| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dr. Tom Snyder" |
| Date: |
10 Jul 2005 06:11:05 AM |
| Object: |
England and Muslim Maniacs |
For the record:
PM Tony Blair and the London mayor have allowed pro-Al Qaeda Muslim leaders
to spew their pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic and anti-American rhetoric among
the Muslims in London, so it's no wonder the city got attacked.
Perhaps, we should bring back laws against inciting violence through speech.
Also, it seems to me that Muslim citizens who support terrorism through
speech are guilty of treason, if not abetters of murder, and can, therefore,
be jailed and deprived of their citizenship.
.
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: England and Muslim Maniacs |
10 Jul 2005 07:16:13 AM |
|
|
"Dr. Tom Snyder" <titus213@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:GtednbtffODJnEzfRVn-sA@adelphia.com...
For the record:
PM Tony Blair and the London mayor have allowed pro-Al Qaeda Muslim
leaders
to spew their pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic and anti-American rhetoric among
the Muslims in London, so it's no wonder the city got attacked.
Perhaps, we should bring back laws against inciting violence through
speech.
Also, it seems to me that Muslim citizens who support terrorism through
speech are guilty of treason, if not abetters of murder, and can,
therefore,
be jailed and deprived of their citizenship.
Fascinating syndrome, people: this patient gets through the day by insisting
that "our side's lies didn't radicalise those people; our side's violence
didn't radicalise those people; our side's summary imprisonment and torture
didn't radicalise those people -- what radicalised those people was *their
radicals*".
There's inevitably a lot of this goalpost-shifting and
responsibility-dodging going on at the moment: 'our side' now feels the
desperate need to paint itself as the 'innocent victim' -- so the real
innocent victims, especially those on the 'other side', have to be taken out
of the equation...
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: England and Muslim Maniacs |
12 Jul 2005 05:40:38 AM |
|
|
"Katt" <workcomputer@dfhu.net> wrote in
news:hk8Ae.28081$y86.2516@newsfe1-win.ntli.net:
"Dr. Tom Snyder" <titus213@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:GtednbtffODJnEzfRVn-sA@adelphia.com...
For the record:
PM Tony Blair and the London mayor have allowed pro-Al Qaeda Muslim
leaders
to spew their pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic and anti-American rhetoric
among the Muslims in London, so it's no wonder the city got attacked.
Perhaps, we should bring back laws against inciting violence through
speech.
Also, it seems to me that Muslim citizens who support terrorism
through speech are guilty of treason, if not abetters of murder, and
can, therefore,
be jailed and deprived of their citizenship.
Fascinating syndrome, people: this patient gets through the day by
insisting that "our side's lies didn't radicalise those people; our
side's violence didn't radicalise those people; our side's summary
imprisonment and torture didn't radicalise those people -- what
radicalised those people was *their radicals*".
There's inevitably a lot of this goalpost-shifting and
responsibility-dodging going on at the moment: 'our side' now feels
the desperate need to paint itself as the 'innocent victim' -- so the
real innocent victims, especially those on the 'other side', have to
be taken out of the equation...
Speaking of goal-post shifting and responsinility-dodging, did you see
this article today in the Guardian ?
Invasion reduced the threat of terror
A new political response is needed that has more to do with engaging
communities than restricting liberties
Brian Brivati
Tuesday July 12, 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/comment/story/0,16141,1526569,00
..html
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T18525A6B
Would 7/7 have happened, and would it have been more or less deadly, if
we had not liberated Afghanistan and Iraq? Should our policy be changed
now? Is it time to run and hide?
The invasion of Afghanistan significantly reduced the capability of the
old al-Qaida by removing the only regime it controlled. The invasion of
Iraq acted as a deterrent to states that were nurturing a new generation
of loosely affiliated "network terrorists".
Article continues
Syria and Iran have been energetic sponsors of terror networks - as David
Bryman, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who served on the
staff of the 9/11 commission, proves in Deadly Connections: States that
Sponsor Terrorism; and the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq made them
pause to think about what they might gain and lose by continuing to be
state sponsors of terror.
Other knock-on effects of the operations were a change of policy in
Libya, free elections in Lebanon and the territory governed by the
Palestinian Authority, and even limited voting in Saudi Arabia. The
destruction of the al-Qaida camps and the attacks on assets and freedom
of movement of leading terrorists downgraded their capacity to launch
another attack like 9/11.
This did not remove their ability to attack in other ways, as Madrid and
Bali showed, and would not stop a cell assembling in a country to
perpetrate a single attack, as might be the case here. Some form of
attack on London was inevitable, but imagine the kind of attack that al-
Qaida could have mounted if it had retained its pre-9/11 links to, or
control of, states.
The left responded to 9/11 by focusing on the motivations of the
terrorists, the right by focusing on their capabilities. We need to
attack both with long-term political, as well as security, initiatives.
The outline of the political project already exists; our response to 7/7
should be to stress it with greater force. The operation of often
western-backed elites has turned many in the Islamic world towards forms
of fundamentalism, and a hard core towards theocratic fascism.
Democratising those states must form an essential part of the left-of-
centre political project for the region.
Maintaining the threat of military action, either unilaterally or with
allies, is also a part of that policy. The use of hard power must remain
at the forefront of the west's defence against fascism in the interests
both of our own security and of aiding the process of regime change in
those countries that are still laboratories of terror.
Afghanistan and Iraq were the first stages, but continuous war against
more and more states is neither the answer nor something that we are
capable of sustaining. If the major grievance of people in the Middle
East is the presence of western troops in their countries, then
democratisation is the only means by which those troops are ever going to
leave.
Development, education and welfare provision that give people a more
predictable future must form part of the political solution that might,
perhaps a generation from now, come. The G8's Africa agenda was about
applying the lesson that development is freedom, that democratisation is
born of economic growth. But if that is true in Africa and the Middle
East, then it is also true in Britain.
If the terrorists are from abroad, then the war on terror needs to be
fought as it has been fought, but democratisation has to be brought front
and centre as the reason for our actions. Our methods should be brought
into line with international law and that law updated to reflect the new
kinds of war states need to fight. If the terrorists are British or based
here, a new kind of domestic political response needs to be developed
that has more to do with development than internment. We do not need more
restrictions on civil liberties. We need enhanced political engagement.
The hard core who perpetrate these crimes will only be defeated through
police and military action. But there is no military solution to the soft
circle who might protect and support them. The solution domestically must
come from the British Muslim community, encouraged by a domestic
programme of significant old-style economic aid.
Fascism breeds in poverty and exclusion; it exits democracy and takes up
violence when it sees no other option. In the long run the £10bn planned
to be spent on the next generation of nuclear weapons for defence against
a threat that no longer exists or the £5bn to be spent on identity cards
would be much better invested in every UK community with a significant
Muslim presence.
We offer a deal to the Middle East: embrace democracy and enjoy the
benefits of development. The same deal should be offered to UK Muslims;
our own democracy needs nurturing just as much as anyone else's. The cost
of positive discrimination will be a rise of support for the far-right.
The cost of not engaging these communities is the blood on the seats of
the number 30 bus.
· Brian Brivati is professor of contemporary history at Kingston
University.
(He may well be a professor of contemporary history, but he is still a
fucking idiot !)
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: England and Muslim Maniacs |
10 Jul 2005 07:31:11 AM |
|
|
"Katt" <workcomputer@dfhu.net> wrote in
news:hk8Ae.28081$y86.2516@newsfe1-win.ntli.net:
"Dr. Tom Snyder" <titus213@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:GtednbtffODJnEzfRVn-sA@adelphia.com...
For the record:
PM Tony Blair and the London mayor have allowed pro-Al Qaeda Muslim
leaders to spew their pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic and anti-American
rhetoric among the Muslims in London, so it's no wonder the city got
attacked.
Perhaps, we should bring back laws against inciting violence through
speech. Also, it seems to me that Muslim citizens who support
terrorism through speech are guilty of treason, if not abetters of
murder, and can, therefore,
be jailed and deprived of their citizenship.
Fascinating syndrome, people: this patient gets through the day by
insisting that "our side's lies didn't radicalise those people; our
side's violence didn't radicalise those people; our side's summary
imprisonment and torture didn't radicalise those people -- what
radicalised those people was *their radicals*".
Al Qaeda were operating in Afghanistan *long* before the attacks by the
US. In fact *THEY ATTACKED US FIRST*.
There's inevitably a lot of this goalpost-shifting and
responsibility-dodging going on at the moment:
Mostly by lefties.
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2005/07/al-qaeda-attacks-london-how-
soon.html
AL QAEDA ATTACKS LONDON: how soon before the Left BLAMES BUSH?
FIRST: I want to extend my sympathies to all those people whose lives
are horribly altered by these evil al Qaeda attacks in London today.
SECOND, I want to ask: How soon before the Left blames these evil
attacks in London on Bush and the Iraq War? How soon before Leftists -
(folks like George Galloway, Michael Moore, Chomsky, Dean, Durbin,
Kennedy, Boxer, Pelosi, et al) - AND the neojihadist enemy - (folks like
Zarqawi and Zawahiri and Bin Laden) - charge "IF Blair had not been
"Bush's lap-dog" these attacks would NOT have happened!"
The Left has made this kind of charge before - and as recently as this
week (when the new "global terror attack" figures for 2004 were revised
UP this week). The Left makes this INSANE charge as if al Qaeda --- and
their allied neojihadist groups in Russia, Chechnya, Bosnia, Turkey,
Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, Spain, France, Germany, Scandinavia,
Holland, Afghanistan, India, Kashmir, Pakistan, Indonesia, the
Philipines, Mexico, and the US --- had not been attacking us ALL since
1993, and with an explicit manifesto/fatwa since 1998! Up until today,
the Left has chosen TO IGNORE THESE FACTS; they are inconvenient to the
Left's agenda, so they DENY, DENY, DENY; this denial is INSANE.
Bush and Iraq (and Blair's steadfast commitment to Bush and Iraq and the
GWOT) are no more responsible for these evil attacks in London, than
Bush is responsible for the 1993 WTC attack. (Or look at it this way:
Bush and Blair are no more responsible for these attacks than a
battered-wife is to blame for the attacks she receives at the hands of
her vicious husband!)
Bush and Blair are no more responsible for today's attacks than they
were for the beheadings in Thailand, OR the attack on Khobar Towers, OR
on the USS COLE, OR on the two US African EMBASSIES, or on the MOSCOW
THEATER, OR the BESLAN SCHOOL. Or on Ayodhya. Or in Turkey. Or in
Kashmir. And so on. (These attacks either came BEFORE Bush was president
- and BEFORE the Iraq War - or were against non-Christians in non-
aligned nations which were opposed to the Iraq War. Or against other
Muslims that al Qaeda fanatics don't like for sectarian reasons.)
It's long passed time the Left realized that the enemy is REAL, and
REALLY EVIL, and that they have a PROACTIVE PLAN OF ATTACK, WHETHER WE
COUNTER-ATTACK OR NOT. It's long passed time the Left accepted the fact
that the Muslim fanatics have been waging an OFFENSIVE war - one we
failed to adequately respond to BEFORE 9/11. And it's long passed time
the Left accepted that we must wage a massive and probably decades long
counter-offensive against these neojioahdists EVERYWHERE if we want to
win. In other words: It's long passed time the Left joined us in the
GWOT.
I expect the "anti-war" Left in the UK to do what their Spanish fellow-
travellers -- (THIS IS NOT "RED-BAITING; THEY CALL THEMSELVES
SOCIALISTS!) -- on the Left did after the ATOCHA attack: they blamed
Bush. Which is why they're not really anti-war; they're on the other
side.
I hope the Left proves me wrong - and FINALLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY joins
Bush and Blair in the GWOT, (and stops acting like The Fifth Column for
the enemy!). I PRAY they do... but I do NOT expect it. WHY?! Because it
would mean that the Left has to finally admit that their LEFTIST CREED
is totally bankrupt, and this is too emotionally difficult for most
people to do; (hence the cognitive dissonance and denial reaction-
responses). Stay tuned...
UPDATE: THE LEFT RESPONDS - AS PREDICTED: GALLOWAY BLAMES BUSH! That was
fast! (Hat-tip INSTAPUNDIT.) MORE "5th COLUMN/LEFTIST" REACTION OVER AT
MICHELLE MALKIN.
UPDATE #2: More at MY PET JAWA, too.
UPDATE #3: Hitchens weighs in on the Left's idiotic anti-Bush/Blair/Iraq
War response to today's bombings. (Hat-tip Michelle Malkin.)
UPDATE #4 - NORMBLOG has more examples of Leftists blaming
Bush/Blair/Iraq War; he calls the post "CONTEMPTIBLE." Apt.
UPDATE #5: POWERLINE has another disgusting and INSANE example of
illogical Leftist explanations for today's attacks , (and it once again
reveals the Left's preference alterior/"occult"/hidden/conspiracy
explanations over the simple facts).
UPDATE #6: Lorie Byrd at POLIPUNDIT links to a post by HUGH HEWITT
citing Al Franken and Tom Oliphant blaming Bush.
UPDATE #7: I have never read a more angrrrrrry WRETCHARD over at The
Belmont Club:
The Al Qaeda have characterized the attack on London as
'punishment' for Britain's temerity to resist the inevitability of
Islam. It is the kind of punishment these self-ordained masters of the
universe are accustomed to meting out against harem women and insolent
slaves. A few administered licks, and no doubt the cowardly kuffar will
crawl back to his place. The tragedy is that Al Qaeda's perception is
perfectly correct when applied to the Left, for whom no position is too
supine, no degradation too shameful to endure [UMPH added!]; but
incorrect for the vast majority of humans, in whom the instinct for
self-preservation has not yet been extinguished. It will result in
history's greatest case of mistaken identity; the mismatch that should
never have happened. The enemy is even now dying at our feet, where we
should kick him and kick him again.
Right on!
UPDATE #8 [JULY 8]: Tariq Ali - writing in the left-wing UK GUARDIAN -
blames Buhs, Blair and Zionism.
UPDATE #9: Josh Marshall of TPM - part of the "new mainstream of the
democrat Party" (which puts him slightly to the Left of McGovern and
Dukakis and Mondale and Kerry and Kennedy!) blames Bush and Iraq. (Hat-
tip Hugh Hewitt.) Josh writes: "Certainly, it's no accident that the two
acts of terror in Europe in the last three years happened in America's
two main Iraq war allies... If anything our folly in Iraq has made the
immediacy and intensity of this basic threat worse."
The Left always seems to forget - OR DENY - things like this: that 800
people have been murdered in Thailand in the last year - BY JIHADISTS;
many of them were BEHEADED. These Thais victims were Buddhists who had
nothing to do with Bush or Blair or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Zionism or
Halliburton or Iraq. Neither did the BUDDHAS OF BAMIYAN - blown up in
March of 2001, or the Nigerian women who have been stoned to death, and
the Pakistani women who have been gang-raped as punshiment for violating
sharia. Nor do the countless victims of Islamic honor killings all over
the world have anything to do with Ashcroft or Gitmo or Abu Ghraib...
Bush is no more responsible for the Jihadists' attacks on the West than
is the battered wife responsible for being battered by her battering
husband.
There IS AN EVIL, THINKING, REAL ENEMY out there - Jihadism, and these
Jihadists have a procative plan and a serious goal: to re-establish the
Caliphate under fanatically extremist control, and to kill or convert
anyone ands everyone who gets in their way - including fellow Muslims.
If we don't want them to win, then we must continue to fight them
EVERYWHERE, using ALL the means at our disposal.
UPDATE #10: Here's a compendium of anti-American, unpatriotic/anti-
patriotic ravings from the Left - ON JULY FOURTH. From LE SABOT MODERNE.
UPDATE #11 - 7/9: From Taranto's BOTW -
"... columnist Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe:
The world, of course, shares the sympathies of Mayor Michael
Bloomberg of New York, who said the London bombings were a ''despicable,
cowardly act." Yet every invoking of the innocents also reminds us of
our despicable, cowardly killing of innocent Iraqi civilians. . . .
The innocents in the so-called war on terror are always ''our"
citizens or the citizens of our allies. The only innocent Iraqis are
those killed by ''insurgents." Our soldiers clearly did not intend to
kill innocents. But this posturing of America as the great innocent,
when everyone knows we kill innocents ourselves, is likely only to make
us look more like the devil in the eyes of a suicide bomber.
And here's someone with the unlikely name of Jann Wenner, on the
Huffington Post:
If the London bombings are the work of an Al Qaeda offshoot, then
you have to fairly say, in the same way we condemn other's [sic] terror,
this is in part the result of Bush's War on Iraq.
To Jackson, there is no moral distinction between deliberately targeting
civilians and accidentally killing civilians in a war of liberation. To
Wenner, it is America's fault that terrorists deliberately target
civilians. And note that the Times and Jackson both sneer at the "so-
called war" on terrorism. This has been a brief tour of the mindset of
some American liberals. Folks, Karl Rove is not making this stuff up."
UPDATE #12: Michelle Malkin reports: NPR's Daniel Snore, er, Schorr
bloviated on air this morning that "Tony Blair has paid a heavy price
for his support of his friend George Bush." "Heavy price:" PM Tony
Blair's approval rating jumped from 32% to 49%.
'our side' now feels
the desperate need to paint itself as the 'innocent victim' -- so the
real innocent victims, especially those on the 'other side', have to
be taken out of the equation...
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2005/07/left-blaming-battered-
wife.html
THE LEFT: BLAMING THE BATTERED-WIFE
The Left always seems to forget - OR DENY - things like this: that 800
people have been murdered in Thailand in the last year - BY JIHADISTS;
many of them were BEHEADED. These Thais victims were Buddhists who had
nothing to do with Bush or Blair or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Zionism or
Halliburton or Iraq. Neither did the BUDDHAS OF BAMIYAN - blown up in
March of 2001, or the Nigerian women who have nearly been stoned to
death, and the Pakistani women who have been gang-raped as punshiment
for violating sharia. Nor do the countless victims of Islamic honor
killings all over the world have anything to do with Ashcroft or Gitmo
or Abu Ghraib...
Bush is no more responsible for the Jihadists' attacks on the West than
is the battered wife responsible for being battered by her battering
husband.
There IS AN EVIL, THINKING, REAL ENEMY out there - Jihadism, and these
Jihadists have a procative plan and a serious goal: to re-establish the
Caliphate under fanatically extremist control, and to kill or convert
anyone ands everyone who gets in their way - including fellow Muslims.
If we don't want them to win, then we must continue to fight them
EVERYWHERE, using ALL the means at our disposal. And we must IGNORE the
insane and ill-informed ravings of the Left [see the post BELOW for a
partial listing of Leftists blaming Bush, Blair and the Iraq War for the
7/7 London attacks.]
UPDATE (hat-tip POLIPUNDIT): Chris Hitchens said (about Galloway - who
blamed Blair and Bush):
"I mean, according to him, it’s not the perpetrators who are
responsible. They didn’t kill anybody. The murderer is Tony Blair. I
mean, that’s all you have to believe, really, morally to agree with a
man like him. Well, you should additionally believe that the root cause
of terrorism is the resistance to it. "
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: England and Muslim Maniacs |
10 Jul 2005 09:11:33 AM |
|
|
I think there is something slightly surreal in your own position, Katt.
Whatever actions people claim as provocation, their response has to be
chosen, so the responsibility always lies with them; that is true
whether the agent is a terrorist or a peace campaigner. To think
otherwise would be to rob those who don't give in to their
vindictiveness of the respect they most assuredly deserve.
However, Katt is right in that to pretend that there is no link between
US foreign policy and such attrocities is to indulge in a dangerous
fantasy and agree that the US must face up to the fact that many of its
policies have and are creating and fueling the resentments that
underlie terrorism. This responsibility rests with the US
disproportionately, because it is the most powerful nation on Earth and
resonsibility goes hand in hand with power.
Both sides in this sick farce must face up to the fact that right and
wrong do not go with identity, but with individual action; so Moslems,
the US and Britian can and are simultaneously right and wrong in
different ways; simultaneously victims and villians.
Islam, Christianity and Judaism need to learn that aspects of their
doctrines are inherently barbaric and that right now, the legacy of
Abraham is murder.
The position of 'my people, right or wrong' is inherently hypocritical,
because it tolerates the injustices committed by your own community
while condemning those of the others. Both communities have poeple more
aware of this truth thatn others and it is with these people that hope
for the future lies.
We must not allow the hateful and doctrinaire to dominate the agenda,
otherwise we will be dragged into conflict the way Britian was dragged
into the Iraq war. Fools rush in, but even the wise must face hazard
sometimes or lose all influence and then, what is wisdom worth?
As information technology brings humans closer together, we are going
to have to find a way to communicate with each other or swap
attrocities.
What sort of world do you want to live in, people?
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: England and Muslim Maniacs |
10 Jul 2005 09:59:07 AM |
|
|
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in
news:1121004693.376432.154000@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I think there is something slightly surreal in your own position,
Katt.
Whatever actions people claim as provocation, their response has to be
chosen, so the responsibility always lies with them; that is true
whether the agent is a terrorist or a peace campaigner. To think
otherwise would be to rob those who don't give in to their
vindictiveness of the respect they most assuredly deserve.
However, Katt is right in that to pretend that there is no link
between US foreign policy and such attrocities is to indulge in a
dangerous fantasy and agree that the US must face up to the fact that
many of its policies have and are creating and fueling the resentments
that underlie terrorism. This responsibility rests with the US
disproportionately, because it is the most powerful nation on Earth
and resonsibility goes hand in hand with power.
You're probably right, but the policy that Islamists resent the most is
the one about not bowing to the demands of terrorists.
Both sides in this sick farce must face up to the fact that right and
wrong do not go with identity, but with individual action; so Moslems,
the US and Britian can and are simultaneously right and wrong in
different ways; simultaneously victims and villians.
Islam, Christianity and Judaism need to learn that aspects of their
doctrines are inherently barbaric and that right now, the legacy of
Abraham is murder.
The position of 'my people, right or wrong' is inherently
hypocritical, because it tolerates the injustices committed by your
own community while condemning those of the others. Both communities
have poeple more aware of this truth thatn others and it is with these
people that hope for the future lies.
We must not allow the hateful and doctrinaire to dominate the agenda,
otherwise we will be dragged into conflict the way Britian was dragged
into the Iraq war. Fools rush in, but even the wise must face hazard
sometimes or lose all influence and then, what is wisdom worth?
Britain was "dragged" into the Iraq war because they recognized, with
the US, that the problem of Islamist terrorism is not limited to a
single nation, and that it must be *fought*, that dialog is not possible
with people who only see attempts at conciliation as weakness to be
exploited.
As information technology brings humans closer together, we are going
to have to find a way to communicate with each other or swap
attrocities.
Islamists do not care about dialog with infidels. They don't want to
communicate, they want to *silence* us and our ways of life. They cannot
allow choices in their world. Allah made their religion perfect and any
changes, any accomodation with different faiths, even with more liberal
versions of Islam is blasphemy to be met with total rejection.
What sort of world do you want to live in, people?
The sort that does not tolerate that which cannot be tolerated.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: England and Muslim Maniacs |
10 Jul 2005 04:48:39 PM |
|
|
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1121004693.376432.154000@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I think there is something slightly surreal in your own position, Katt.
Whatever actions people claim as provocation, their response has to be
chosen, so the responsibility always lies with them; that is true
whether the agent is a terrorist or a peace campaigner. To think
otherwise would be to rob those who don't give in to their
vindictiveness of the respect they most assuredly deserve.
If you want my attention, you'll have to prove you've understood me -- by
summarising what it was that you think you're reacting to. I have seen
enough people make drooling idiots of themselves over this and similar
topics to convince me that there are but few individuals alive who have the
emotional and intellectual strength to be able to think straight about such
an issue.
So go on: prove to me that you're not just the usual self-righteous,
self-deluding ***** who applies a double standard whenever 'his side'
needs to be whitewashed. Otherwise you can go ***** yourself.
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: England and Muslim Maniacs |
11 Jul 2005 02:19:50 PM |
|
|
I am a Darwinist, Katt. There is only one side, the human one and I
strongly believe that the hand that pulls the trigger commits the
murder. Therefore, the only people responsible for the London bombings
are those who perpetrated them.
Whatever injury these people feel they are responding to, they have a
choice of how to respond: in a good way, or in a bad way. They chose
murder and murder is wrong. It is that simple.
This doesn't mean that UK and US foreign policy doesn't need reform and
it doesn't mean that people are using these attrocities to deny that
fact, because they were in denial long before. This is why I found your
comments about goalpost-shifting so surreal: because you think these
attrocities change anything for anyone except the victims.
I'm glad you think me self-righteous, because I am genuinely interested
in the good and how to identify it. This is why I read Plato and
others, because they addressed the question of what it is to live a
good life. If someone ever finds a clear and systematic way of
describing the good, then people will be empowered and enriched beyond
estimation; simply because they will not waste so much time and energy
in futile confrontations.
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: England and Muslim Maniacs |
12 Jul 2005 05:44:30 AM |
|
|
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in
news:1121109590.639477.183180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
I am a Darwinist, Katt. There is only one side, the human one and I
strongly believe that the hand that pulls the trigger commits the
murder. Therefore, the only people responsible for the London bombings
are those who perpetrated them.
So, using the same logic, all those civilian deaths are not Blairs
responsability, but our troops ?
Whatever injury these people feel they are responding to, they have a
choice of how to respond: in a good way, or in a bad way. They chose
murder and murder is wrong. It is that simple.
Uh-huh. So, does an illegal invasion that has killed an estimated 100,000
people amount to 'Mass-Murder.' ?
This doesn't mean that UK and US foreign policy doesn't need reform and
it doesn't mean that people are using these attrocities to deny that
fact, because they were in denial long before. This is why I found your
comments about goalpost-shifting so surreal: because you think these
attrocities change anything for anyone except the victims.
I'm glad you think me self-righteous, because I am genuinely interested
in the good and how to identify it. This is why I read Plato and
others, because they addressed the question of what it is to live a
good life.
Not really, Plato was more interested in the 'reality', that lies behind,
urm, reality !
If someone ever finds a clear and systematic way of
describing the good, then people will be empowered and enriched beyond
estimation; simply because they will not waste so much time and energy
in futile confrontations.
One shouldn't need to describe 'the good' it should be bleedin' obvious !
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: England and Muslim Maniacs |
12 Jul 2005 01:52:00 PM |
|
|
Jez wrote:
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in
news:1121109590.639477.183180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
I am a Darwinist, Katt. There is only one side, the human one and I
strongly believe that the hand that pulls the trigger commits the
murder. Therefore, the only people responsible for the London bombings
are those who perpetrated them.
So, using the same logic, all those civilian deaths are not Blairs
responsability, but our troops ?
Whatever injury these people feel they are responding to, they have a
choice of how to respond: in a good way, or in a bad way. They chose
murder and murder is wrong. It is that simple.
Uh-huh. So, does an illegal invasion that has killed an estimated 100,000
people amount to 'Mass-Murder.' ?
This doesn't mean that UK and US foreign policy doesn't need reform and
it doesn't mean that people are using these attrocities to deny that
fact, because they were in denial long before. This is why I found your
comments about goalpost-shifting so surreal: because you think these
attrocities change anything for anyone except the victims.
I'm glad you think me self-righteous, because I am genuinely interested
in the good and how to identify it. This is why I read Plato and
others, because they addressed the question of what it is to live a
good life.
Not really, Plato was more interested in the 'reality', that lies behind,
urm, reality !
If someone ever finds a clear and systematic way of
describing the good, then people will be empowered and enriched beyond
estimation; simply because they will not waste so much time and energy
in futile confrontations.
One shouldn't need to describe 'the good' it should be bleedin' obvious !
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: England and Muslim Maniacs |
10 Jul 2005 04:56:53 PM |
|
|
Dr. Tom Snyder wrote:
For the record:
PM Tony Blair and the London mayor have allowed pro-Al Qaeda Muslim leaders
to spew their pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic and anti-American rhetoric among
the Muslims in London, so it's no wonder the city got attacked.
Perhaps, we should bring back laws against inciting violence through speech.
Also, it seems to me that Muslim citizens who support terrorism through
speech are guilty of treason, if not abetters of murder, and can, therefore,
be jailed and deprived of their citizenship.
Yes, it's no wonder the city got attacked. But dis-allowing the
freedom of speech won't necessarily guarantee a terror-free
environment.
There will always be war and rumors of war. And the poor will always
be with you.
Prayer For Peace:
O God, you are the origin of all holy desires, good counsel, and just
works. Grant us, please, *that peace which the world cannot give.*
Then, with hearts devoted to your commandments and all fear of enemies
removed, may we serve you in tranquil times. This we ask in Christ's
name. Amen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shobha" |
|
| Title: Re: England and Muslim Maniacs |
10 Jul 2005 11:30:40 PM |
|
|
" AL QAEDA ATTACKS LONDON: how soon before the Left BLAMES BUSH? "
Why wait ? Everyone knew BEFOREHAND that such attacks would only
become more frequent now, not less.
Doesn't take a genius to figure that out, right ? You cant go around
attacking anyone and everyone based on a bunch of lies and expect
people to just sit back and twiddle their fingers, right ?!
Thanks to B and B, and the blind and blinkered who have "faith" in them
..... we're all in more danger now.
This we knew long before the London attacks ... so much for your "how
soon ... " speculation :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: England and Muslim Maniacs |
11 Jul 2005 07:51:42 AM |
|
|
"Shobha" <shobha_subramanyan@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1121056240.710608.22040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
" AL QAEDA ATTACKS LONDON: how soon before the Left BLAMES BUSH? "
Why wait ? Everyone knew BEFOREHAND that such attacks would only
become more frequent now, not less.
Since they've been escalating the violence since 1972...
Doesn't take a genius to figure that out, right ? You cant go around
attacking anyone and everyone based on a bunch of lies and expect
people to just sit back and twiddle their fingers, right ?!
You'd think the Islamists would have figured that out before this.
Thanks to B and B, and the blind and blinkered who have "faith" in
them .... we're all in more danger now.
This we knew long before the London attacks ... so much for your "how
soon ... " speculation :-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: England and Muslim Maniacs |
10 Jul 2005 08:00:04 AM |
|
|
The law agaisnt inciting violence was never repealed. It was never
used, out of consideration of the feelings of immigrants who felt
embattled by racism. Indeed, if the government gets its way the rights
of religious immigrants will be further strengthened to help them live
in our country.
Unfortunately Tom, free speech is a risky business for everyone and it
is dificult to balance it with conflicting(and legitimate) interests of
state and people. Judgements have to be made and some of those
judgements will be wrong, while others are right, but still carry cost.
This cost is the reason ordinary people deserve respect: because they
will trade a little safety for freedom and share that freedom with
others.
The moslem community in Britain are facing up to possibilities they
never had in Pakistan or Bangladesh. They have swapped states where
Islam is central to society for a state where religion has been almost
entirely sidelined.
Not surprisingly, some have retreated into their faith and certainties
that were once as unquestioned as they are unreal; while others -
especially the young - can embrace the freedoms we were given by the US
after World War Two and that we have maintained better than our
benefactors.
Don't allow yourself to confuse being critical of US foreign policy for
being anti-US and don't allow being critical of being of Isreal to be
confused with being anti-semitic. Most importantly, don't confuse
tolerance for opposing views for being pro-terrorism. We need to be
more intelligent than that, because we can't rely on the intelligence
of others.
Most British moslems are critical of US and British foreign policy, and
hate Israel's vengefulness, but would never approve of such attrocities
as committed by Al-Quaeda. Many have had a hard time believing that
moslems can do such things and insist that even if they call themselves
moslem, they can't be.
When people come to Britian, they agree to be bound by our laws
irrespective of their religion and if they break those laws, betray us,
their new community. _Those_ people are guilty of and should be tried
for treason, but that does not justify the vilification of a community.
Justice has a keen sense of proportion and will not countenance
revenge. Neither should we - Oh, I want these people caught and
imprisoned; it is perfectly just to want protection from murderers -
but I don't want the undignifed vengefulness of the US, Israel or
Islam. I want controlled, proportionate action; ie: justice.
As for depriving these people of their citizen ship, I say no. That
would be to foist them on someone else and we have to deal with our own
*****.
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
