Blah Blah

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 Most people regect the outdated asects of religious belief too.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.

'There is also the potential that things will start to wither and become just a series of self-replicating thoughts/debate/discussions.' That is an extremely goood point, and something I've seen on other forums. Debate does get locked down to the same predictable range of of views and responses. Debate is about expressing a view, listening to the antithesis, and being prepared to change your view if the antithesis has merit. What often happens I think is that debate in forums is not debate at all, but a sounding box for people with strong and unmovable opinions.

Great result missmack, but absolutely no excuse for hubby forgetting pizza ;D Truly well done.

When checking the pawn shops, ask the people behind the counters and leave a number and description of all the stolen jewelry too. Might be worth asking if they have stolen item alerts accross branches too.

I think everyone is making valid points. I think most people do seperate the rememberance from the political. The poppy as we all know, came about as a symbol, out of the true sadness of WWI, where whole villages lost all their men. I don't think there was ever any notion of glorification of war intended there. I had a great uncle who died at the Somme, and I don't see glory. Just grimness and a lonely way to die. And let's also remember that it was a war that shook the old guard to it's core and changed the social order of Europe and her allies forever. The poppy also reminds us of that and makes us revisit both WW1 and WW2. Whilst leaders, it is true, seem to fail to learn from history, I would hate to see a world where people no longer know anything about those wars, and what was at stake. And whilst Iraq was/is a shameful exercise, I wouldn't ever deny rememberance to the families of those who have fallen there. Their bereavement is real, and painful too.

Point taken minder. I just think it's better not to add fuel to the fire, and rise to it when that happens. It's clearly opened a few raw wounds.

I just read the link to the thread. That is a truly awful thread and Sue, you should be ashamed of it, not defiantly crying foul. The post from El Pibe is not the thing that is the problem there imo. I don't know if you were having a bad day at the time but that is just the worst example of 'dog with a bone' I've seen on a forum, over an issue that is extremely sensitive. And if you have got yourself into scrapes like that, the worst thing you can do is drag them up. It will only drive you round the bend and probably everyone else too. Let it go.

Sorry to hear that Natalie. At least we have a heads up in the area now and the fact that the two cars together are a pretty good description, hopefully these guys can be caught sooner rather than later. I think burglary is up everywhere. Sign of the times sadly.

This is where it all gets messy. Old debates dragged up, old conflicts, grudges resurface, and most of us have no idea what anyone is talking about. Isn't it better to let sleeping dogs lie? Btw Otta, I do apologise, You are right, I didn't read your post properly and reacted stupidly.

We can challenge him Sue. Davis you are showing no understanding of the times that people lived in. Conscription was compulsary. Men did refuse and ended up in Jail. Men who were already serving and refused were shot. In WWII some soldiers were too frigthened to fire their weapons. It's one of the reasons why we have smaller but more highly trained and selected armies today. Yes some wars are unjust. Others are self defence. All wars are a waste of life and resources. But remembereance is about the plight of those ordinary men (and women). It is not about the monarchs, and governments that sent them to their deaths. They were incredibly brave, all of them on all sides, and it is the bravery we honour, and the sacrifice. It really doesn't matter if the cause was just or not. Incidentally, it was the lack of respect shown to the German fallen that in part left Adolf Hitler so angry after WW1, and that sentiment was not only his. Also I think there are some valid comments you make on fresdom etc but WW1 and WW2 were reactions to aggressors determined to invade the whole world (if they could) and impose a totalitarian regime. Or do you think we should have let the Kaiser invade France, and North Afica? Or the Nazi regime invade all of Europe. Yes women and homosexuals etc were not equal, but no-one apart from Germany was gassing peolple.

If by flounce you mean getting annoyed, then yes. I mean, let's all poke fun at that bloke who dares to complain about the stupid, tiring and wrong allegations of a couple of miss marple's. Really, has Otta nothing better to occupy his brain with?

No Otta, I'm just fed up of the recurring same bs, and it is bs. I've had it since the first time I posted, and it's a bit tiring now - change the record please. How would you like it if I start accusing you of being every person you have a similar style to? But it wouldn't even occur to me to do that. I have better things to think about. And just to add, it's that kind of constant nonsense from (I'm guessing you are) established posters that makes newcomers like me turn off from the EDF. Is that what you want Otta? You want me to become one of those people that has little good to say about it and it's group of established posters? Maybe THAT is what the clique is.

What are you talking about Otta? So you now think I am two other people as well - that's now makes four people I am supposed to be? What kind of sad person do you take me for? Oh wait, you actually don't know anything about me, apart from me being a vegetarian bloke with two kids (because that's all I've revealed about myself on here). Anyone else get subjected to this nonsense?

Quite Alan, who cares indeed. It doesn't really matter. But if posters are being 'cornered' as suggested above then that does matter. It might be easy to spew bile and accusations when anonymous, but so too it is easy to keep on at a poster until they cave in. What is often described as bullying on forums is more a case of soemone having to have the last word. If you then have several people having to have the last word, then it gets quite messy. It should be enough to express a view and be ok about others expressing a different view, without a need to keep emphasising the point. Tone also plays a part, as well as written styles of expression. It's so easy to form the wrong impression of someone, and of what they are trying to say.