London attacks - what's going on???

[Ben Frain]

Hermitt, Duffistuta, interesting on two counts. (Duffistuta, however, I think you understand what I am getting at without nit picking over the terminology I have used. It's like the BBC using the word Bomber over Terrorist. You are now just doing to me exactly what you accuse me of doing to others...) Labelling me as BNP this and that is a little tiresome...

My point was that ALL people integrating into the UK should be given citizen classes. Happy? PC enough for you? Or do you want me to list every religion under the sun to make sure I have covered all bases and not offended anyone?

Firstly, I don't necassarily disagree with you. I hope you probably right.

Secondly however, do you not feel that the people like the one I mentioned are inciting violence? Surely anyone (yes Mr 'PC' Duffistuta I mean ALL people of all creeds) engaging in such activities should go to jail??? Or do you think we should just let them rant?

You may be right and most people may pay them no mind but I am just uncomfortable in putting so much trust on a whim.

 

[duffistuta]

Originally posted by Ben Frain
1. (Duffistuta, however, I think you understand what I am getting at without nit picking over the terminology I have used. It's like the BBC using the word Bomber over Terrorist. You are now just doing to me exactly what you accuse me of doing to others...) Labelling me as BNP this and that is a little tiresome...

2. Surely anyone (yes Mr 'PC' Duffistuta I mean ALL people of all creeds) engaging in such activities should go to jail??? Or do you think we should just let them rant?

.

1. I happen to think the words we use are incredibly important. I view it as anything but nit picking; what do you expect me to comment on apart from the words you've used, I can't read your mind.

And I am not labelling you as BNP, I am stating that your comments sound word for word like Nick Griffin's. If you don't like the BNP tag, try not to repeat their arguments verbatim.

2. If by PC you mean 'not willing to have the terms Muslim and terrorist used interchangeably, and quite keen on freedom and liberty for all' then yes, I'll accept that term.

To answer your question, weren't laws brought in regarding inciting religious hatred? They are in place...if you're suggesting they do not go far enough, then that's another matter; I dislike having to hear what Griffin and his mates have to say, but they manage to word it so they stay within the confines of this new legislation. If an irate fundamentalist does the same thing, then as long as he/she remains within the law they can do what the **** they want - that's democracy. That's what we're supposed to be defending.

 

[Ben Frain]

Originally posted by duffistuta
If by PC you mean 'not willing to have the terms Muslim and terrorist used interchangeably, and quite keen on freedom and liberty for all' then yes, I'll accept that term.

OK, but can you illustrate where I used the word Muslim when it should have been terrorist/bomber?

By PC I mean that you know quite well what I mean in what I have written/said, others reading, I am quite certain would understand what I mean and yet you want the terminology changed to this weeks fashionable and acceptable term for the subject.

Also, if you take a gander at the No10 dossier you will see that the anti-religion type law was brought in to protect people having a go at Muslims (and as the dossier is headed 'Relations with the Muslim community' I think I am ok in this instance to use the 'M' word).

 

[Matski]

I am watching some extremist guy on the tv, in England, preaching to a room full of people saying stuff like "when the planes gloriously flew into the twin towers" and "Bush said your either with us or with the terrorists; and we said well we are with the terrorists"...applaud cheers etc. Broadcast on the news.

The system dosn't work...

Ben-I think that is kinda duffs role given that p8ntballer.com hardly wants be seen to support any kind of prejudice

 

[duffistuta]

Originally posted by Ben Frain
OK, but can you illustrate where I used the word Muslim when it should have been terrorist/bomber?

By PC I mean that you know quite well what I mean in what I have written/said, others reading, I am quite certain would understand what I mean and yet you want the terminology changed to this weeks fashionable and acceptable term for the subject.

I highlighted within the paragraph where you bgegan talking about Muslims and then segued into terrorists - the implication was that there was a link. If you did not mean it like that then fair enough, I apologise,but given your opening gambit it looked like you did.

And no, it has **** all to do with fashionable and acceptable terms, it has to do with my reading your words and responding to them. If I have misunderstood what you meant then I apologise, but on the basis of what you actually wrote then I stand by my comments.

I.E. I fail to see the below as anything other than having a go at Muslims and then patronising them.

"For example, whilst all should be done to educate and integrate the UK muslim population (they should have compulsary citizen classes at school) and give them a good slap on the back for being good citizens/achievements (some great Muslim boxers etc)"

 

[duffistuta]

Originally posted by matski
I am watching some extremist guy on the tv, in England, preaching to a room full of people saying stuff like "when the planes gloriously flew into the twin towers" and "Bush said your either with us or with the terrorists; and we said well we are with the terrorists"...applaud cheers etc. Broadcast on the news.

The system dosn't work.

Ben-I think that is kinda duffs role given that p8ntballer.com hardly wants be seen to support any kind of prejudice

I ain't got a rule, it's just what I believe.

As to your point, from my knowledge of the laws he must be flying very, very close to the wind then.

 

[HERMITT]

I find it so hard to believe that while we call ourselves intelligent and go on about how they are in the wrong, no one has thought about asking the key question in this. This question will be the most important indicator of how we can calm this world and making it singnificantly safer.

Why do they act in this way and what is it that we have done to provoke this response?

This is the most important thing we need to think about. To say that we are the victims is naive in the extreme. It just happens that its our turn to suffer now.

I am in no way condoning this attrocity or any of the others that have preceded i. I am in no way trying to justify the attacks on inncocent lives. But to understand why things happen a truthful analysis of what you did wrong is the first thing that should happen. Only after this has been addressed will you be able to understand and deal with what everyone else did wrong.

 

[duffistuta]

Originally posted by Ben Frain
O

Also, if you take a gander at the No10 dossier you will see that the anti-religion type law was brought in to protect people having a go at Muslims (and as the dossier is headed 'Relations with the Muslim community' I think I am ok in this instance to use the 'M' word).

I think you'll find if you take a look at the law itself, it was brought in to extend the same protection to Christians, Muslims and other groups that was previously only afforded to Jews and Sikhs.

 

[Ben Frain]

Originally posted by HERMITT
I find it so hard to believe that while we call ourselves intelligent and go on about how they are in the wrong, no one has thought about asking the key question in this. This question will be the most important indicator of how we can calm this world and making it singnificantly safer.

Why do they act in this way and what is it that we have done to provoke this response?

This is the most important thing we need to think about. To say that we are the victims is naive in the extreme. It just happens that its our turn to suffer now.

I am in no way condoning this attrocity or any of the others that have preceded i. I am in no way trying to justify the attacks on inncocent lives. But to understand why things happen a truthful analysis of what you did wrong is the first thing that should happen. Only after this has been addressed will you be able to understand and deal with what everyone else did wrong.

Good point.

As an aside, have you ever thought about being a marriage guidance counsellor?

 

[Robbo]

Ya know what, at this point in time, I really don’t give a sh!t whether or not anybody can spout what they like on any street corner.
I care about my family being able to get to work without having their heads blown off.

If the price for ensuring that is that some people get their 'perceived' rights infringed, then don't blame me for not crying too much.
You can stop and search me as many times you like mate if it’s for the greater good.
And you go ask some woman who has lost her son to a bomb what she feels the greater good is, speaking on some street corner and walking down the road without the occasional search being down or getting her son back.

Go ask some young girl now as she gets on a tube train in London what she feels is the greater good........


Seems to me as though some so called thinkers would rather ensure the rights of 'suspects' against the rights of innocents to have their limbs attached.

I don't like politicians, never have done; for the most part they are an underclass of people who are self-serving, deceitful pieces of ****e but they are the only game in town I'm afraid and we have to make the best of a bad job in that respect but...when it comes to trusting them on issues like this, I actually do think they have our best interests at heart in that they would only stop and search people, wire tap them and so on if they genuinely suspected they were involved and whilst the liberal, lily-livered among us scream 'infringement of rights' I would much rather we err on the side of that than to allow these suspects free reign to go blow up some more of us.

FFS let's forget about the rights of these suspects and think more about the rights of others to live and to go to work and not worry about being maimed.

The liberals would argue where does it stop?
How do we know the government would cease these alleged infringement of rights once the problem was over?
And so on..

That of course is a possibility and one that is used time and again to support the liberals but my answer is this : I would much rather trust the government to stop and not infringe the rights of innocent people (people they do not suspect as being involved in criminal activities) than trust these bombers to not go about their business...it's a no brainier for me.

I could be accused of over simplifying matters but then again, I could accuse them of over complicating it too and whilst they over complicate, people are getting blown to bits.
Bring in the ID cards tomorrow for all I care, check me fifty times a week, search my house, do whatever but if you can tell me afterwards that as a result of what you are doing it helps ensure the safety of my family, don’t expect too many arguments from this neck of woods.