollerant and polite
Standing in ques
Sniping at the French
Everyone in the UK making fun of everyone else
Being good soldiers
Getting dressed up
Real Ale
Wisky
Stiff upper lip.
I am quite aware of our history but its not an ancient pearl of wisdom and it applies today, in a pub, and not just between Jews and Catholics. As I said before the English came to the conclusion religion was private to stop arguements.Quote:
Check our history and find out when the convention about avoiding discussing religion in polite society started and you will realise it is all about avoiding conflict, violence and, as you say, engendering strong feelings.
Don't worry mate, next time the Americans start and red neck rant we can have stiff upper lips together.Quote:
A horrible thing to say, but now I read it in black and white you may be right. I must lie down and think of roast beef and warm beer.
It does rather capture the essence, doesn't it, actually I think it's a very British trait, one which some minoreties and some Muslims in particular abuse. The thing is, we haven't snapped yet. The current generation is growing up ticked-off with multi-culturalism and tollerance. God forbid the BNP get someone intelligant in-charge.Quote:
This may be a better description of Britishness than your first effort, but lets not extradite everyone with a quick temper for being un-English.
It'll be worse than Holland will be in a few more years.
So is Ahkbars on the Leeds Road and my own favourite Mumtaz on Great Horton Road. Of course Mumtaz is run by Moslems so you can't buy alcohol and if you go there at dusk during Ramadan they give you iftar foods free before your meal. If the founders of Mumtaz were so keen on "blending in" it would be a fish and chip restraunt or greasy spoon cafe. Fortunately it isn't. Every church, mosque and temple in Britain is, by your definition, part of modern Britain but I would be happy to go with that idea.Quote:
But the theme park is in britain, and hence is part of modern britain.
What I don't understand is why a group of people booking a venue for a private function and then imposing their own rules is such a bad thing. Would the same objections be applied to naturists or star trek enthusiasts. The day was available to book. They booked it. Seems fine to me. Also what are these "British" rules that Alton Towers usually has? ~:confused:
Ragnar, you're so lucky we're not in a pub. I find your sentiments disgusting
Wigferth , are you in the "if you cannot introduce a fascist to a reasonable point of view , introduce his head to the floor " club ?:2thumbsup:
Well what would he do in a pub? Where would this pub be located id be happy to come and have a drink sometime..
I find you get better leverage if you introduce it to the wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
While I dislike attempts to force change in British culture, I'll never be a multi-culturalist and I tend to view English culture as preferable simply because its mine I find pretty much everything in Ragnar's posts disgusting.
Anyone who comes to Britain and subscibes to the core values of British culture and particually joins the Army is definately British, if not English.
Here's my problem:
In other words they object to others drinking, gambling or playing music and thats why they don't want to go to Alton Towers, because its full of unbelievers.Quote:
The entire park has been booked out for a muslim day on Sunday 17th September 2006 inshaAllah. There will be no music, alcohol or gambling machines. All childrens' areas will be limited to sisters only. There will be many stalls, plenty of halal food and designated prayer areas inshaAllah.
This is the first time anything like this has been done. Many of us including myself love theme parks but are put off by the unislamic environment, now's your chance to experience the thrills of the park in a halal environment inshaAllah!
No one forces them to do these things, except maybe listen to the music but even then they can go to a different part of the park.
I rarely drink and I have no patience will people that get drunk, I think gambling is pathetic and I don't like pop music but that doesn't mean I can't tolerate other people's vices.
It shows they are unwilling to tolerate these things in a country where there are accepted and part of the status quo.
I tolerate smokers but you can bet that if I rent a pub for a privat occasion, everyone who smokes gets thrown out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Then you don't tolerate them really, not if you can discrinate against them, you just tolerate them when you have no choice, thats not really tolerance.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
If you were really tolerant towards them you wouldn't bar them from your pub.
I´m also not tolerant towards smokers because they don´t tolerate my desire for fresh air and a longer life.:juggle2:
And what exactly is the problem with that? They pay for it, they can make the rules. Surely using cold hard cash is a lot more Western than firebombing the place where infidels play filthy games and drink alcohol?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Why do some people insist on not looking what all this implicates? Sure they can hire a park if they want, and the people that say that it would be worse if there were any laws to prevent that are 100% correct(well not really, for some people they exist of course), but that has nothing to do with it, at all. It's not about 'should they be allowed to', why not ask 'why do they want to'? This is going nowhere, two discussions in one...
It's because of the scale, Frag. If this was happening at a theme park once a week then it would be correct to worry about it, as you say, not because it shouldn't be allowed but because but because the fact they want to suggests that they see themselves as separate. However, since this is a one-off I think we can afford to be relaxed about it. Most Moslems are quite happy to enjoy (or not) Alton Towers as it is. You can't expect everyone to be comfortable with current culture and mores, so if a few people feel the need to change the atmosphere at Alton Towers once in a while to enjoy it more there is not really a problem.
My question for you (and others) is: "Why are you so worried about this?" Are you extrapolating the views of some Moslems to all, or do you feel that all Moslems should blend in completely?
It's important for another debate, namely the integration as a whole. There are problems with muslims in the west, and people try to shove that on non-existant things that supposedly force muslims into isolation. My point is that that this isolation is voluntary, and as long as that isn't recognised as such it's of no use having discussions about what we can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
Not entirely non-existant and voluntary then.Quote:
Originally Posted by someone who is not Fragony so I don't think this is Frag's view but is an example of views that some people hold
To me your answer shows the former of the two possibilities. A tiny minority of Moslems are going to Alton Towers on an Islamic day. You generalise this to problems with Moslems in the west.
No, but not our doing either, it's enforced from within their own communities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
I generalise the multicultural wishthinking in the west, always seeking the blame by theirselves, oh what did we do wrong, let's spend a few more millions on the emancipating of this lot. Muslims tend to have as little contact with westerners as possible, fine with me really, their choice, I just don't accept to be blaimed for it. It is not the west not accepting them, it's the other way around. If we could just realise that we could fire at least half the government with their constant whining.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
Neither am I, I'd ban it if I could but I put up with it because I have to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Broadly I think Fragony is right, its not this one incident, everything you've said is true, its the implication.
These people do not want to integrate and the fact that they went to the trouble of block-booking the park suggests there are a considerable number of them, enough to make it viable.
That is a worry and if it goes well once of course they'll do it again.
It's symptomatic of a lack of willingness to integrate and that worries me.
I found this in my copy of last week's paper. It's written by a British Muslim and I suggest everyone here read it. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...7-2252571.html
That's entirely fine with me. According to your definition, I'm not tolerant of smokers (just as you). But the point is: I don't have to be tolerant of smokers. I have to accept them as far as the law allows them to smoke. But no one can insist that I would have to tolerate them where I'm not required to by law. The same is true for the examples of culture you gave above. Culture is voluntary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Yes, but you please read the source above, then you'll understand why I'm worried.
Lovely :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Ah well, christians burned witches, and I cannot stress enough that christians burned witches, did I mention that christians burned witches? They also burned witches by the way. Everything is fine, we all love eachother, explosions are an optical illusion, we don't think so we don't need heads, kebab tastes awesome and christians burned witches.
Hey, if they want to hire a theme park for the day they can. If they want rules about who can attend their party and what food they want then they can. No problem, they paid their money and are harming no one. I see no wider issue here. What I do see is one or two Orgahs who need hitting with the banstick. Or an actual stick.
This is a discussion forum sweetcheeks, not Dontwannahearitstan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
Maybe you like it better here, http://www.indymedia.co.uk/
no need to thank me :balloon2:
Well I do and it's illustated very well in the link I post a couple of posts ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
An article from the Sunday Times written by a Muslim Jounalist who who spent six weeks in Beeston, a suberb of Leeds. According to him all the locals think that the White Westerner is out to get them, that the bombings in America and London were faked and that there's nothing in the Koran about not killing civilians.
This is a population that is not only not integrating but who see themselves surrounded by enemies that want to wipe them off the face of the planet.
Why don't you actually read the article, then judge whether I'm some kind of Nazi or not.
It is, but it's also The Sunday Times, that is Rupert Murdoch's posh version of The Sun. Reading between the lines it appears that a reporter, that happens to be muslim, went under cover in the muslim community and spoke to a few people, uncovering evidence of irrational extremism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
This is not a majority thing, it's a minority of fanatics trying, and usually failing, to pervert their fellow muslims to their warped ideals. It's also plain and simple ignorance (not race/religion specific). This is not a big revelation of "all muslims denying 9/11".
I have a feeling that an undercover operation among other ethnic groups would yield similar results of disguised prejudices and irrational fears of "the muslims are going to take over" etc.
You wouldn't want to hear what some of my friends and relatives think of foreigners. None of them has ever lost his job or girlfriend to a foreigner, no one's been robbed or assaulted. I don't think they've even spoken to anyone more foreign than the guys in the local pizza/kebab house. Random foreigners are worth more to them if they're not dark-skinned and don't speak Russian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Same here in my workplace. Closet islamophobes and sometimes out and out racists, though nice as anything when talking to a muslim face to face. It's happening both sides of the fence, a cycle of distrust bred by intolerance and misunderstanding, all fuelled by an often inflammatory media.
While I agree with everything you guys say I really think you should give the reporter a little more credit here. He's talking about important people in the community, not just some disgruntled kids. It is ignorance but the most disturbing thing in it was this:
and this:Quote:
Bham then asked me if I would ever blow myself up for Islam. I replied that the Koran says you should not harm innocent people.
“What Koran was that?” he countered. “Don’t fool yourself by saying jihad is a struggle within, to get on with life, to motivate myself to get up for prayers and that sort of thing,” he said. “That’s not jihad. Who told you that?”
Don't try and tell me its just a few people, this is a tight knit community, it'll be a lot of people there thinking the same things and the Mosques seem to be where a lot of this comes from. This is where two of the July bombers came from.Quote:
You don’t get anywhere with the dirty kuffar (infidels),” he told me, claiming there was a widespread conspiracy against Muslims and that the 7/7 bombings were part of it. “These brothers never did it,” he said. “And understand this. In order for America and Britain to go to Iraq they have to have reasons and sometimes, I’m afraid, if you haven’t got a reason, you make up that reason.”
Quote:
While I was there an imam of the Bengali mosque, Hamid Ali, had praised the bombers, saying their actions would make non-Muslims “prick up their ears” and listen. I had learnt such sentiments are, one way or another, widespread in Beeston. Ghani, Bham, Jabbar and many others believe in some form of conspiracy against Muslims.
Even the seemingly sensible Sabeer insisted the western “enemy” was out to get him. “It’s the way of the enemy really, the kuffar,” he said. “I’ve always known it as divide and rule.”
The Times is not just the Sun and sneering at it like that is silly, I'll admit that the daily paper is less "heavy" than it used to be but the Sunday paper hasn't suffered at all.
I'm not saying its all Muslims but I think there's one big thing that a lot of people forget, again something pointed out in the article:
There's the crux of it, they see themselves a Muslim before anything else and they don't trust people that aren't Muslim.Quote:
Sabeer’s view was, I believe, a defensive reaction to a perceived threat. But it is also a stance coupled with an idea of a global Islamic “brotherhood” taking precedence over other communities.
Unless the cycle of Muslim suspicion and separation can be broken, the dangers will remain. Ghani and his friends will continue to feel that, as he claimed, the western mind and the Muslim mind are irreconcilable.
If you want to ignore this fine but I'm going to continue to be worried.
A "community worker", a DIY Shop owner, PC equipment shop owner and a cleric who had "praised the bombers" by saying that non-Muslims would “prick up their ears” and listen. Well, I'm not sure how that statement equates to "praise" of the bombers. This could be understood as politicians taking the threat of islamic extremists seriously. Not exactly major business leaders, MPs, councillors or true community leaders though are they? And how many? What, five people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
This kind of idle, ill though out, praise of terrorists groups exists in many cultures. As a youth I worked with "plastic paddies" (offspring of Irish ex-pats) that praised the IRA, wore shamrocks, and sang rebel songs in a mock irish accent, without knowing what they were talking about. While at odds with the state some muslims may naively see the terrorists as allies and the western world as their enemies. This doesn' mean they're going to go out tomorrow and blow themselves up. It is similar to the masses of protestants or catholics in Northern Ireland having to choose an allegience to one group or another.
And the more tight knit it becomes the more this minority will spread their vicious lies. The mosques are a convenient cover for the extremists. These people claim they're "first and foremost muslim", wheras in fact they're first and foremost power hungy lunatics, that want to brainwash, mostly young men, with their warped version of Islam so that they can gain personal power and status for themselves within these small communities. Islam, in this perverted form, is the medium for transferring these hateful ethics onto the young and impressionable and then coercing them through more lies, to go out and destroy the people that these bitter men hate so much, the white, supposedly christian, westerners. But for the most part they're impotent ranters, that the vast majority of muslims don't take seriously at all. All the evils perpetrated against Islam as a whole are, in their eyes, on the heads of countries such as the UK and US. This is because in their youth they were brainwashed by similar lunatics. These lunatics have been bred by the western involvement in the middle east. They mainly come from countries where Europeans or Americans have had a big influence , or they are of the "homegrown" variety. Many of these clerics are also enraged by the lack of islamic influence in modern muslim culture, especially among muslims settled in europe, and are worried about the "corrupting influence of the west". This leads to the more 'forceful' preaching described in the article. I think we can safely say that if the US/UK/Others had not among others:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
1) Got involved in the Iran/Iraq war.
2) Assisted Israel.
3) Invaded Iraq.
4) Invaded Afghanistan.
5) Invaded Iraq again.
We probably wouldn't have an "Islamic Terrorist" problem today. Who can really deny this?
I mean you no offence, but The Times is slimy right wing poo paper and likes to whip up the masses up into an anti [insert anything you like here] frenzy just as The Sun does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Well it's not the crux, because it's only an article in a newspaper. no doubt if muslims are found to be behind the Mumbai train bombings, The Times will fill the front page with something like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Quote:
Originally Posted by fictional
I'm more worried about Labour getting re-elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
That may very well be true for a significant number of Muslims in the West. However, this thread is about Muslims wanting to enjoy a funpark their own way by paying for it. I still insist that that's a completely normal thing for every normal member of society and comparable things happen every day involving millions of people in every country of the West. Yet, when Muslims do that it's part of some "bigger issue" (that may very well exist, don't get me wrong). This shows that some people differentiat between "them" and "us". And they don't trust people who are Muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
If you want ignore this fine but I'm going to continue to be worried.
I'm not saying its all Muslims but I think there's one big thing that a lot of people forget, again something pointed out in the article:
Thats true , you didn't say it was all Muslims , however.......According to him all the locals think that the White Westerner is out to get them.....the article neither says what you suggest or gives more than a couple of examples .
I am sure if you crossed the Tamar you could get some nice juicy quotes from a couple of locals who really hate tourists and blow-ins , and of course being from near Cornwall itself would give your article that little bit of credibility , would that mean the Cornish are a problem (actually the Mail , I think , has done that one already) .
So as an alternative why not go to a nice local estate in Exeter where 40% of the population have no job and see how many quotes you can get from people who think that thier government is out to get them , or that people from other parts of the city are different from them .
No it's not, for a psychologist you are doing a pretty bad job at listening...Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Once again, it's about the implication. It's not important wether or not they should be allowed to, it's important why they want to in the first place. You know the book 'Lord of the flies'? And do you understand why I mention it?
Because you're attempting to compare Islam with the base, savage nature of humanity, and claiming that, like children and other creatures with a big id, Muslims will set up societies that persecute the weak and worship unseen monsters with sacrificial, decapitated ungulate heads?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Probably not. Why are you bringing it up?
I was listening to the organiser of the 'event' on the radio today. Apparently it's not a closed event at all, anyone can attend, as long as they pay for it.
The wife won't like it though, as this 'family day', his words, preclude any chance of us both being able to ride the attractions together.
So which is it then? A celebration of Islam or the repression of women?
I love to see their faces if they tried to repress my missus, she's not one for turning the other cheek. :sweatdrop:
While the current Middle Eastern situation is undoubtedly the result of European and particually American, influence you can not blame the West for the way they have reacted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
You can't blame the West for suicide bombers, for instance.
I take offence here, I'm sorry but while The Times is no longer the paper it once was it is not as bad as you make out. Perhaps the article is weighted, you're probably right there but its not a fabrication.Quote:
I mean you no offence, but The Times is slimy right wing poo paper and likes to whip up the masses up into an anti [insert anything you like here] frenzy just as The Sun does.
The crux of the problem is that Muslims see themselves as Muslim first and national afterward. There were a number of Muslim servicemen who objected to serving in Iraq because they didn't want to fight Muslims. Channel four asked Muslims in London a few weeks ago whether they though Britain had an anti-Muslim government, the answer was usually a cagey "yes."Quote:
Well it's not the crux, because it's only an article in a newspaper. no doubt if muslims are found to be behind the Mumbai train bombings, The Times will fill the front page with something like this:
The reason? Invading Iraq and Afganistan, because they're Muslim. In Britain no Cleric or Muslim community leader was willing to stand up last year and say "These attacks were wrong and abhorent to my religion." There was plenty of condemnation but it was usually followed by "I understand/sympathise with the bombers' motives."
Oh so am I, I'm far less worried about this, after all there are still only 1.5 million Muslims in the country. I'm only worried because its wrong for them to have such a warped world view.Quote:
I'm more worried about Labour getting re-elected.
I'm worried because they feel the need to organise this, they're clearly not comfortable in wider English culture, which I believe is a problem. I was using the article to back up my point. Take the article and the event together, thats all I'm saying. Look at the bigger picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Uh huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
1. I've already said the article is weighted and my summery above is what is implied, rather than stated, I'll grant you that. It is still there in the article.
2. Everybody knows Westminster is out to get everybody, especially those of us in Exeter, how we ended up with a Labour MP I don't know.
3. The Cornish are, unique. They aren't like everyone else in the Southwest, until recently they well their own flag on their fishing vessals in foreign ports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I did read what you say and quite frankly, that fits perfectly what I said above.Quote:
Can I have some social exclusion with that please?
Well you anglo-saxons, how do feel about not being welcome on your own soil?
'unislamic enviroment' hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I maintain that it implicates nothing. Again, the exact same thing happens every day, thousands of times by all subcultures of society. Only when Muslims do it, it's something to worry about for some. Please tell me what can possibly wrong with this statement.Quote:
Once again, it's about the implication. It's not important wether or not they should be allowed to, it's important why they want to in the first place. You know the book 'Lord of the flies'? And do you understand why I mention it?
If I remember correctly 'Lord of the Flies' tells of youths who fail to cooperate to survive because of ignorance and irrational fears.
The article and the event do not form a bigger picture. People believing absurd conspiracy theories and living in paranoia are a problem. People organizing a fun event their own way isn't. Even if these people do a perfectly normal thing because of distrust towards other parts of society (which is projection) then it still is a perfectly normal thing. Complain about their intention (as you assume them to be) but don't complain about a normal thing they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Put 50 people in blue shirts, and 50 people in red, drop them in an enviroment and see what happens. Isolation is a very dangerous thing, especially when the need for identity is of such importance for them as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
You will have to forgive me the sarcasm, I just like doing that, but I tried making my point in the first sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Best. threadkiller. ever. Point taken :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Joker85
:dancinglock:
Agreed, we're two groups of people with tooth picks attacking each others' brick walls.
:idea2: Lets just all get along.
Yes, Tajfel's minimal group effect. The are two ways to counter it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
- make the appearance of different groups as unlikely as possible. That means the existence of subcultures is to be extinguished, every would have to fit a norm.
- educate people to accept other groups as they are, let them have their customs as much as possible.
Yes, isolation is dangerous, but having a fun day with your friends has nothing to do with isolation.
How do either of those relate to Tajfel? The experiment was about self and other and he demonstrated that even when you have two similar groups if they compete they will see the opposing group as the "other" above and beyond the confines of the competion.
We have always vilified those we are in competion with, its part of human nature, which is why some vilify all Muslims at the moment, which is wrong.
I suspect that's a rather parochial view - to attribute "the Islamic terrorist problem" to what the US/UK recently did or did not do. I suspect that you have to look at the Islamic countries and what is going on within them to understand the phenomenon. Attributing all their problems to outsiders like the US/UK is playing in to what Blair rightly called a false sense of Muslim victimhood and grievance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
For example, I would look at the Iranian revolution, surely one of the strongest early signs of rising Islamic militancy that predates items 1-5 above. Or look at Algeria, Egypt, Kashmir and Saudi Arabia. I suspect what has been going on in those countries is pretty much unrelated to most items on on your list.
I am pretty sure 9/11 was unrelated to any of the above items with the exception of (3) and even then, did the US/UK "invade Iraq" in 1991? I recall Bush ordering a stop after Kuwait was liberated.
Ditto I am not convinced US/UK "invaded Afghanistan". They merely backed the Northern Alliance. Russia, of course, did invade Afghanistan and that probably played a bigger part in the rise of OBL than most items on your list.
Bottomline: I suspect the roots of Islamic terrorism are long term, complex and grounded in the internal politics, culture etc of Muslim countries, not the foreign policies of Western countries.
EDIT: apologies for straying off the topic of Alton Towers. On that subject, my only positive reaction is that any group of traditionalists that fears the influence of modern music is probably swimming hopelessly against the tide.
Considering the very word assassin comes from a sect that by todays standards would be called terrorists we can safely dismiss the idea that it is a response to what the US/UK have recently done in response to terrorism.
A bit of a farce to blame the response to a situation as causing the situation.
Response to terrorism caused the prior terrorism? So the terrorists now have time machines?
The Iranian Revolution is an example of Islamic militancy, not terrorism. The others are the same. None of this equates to the so called "global terror" directed against thw west.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
The foundation of groups such as Al Qaeda, didn't occur overnight. Their main cause of existence, is the US 'involvement' in Israel, and the rest of the middle east. It was an invasion. You are confusing invasion with occupation. The US forces invaded Iraq during the first Gulf War, but they didn't occupy it. This was seen by muslims as a sort of "crusade", which is how any sort of activity involving westerner's air power, tanks and bombs on muslim soil generally is perceived. This may be part of the "false sense of Muslim victimhood and grievance" thing, but there you have it.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Again, the Invasion/occupation thing. They basically interfered and backed a certain side in a war while flying over dropping bombs. This would be an "invasion of airspace", bombing runs usually entail this. If you don't want to call this an invasion you can call it an attack, or are attacks ok? As I recall 9/11 was an "attack", not an invasion, yet it justified a response by the US and it's allies. The US chose to remove the taliban, a force it had previously no beef with. This was to secure the signing of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline deal, which otherwise, with the Taliban in place, would have been impossible. The very convenient pretext was, that they were going after those behind the perpetatrators of the 9/11 attacks. It seems that muslims are not allowed to respond to aggression though. They have to sit back and take it, because the westerners are only trying to "liberate" them and install "democracies" in their countries. "now try to relax, this is going hurt but it's necessary, we know what's best for you..."Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I truly believe it's a combination of factors. To say that islamic terrorism is "grounded in the culture" of muslim countries would be the same as saying that terrorism is grounded in the culture of Northern Ireland, an interesting point. This sort of terrorism is the reaction of the conquered and those that have no other means with which to wage war on a perceived aggressor. They cannot succeed militarily so terrorist tactics are used. But the crux of it is, that terrorism is almost always a reaction to an aggression, be it an occupation, invasion, attack or political interference.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Thats a very Partisan view. The first Iraq war, or operation "Desert Strom" lasted 100 hours and barely made it into Iraq, it did not involve any re-drawing of borders and the Saudi's and were very happy for the Americans and others to go in.
The war in was to capture Bin Laden, unless you believe 9/11 was faked, anything else was a bonus but that was definitely the reason.
Its interesting that you should bring up Northern Ireland. Modern terrorism was invented by the IRA at the turn of the last century and suicide bombing was invented by Muslims in the last fifty years, both ethnic groups have a long history of ruthless and bloody guerilla fighting in their native land.
In the case of Islam though the issue is the developement of the concept of Jihad, IIRC never put foward by the Prophet as a military struggle.
Not a partisan view, as I am not a muslim, nor anti-US, and I actually find religion on the whole pretty pointless. Of course the Saudis were 'happy', the 'government' not the general population, why wouldn't they be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
No. No one starts a war like that just to capture one man. That is verging on insane. I don't believe 9/11 was faked, but it happened at an ideal time to serve as a pretext to invade Afghanistan. Just as 9/11 was used as a pretext to attack Iraq, with Bush claiming that there were links between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi Ba'athists!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Modern terrorism wasn't invented by the IRA. They're not known to use suicide bombers for one thing, this tactic could be considered one of the defining points of modern terrorism. Suicide attacks go back to biblical times and there's the infamous Kamikaze attacks in WW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Correct. As I've said before, this is a religion being used as an excuse for vengance, Islam is not the problem it is those that are perverting it to fit their agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
You have a short memory. You don't remember the American Embassy hostages? You don't see any similarity between that and what's going on in Lebanon and Palestine now? At one stage the current Iranian president was identified as one of the leaders of the hostage takers (was that ever confirmed or refuted, BTW)? Iran is one of the main backers of Islamic terrorism in Lebanon and now Iraq. Without the Iranian revolution that I identify as pivotal, it would not be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I'm half inclined to bring up Lockerbie here too - I've always figured the Iranians much more likely suspects than Gadhafi.
My reading of OBLs words is that he does not really care much about Palestine. He certainty did not oppose action against Iraq in 1991 - rather he wanted it to be his mujahadeen fighting Saddam, not the M1 Abrams. (Maybe we should have let them get on with it.) What really got him riled at the US was their troops defending his own country. And that was not an invasion of his country, in any shape or form, of course. It was a defence of his own country. But because the defenders were despicable infidels, it annoyed him more than the rape of a Muslim neighbour (Kuwait).Quote:
The foundation of groups such as Al Qaeda, didn't occur overnight. Their main cause of existence, is the US 'involvement' in Israel, and the rest of the middle east.
I also suspect US "involvement" in Israel is overplayed. The Israelis seem more than able of looking after themselves. The West helped them not at all in 1948 and they've been going from strength to strength after that. Take out all foreign backing (US, Soviet, Saudi, Iranian, Iraqi etc) and I think Israel's edge over her neighbours would be even greater.
Definitely false but also fairly insignificant in the wider scheme of things. It certainly did not bother the Syrians, the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Shias in Iraq etc. I'll wager 80%+ Muslims would not cite the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 as a western crusade against them. Even OBL does not bring it up (except to say "why did you not let me do it instead?").Quote:
It was an invasion. You are confusing invasion with occupation. The US forces invaded Iraq during the first Gulf War, but they didn't occupy it. This was seen by muslims as a sort of "crusade", which is how any sort of activity involving westerner's air power, tanks and bombs on muslim soil generally is perceived. This may be part of the "false sense of Muslim victimhood and grievance" thing, but there you have it.
Yes, it is surprising how sheltering the group that killed 3000 of your civilians will suddenly give you a beef with someone, isn't it? :wall: And do you want a foil hat to go with that Pipeline theory? BTW, 9/11 was not done by one man. OBL and AQ were key props for the Taliban. You don't remember them assassinating the Northern Alliance leader a day or so after 9/11? Rather a clever move to shore up their backers, the Taliban, while waiting for the inevitable American response.Quote:
The US chose to remove the taliban, a force it had previously no beef with. This was to secure the signing of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline deal, which otherwise, with the Taliban in place, would have been impossible.
Interesting not necessarily equating to false. In Northern Ireland, due to centuries of conflict, you have a situation where large numbers of people in the two divided communities find it quite acceptable to harass school children of the opposite group on their way to school, disdain relationships formed across the divide, and frankly are happy to condone terrorism against each other. Reports since the Good Friday agreement seem to indicate these cultural divisions are stronger now than ever before. People in both the Republic and the mainland find these attitudes - you could call them cultural - alien; indeed, the Irish in Eire and the mainland British probably have more in common with each other than with either community in Northern Ireland.Quote:
I truly believe it's a combination of factors. To say that islamic terrorism is "grounded in the culture" of muslim countries would be the same as saying that terrorism is grounded in the culture of Northern Ireland, an interesting point.
I don't know what the exact parallels between Irish and Islamic terrorism are, but I suspect the causes of both extend back centuries. Heck, a lot of the Sunni vs Shia conflict in Iraq seems to date back to the birth of Islam itself. (At which time, it was the Islamicists who were very much the invaders.)
Yes, of course Islamic terrorism is due to a combination of factors. But I'd put Western foreign policy pretty near the bottom of list. What's going on in Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran etc is nearly all driven by internal conflicts and disputes. Islamic fundamentalism is primarily focussed on Islamic countries - it is too weak, geopolitically, to have serious ambitions elsewhere. The West is targeted just because it is seen as propping up "the other side". Technically, you might be right - if the West backed off, like Spain after Madrid, maybe they would be "spared" Islamic terrorism. But even then, OBL cites mass conversion of the US as another of the key conditions for a ceasefire. And more importantly, Islamic terrorism in places like Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Plalestine and Saudi Arabia would burn ever more brightly even if the West did turn isolationist.
Google "Unocal" and "pipeline" and see what you come up with. More than a "theory", in fact a real project underway at present involving Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan. The US started making noises about attacking Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks. This was always on the agenda, the attacks simply spurred it on. Initially the US backed the Taliban as did Pakistan of course, which is why the Pakistani people were not happy about this sudden "switch of sides". Once the Taliban stopped "playing ball", they had to be removed. This doesn't come from "conspiracy theorist" websites, it's well documented, and was covered in various, decent, newspapers.Quote:
And do you want a foil hat to go with that Pipeline theory?
Wrong, prior to the IRA people did not use IEDs, harrass with morters and machine guns, blow up train-tracks, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Suicide bombing is a very small part of modern terrorism and its mostly confined to the Middle East, the IRA also pioneered the murder of civilians and non-combatants, including children.
No points there, I'm afraid.
The US probably would have worked with the Taliban and given them some nice aid packages to convince them prior to 9/11, war is expensive and un-ecenomic.
Wrong, prior to the IRA people did not use IEDs, harrass with morters and machine guns, blow up train-tracks, etc.
Errrr..... yes they did . Ummmmm....yes they did , oh and ...yes they did etc .:oops: no points there I am afraid .
the IRA also pioneered the murder of civilians and non-combatants, including children.
No points there either , they cartainly are murderous ---------(best to erase that word as I don't want another warning for using normal everyday words), but they are not the first .
Playing crappy "christian" music for the eleventh year in a row? That's one day I wouldn't show up there. What are you going to do about this music party that's made just to exclude me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
http://www.ultimateevents.org.uk/altontowers.aspx
Alton Towers 06 - Saturday 20th May
For the last 11 years the UK's premier theme park has rocked to the beat of some of the top acts on the Contemporary Christian Music Scene. The Ultimate Event has provided the perfect May day outing for 1,000s of thrill seeking young people.
Some of the best white knuckle rides in the UK form the perfect background to the ultimate experience. Groups travel from literally all over the UK to ride Nemesis, Air and the latest addition to the incredible roller coaster family, Rita - Queen of Speed.
The evening brings on an extravaganza of music for the droves of people making their way to our purpose built arena. Over the years we have been proud to host some of the greats of christian music as well as introduce up and coming talent. Delirious?, Newsboys, Audio Adrenaline, Rebecca St James, All Star United have all wowed the crowd at Alton.
Our driving passion at Ultimate is to put on a great day which Christian young people would be proud to bring their friends. Over the years hundreds of young people have had their lives revolutionized at Alton as they have been impacted with the incredible message of Jesus for the first time.
2004 was a massive hit with three top acts from the USA, Superchick, Rock n Roll Worship Circus and Newsboys. We are currently working on putting together a great line up for 20th May 2006. Negotiations are taking place and we hope to bring you news soon.
As ever we will ensure that the gospel message will be clear, on point and the perfect drawstring to a day of ultimate rides, ultimate entertainment and ultimate truth.
Ok, who?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
To be honest I find massed "popular" Christian events intimidatind and somewhat disturbing.Quote:
Alton Towers 06 - Saturday 20th May
For the last 11 years the UK's premier theme park has rocked to the beat of some of the top acts on the Contemporary Christian Music Scene. The Ultimate Event has provided the perfect May day outing for 1,000s of thrill seeking young people.
Some of the best white knuckle rides in the UK form the perfect background to the ultimate experience. Groups travel from literally all over the UK to ride Nemesis, Air and the latest addition to the incredible roller coaster family, Rita - Queen of Speed.
The evening brings on an extravaganza of music for the droves of people making their way to our purpose built arena. Over the years we have been proud to host some of the greats of christian music as well as introduce up and coming talent. Delirious?, Newsboys, Audio Adrenaline, Rebecca St James, All Star United have all wowed the crowd at Alton.
Our driving passion at Ultimate is to put on a great day which Christian young people would be proud to bring their friends. Over the years hundreds of young people have had their lives revolutionized at Alton as they have been impacted with the incredible message of Jesus for the first time.
2004 was a massive hit with three top acts from the USA, Superchick, Rock n Roll Worship Circus and Newsboys. We are currently working on putting together a great line up for 20th May 2006. Negotiations are taking place and we hope to bring you news soon.
As ever we will ensure that the gospel message will be clear, on point and the perfect drawstring to a day of ultimate rides, ultimate entertainment and ultimate truth.
It feels like 50% "pop" sellout and 50% stealth conversion.
However, most of the Christians I have met participate in wider society, I haven't met many Muslims, precisely because they don't, not where I live anyway.
Ok, who?
Where would you like to start ? Naradonya Volya ? Cape commandos ?Pancho Villa ? or do you want to go all the way back to the Sicarri and Zealots(though the latter did not have IEDs or firearms) .:book:
How about you go back to the first people that started setting roadside bombs, blowing up busses and generally causing mayhem without the need to actually physically be there at the time.
Wassup Wigferth , didn't your claims stand up to a moments scrutiny ?:no:
How about you go back to the first people that started setting roadside bombs, blowing up busses and generally causing mayhem without the need to actually physically be there at the time.
So now you want to talk timing devices and detonators , oops ...the russian anarchists beat the IRA to it again , would you like to try another claim ?
You aren't doing very well so far . :laugh4:
Without wanting to derail this thread any further, in refutation of the above inaccuracy, I shouldn't need to point out the enormous prior art contribution of the British Empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
:book2:
Why do you feel the need to be obnoxious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
This would be an attempt to define modern terrorism, therefore limiting claims of who started it.Quote:
How about you go back to the first people that started setting roadside bombs, blowing up busses and generally causing mayhem without the need to actually physically be there at the time.
I cannot be held resposible for being given faulty information, I shall now go away, do research and reach my own conclusions. This is what I always do when it would appear I have been proven wrong.
I have no problem being proven wrong, I do have a problem with being mocked, you don't need to laugh at people or taunt them. Certainly when they don't do the same to you.
May I suggest you consider whether you would address me in the same manner face to face because the man on the other side of this cable finds your attitude offensive.
Hear, hear Wigferth.
I find your points utterly inaccurate, but not a incorrect as Tribesman's attitude.
Slyspy, I get it.
I was wrong:oops:
How often do you see that in the backroom.