Blah Blah

But Wulfhound, there are many times of the day when there are no jams, like night for example. Most accidents do not happen at 4am in the morning and by your own admission, at peak times the average speed is below 20mpr, so no need for lower limits at all. Traffic already travels slower at busier times, and most accidents happen at slow speed, during manouvres. To force someone to crawl accross the borough in the dead of night at 20mpr, is just riduculous. And to your 'drunk' analogy, I diasgree. No-one is to blame but the drunk. He has to take responsibility for the choice he made. The stupidity is found in the people who make these decisions in thinking we are all too stupid to behave in a reasonable manner.

I think we all pretty much agree on this. Arms and oil. That's all there is to it.

It's not about oil as such, it's about arms sales. We are one of the world's biggest producers and sellers of arms (in the top four no less) and Saudi is our biggest customer. This homage to the king's death is about business, and business doesn't care about human rights.

But accidents are up in 20mph zones, so the data doesn't support the theory. Only the data on consequences (namely serious injury and fatalities) supports the theory, and yes, that is a reason for doing something in areas where that is an issue (so accident black spots) but to take action on roads where no-one is ever injured is just overkill from the increasingly bureacratic nanny state we live in. Rural roads are some of the worst for serious injury from accidents/ collisions, and for obvious reasons. But it always comes back to us townies being treated like we can't be trusted to drive/ cycle/ cross the road in a reasonable manner. So we have to throw common sense out of the window, stick road signs and restrictions up everywhere, instead of tackling the real issue, which is changing the attitudes of those that use the road, and improving the driving skills of motorists.

First of all numhead man, I am not a speed freak. I cycle mainly and am fully aware of the problems of congested roads and inconsiderate road users. BUT speed is not a factor in most accidents (or collisions if you want to be semantic about it), that's well documented. Error of judgement or wrecklessness is the main cause of collisions. Speed only has a bearing on the consequence. So my argument is this. If councils, government etc really are concerned with reduicing accidents, then tinkering with speed limits is illogical. It does nothing to make poor road users into better road users. In fact I'd argue that it will only serve to increase the impatience of the already wreckless driver, add to the frustration of the already frustrated driver etc.

So that BBC article says accidents down by 1% on 30mph roads but up by 24% on 20mph roads. Clearly that in itself shows that speed and road safety don't always go hand in hand. And speed isn't a factor in most accidents anyway. Errors of judgement by drivers are the main cause of accidents. Motorways are the safest roads to travel on statistically, and they also happen to have the highest speed limits. Most accidents tend to happen during manouvres, like changing lane, turning corners/ right, etc - actions that require drivers to be slowing in speed, and likewise, most accidents result in no personal injury to anyone. We have completely lost perspective of the issue, and think that a few road signs and reduced limits will somehow cure errors of judgement and wreckless driving. And given that we have a crazy amount of CCTV dedicated to traffic lanes too. We don't care about real crime, but we must clamp down on anyone who even farts in a car in a bus lane! It's a truly bonkers obsession and one that no other country in the world shares.

I can cycle faster than 20mpr as indeed do many cyclists. But how can we observe any limits when we are not required to carry a speedometre? I swear some of these things are dreamt up just to validate the jobs of some council departments.

It's a bonkers policy that will make the roads more dangerous for some users, and is completely unenforceable. You also burn more petrol at 20mph than you do at 30mpr, so will do nothing for ambient pollution as well.

Very useful post Legal B.

Gee Loz, give it a rest. Splitting hairs or what! I'm a bloke but I get exactly what LegalB is saying. Why is so hard to acknowledge that women face different challenges to men? In all of this attempt to challenge widely accepted data, you are completely losing sight of the real issue, that rape is predominently a female experience, and predominently perpetuated by men. How we work to change attitudes and behaviour with regards to that should be what we are talking about. How do we make some men behave better than they do, so that they don't take a drunken women to a hotel room, and then call their 'mate' to join in on the way.

Good article David. Again it comes back to perspective. IS is not about to invade Europe any time soon.

I can see that point Otta. But I tend to think it's splitting hairs when it comes to a human willingness to adopt a cause to give validation to their own poor behaviour. That was the point really. I accept that religion is a more powerful cause when it comes to recruiting the world's psychopaths though. They were talking about the reponse of cartoonists (including that one) on the Andrew Marr show. I think that one is a good way of asking the question, why is it ok to offend some groups, and not others. Parkdrive. The title IS unfortunate but I can't see anyone in this debate saying anything to the contrary. What has followed is mostly a debate questioning the skewed portrayal of Islamic terrorism and its roots by the media. Issues like war and western imperialism have been touched upon as well. I thinks it's a very intelligent debate in parts and it's a shame you can't get past your anger at the op and his/her title to see that.

lol ernesto. You might be right.

I totally agree with that being the problem with religion grabot. But is there is hope because there are moderate forms of religion. Most people are private about their religious beliefs. Most people regect the outdated asects of religious belief too. And whilst many muslims will have a view on something like the Iraq war for example, most muslims would never see picking up a gun and overthrowing a government, to impose a totalitarian form of their religion, as a good thing either. We are being influenced by stereotypes here. Stereotypes created in parts of the world that are struggling to develop economies that can engage with the global market, or even create a vibrant internal market in many cases. Places where there is no formal education outside of a local warlord, or tribal orator, or where education is poor, or children have to work instead of going to school etc. Pakistan for example has a huge problem with street kids. Children who have no parents and are left to fend for themselves. There is no abundant welfare state, social services, etc. In that climate, you are going to struggle to create self assured and secure adults. They are perfect fodder for extremist movements. I guess my point is that in a stable and developed economy, religion is less of a problem than it is in a destabilised economy. I don't think religion can isolated from other things.

Couldn't think of an original post Davis, so had to duplicate your post on the other thread? I agree El Pibe on the Syrian aspect. But remember, the muslim brotherhood for example, emerged in Egypt in 1928, and if we are talking about regional activism, it has always been part of the region. There is a struggle in the Islamic world between reformists (moderates) who want to do business with the West and orthodox fundamentalists. That undercurrent has been bubbling for a hundred years! What usually happens is the government quoshes the fundamentalist movement, but I understand the Syrian government are asking for help now. I see it all as an offshoot of the Arab spring, and this time it seems to have growing numbers in support, and to be gaining ground in several countries at the same time. It's a wonder the region didn't fall into anarchy before tbh.

Tyranny is tyranny and psychopathy is psychopathy. What label is attached, whilst relevant in a current cultural context, isn't significant in a psychological context. The gestapo were all psychopaths, and Nazi ideology was their cause. There's no difference between that and terrorists hailing Islam as the excuse for their acts. Davis, two wrongs do not a right make. And yes, whilst post colonial interests were certainly at the heart of Iraq, what drives Boko Harem? What drives Sunnis to despise Shia's. Why do what the Pakistannis call 'The Pushtan' fight each other and have done for centuries? This comes back to my point that the conflict we are talking about here is not just about the West and Islam, it is also an internal conflict within the Islamic world, a conflict that has raged for decades and more, and THAT is what the likes of Bush et al completely failed to understand before marching in there with some fairy tale notion that all it takes to change a culture going back thousands of years, is regime change. It is a world where fighting is the answer to everything in some places. It will take a hundred years (just like it did in the west) to stop people picking up a gun at the drop of a hat. 9/11 was just the excuse America needed and who would you blame for that atrocious act? Parkdirve, it would be nice if you actually engaged in some intelligent debate. Insulting people just makes you look stupid.

And then there's this. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/nigerias-forgotten-massacre-2000-slaughtered-by-boko-haram-but-the-west-is-failing-to-help-9970355.html And it reminds me of the Hutu rebel masscres of Rwanda (a conflict that is still ongoing) but there's no wider reportage of that either. I remember a line from the movie 'Hotal Rwanda' which went something like this; 'When the West sees a dead Bosnian, they see someone that looks like them. When they see a dead Rwandan, they just see another dead African'. I think there's a point there. Whilst the UN and journalists care about conflict wherever and to whomever it happens, the wider public and the press seem to have groups, nations, ethnic groups they care about more than others (for whatever reason). So as awful as it is, 18 murdered people in Paris 'seems' to be more newsworthy than a massacre of 2000 men women and children in some village in Africa no-one in the west has ever heard of. We should be qually shocked and mobilised by both.

I think that hits all the right notes SW. He can't be held up as a role model anymore, and that's what happens when you are found guilty of a crime sometimes. It impacts on the rest of your life and livihood. The case review that is ongoing at present is basically looking for a technicality to overturn his conviction. If he loses that review, will will then see him acknowledge he did wrong? I doubt it.

I agree totally Alan, which is why I always make a disctinction between terrorism and religion. My criticism is levied at the press who do not. Totally agree parkdrive regarding the title of the thread.

Parkdrive Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Robert Poste's Child Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Blah Blah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Parkdrive Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > It's a very complex one though isn't it, > > > because > > > > muslims kill each other all the time > > > > > > > > And non muslims have been slaughtering each > > > other > > > > for decades, Northern Ireland for example, > > > stupid > > > > crass remark. > > > > > > It's not a stupid remark. My point was that > the > > > media likes to portray fundamentalism as a > > battle > > > between the Islamic world and the West. I was > > > simply pointing out this is not the case, > that > > > fundamentalism is as much a nuisance to the > > > Islamic world and other muslims as it is to > the > > > west. > > > > True. In Nigeria Boko Haram is mainly killing > > other Muslims - without wishing in any way to > > diminish what happened in France this week, at > the > > same time Boko Haram killed hundreds. Today > they > > killed something like 17 people using a > > 10-year-old girl as a suicide bomber, and that > has > > nothing to do with finding cartoons offensive. > > Fcuking crass and offensive to non violent musims > and there's millions of them, your collective > ignorance seems to know no bounds. And your inability to oppose an informed view with debate, as opposed to insult is evident too. Did you know for example that Bokum Harem have murdered 2000 people this month alone? They sent a 10 year old girl as a suicide bomber for example. Where is the press outrage at that? We are discussing Islamic terrorism, and the scewed perception that the media portrays. No-one has said anywhere that this is a description of ALL muslims. Why can't you grasp that islamic fundamentalists are as amuch of a danger to the millions of moderate and non violent muslims as anyone else? Why are you completely unable to comprehend the points that I and RPC are making? It IS ok to point out that goups like Bokum Harem and IS kill other muslims too, because they do, and lot's of them. The reason for pointing this out is to illustrate how any claims they spew that the west is the enemy is nonsense. These are not groups driven by religious cause, but tyrannical desire for power. In the arabic world, they are trying to sieze power from Islamic governments. And it's ok to say that.

Parkdrive Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a very complex one though isn't it, because > muslims kill each other all the time > > And non muslims have been slaughtering each other > for decades, Northern Ireland for example, stupid > crass remark. It's not a stupid remark. My point was that the media likes to portray fundamentalism as a battle between the Islamic world and the West. I was simply pointing out this is not the case, that fundamentalism is as much a nuisance to the Islamic world and other muslims as it is to the west.

And the best way to react to outrage is to encourage a sense of perspective. Only by diminishing the meaning and impact of these terrorists, do you devolve them of the attention and power they seek.

It's a very complex one though isn't it, because muslims kill each other all the time, and I think, what is actually about regional and tribal power, becomes confused as being the Islamic world vs the West. Iraq is a perfect example of two different muslim tribes hating each other. Osama Bin Laden's real enemy was the Saudi Royal Family, again his idea of a muslim state differed from theirs. Any alliance or dealings with the West becomes the excuse for what is really just internal groups trying to overthrow their governments and impose dictatorship. IS is Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda was the Mujahideen. They are just different names for a conflict that has been raging for decades, and some would argue, since the end of the first world war.

Yes I listened to Radio 4 and was rather troubled by the comments. That would include the family of the killer of Lee Rigby for example, who have nothing to do with his beliefs and acts. They are not even muslims. I don't know if anyone ever watched 'The Power of Nightmares' (it might be on youtube) but it made the case very strongly for the need of enemies within (and out) as a tools of power over the masses. Keep people afraid of something 'out there' and they will pay less attention to the stuff that really matters (like the economy for example). And all governments use it, and always have. In reality, islamic terrorist acts are far less frequent than the acts of the IRA were. The same is true for the French (who as someone mentions above has a long histroy of Algerian terrorism). We need to keep a sense of perspective. As truly awful as these acts are, they are the acts of just three men (who are now all dead). More people are murdered by their partners, which could be used to argue that relationships are more dangerous than terrorism. The media does a very good job of exaggerating the significance of terror acts. IS for example is a war happening thousands of miles away in a region that has always been at war with the outside, since the soviet afghan conflict and before. It's nothing new for Afghanistan and Pakistan, whatever our governments like to tell us. But no-one in government or the media is putting it into perspective like that. They want us all to be afraid.

That image has just put me off my dinner, but it's a satire that you would have seen in the political cartoons of the 19th century. The British press was full of such, with no holds barred. I think it's hard to know what to do, without giving power to the fundamentalist cause. But Reggie is right in that we don't see cartoons in the press ridiculing Jesus. And we take issues of anti-semitism seriously, so we should also think carefully about genuine offence to muslims too.