TheCranker Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andrew K: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker: We like to have trials over here for that kind of thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Since when? Hundreds were arrested without trial during WWII, which allowed Britain to roll up the entire Nazi spy network in the UK. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I like to think we've moved on a bit in the last 60 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew K Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker: I like to think we've moved on a bit in the last 60 years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. The wrong direction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver_blue Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I don't see the issue with detaining someone for a reasonable length of time on the basis of suspicion. Isn't every arrest made on the basis of suspicion, not proof? You arrest someone in large part to help you investigate their actions and discover proof before you charge them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCranker Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I'm not seeing much of the "investigate their actions and discover proof before you charge" bit at Guantemo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver_blue Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker: I'm not seeing much of the "investigate their actions and discover proof before you charge" bit at Guantemo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> No, which is why I disagree with what's happening at Guantanamo. Yes, I can see the practicality on one level - but aren't we supposed to be proving that we're better? Which means arresting people, charging them, and having a burden of proof. I think Guantanamo goes too far one way, but I do think we have a tendency to go too far the other way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cockney Cobbler Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by silver_blue: And frankly, I don't see why we had to make such a fecking huge deal of it in this country. London's been bombed loads of times, why was this one so special that we had to do one of our rare "oh, lets all grieve as a nation" moments? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> tbf, worst peace-time atrocity in this countries history is possibly a good reason but I agree it is now being milked to the hilt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cockney Cobbler Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Jebus, my spelling and grammar was terrible there, I blame the couple of pints and lunch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCranker Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by silver_blue: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker: I'm not seeing much of the "investigate their actions and discover proof before you charge" bit at Guantemo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> No, which is why I disagree with what's happening at Guantanamo. Yes, I can see the practicality on one level - but aren't we supposed to be proving that we're better? Which means arresting people, charging them, and having a burden of proof. I think Guantanamo goes too far one way, but I do think we have a tendency to go too far the other way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> tbf if the CPS thought they had a case they'd be happy to go for these guys. We've tried a few times and without taking the American stance of sticking them on an island somewhere snd pretending that human rights don't exist unless you're American, I don't see what we can do. We have laws for a reason and until people can prove to me that the American way of trampling all over the world is making the world a safer place then I'm happy with our legal system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew K Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by silver_blue: No, which is why I disagree with what's happening at Guantanamo. Yes, I can see the practicality on one level - but aren't we supposed to be proving that we're better? Which means arresting people, charging them, and having a burden of proof. I think Guantanamo goes too far one way, but I do think we have a tendency to go too far the other way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> But what should the role be? Protecting one's citizens by thwarting future attacks or bringing people to justice? They are basically mutually exclusive because you cannot gain information from a defendant who has a right to silence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver_blue Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cockney Cobbler: tbf, worst peace-time atrocity in this countries history is possibly a good reason but I agree it is now being milked to the hilt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, not really. If we're quantifying atrocities in that way then Lockerbie is significantly worse in terms of death toll, and yet that never provoked a reaction like this iirc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moshi Moshe Mohammed Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I don't understand why suspected Al Qaeda -- no matter how vague the suspicion is -- should be allowed entry. On my application for American residency, I was asked if I was ever a member of the communist or nazi party or an organization that attempted to overthrow a government -- with the implication that membership in those may disqualify me from entry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cockney Cobbler Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by silver_blue: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cockney Cobbler: tbf, worst peace-time atrocity in this countries history is possibly a good reason but I agree it is now being milked to the hilt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, not really. If we're quantifying atrocities in that way then Lockerbie is significantly worse in terms of death toll, and yet that never provoked a reaction like this iirc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Fair point actually. I was quoting the news agencies on that one but I wonder if Locerkbie 'doesn't count' because it is perceived as an attack on America? Either that or it is spin as per usual Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moshi Moshe Mohammed Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Of course it is next to impossible for the Immigration to verify this information on a self-reported form -- but by signing the form I give the government permission to jail or deport me should it become known that I lied. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moshi Moshe Mohammed Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cockney Cobbler: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by silver_blue: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cockney Cobbler: tbf, worst peace-time atrocity in this countries history is possibly a good reason but I agree it is now being milked to the hilt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, not really. If we're quantifying atrocities in that way then Lockerbie is significantly worse in terms of death toll, and yet that never provoked a reaction like this iirc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Fair point actually. I was quoting the news agencies on that one but I wonder if Locerkbie 'doesn't count' because it is perceived as an attack on America? Either that or it is spin as per usual </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Londond bombings are referred to as "worst peacetime LAND attack". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver_blue Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andrew K: But what should the role be? Protecting one's citizens by thwarting future attacks or bringing people to justice? They are basically mutually exclusive because you cannot gain information from a defendant who has a right to silence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> But if you we go too far down the road of indefinitely incarcerating people then it's on the way to destroying the very thing that we're meant to be protecting. The very fact that we allow people in our countries a greater degree of freedom means that a tiny minority of people will use the opportunity that freedom gives them to act in a violent way. That doesn't mean we shouldn't defend those particular rights and freedoms. I'll admit it's a tough call though. But I think arresting someone, letting them know "we know how you are" and continuing to keep them under surveillance for security purposes - until such time as you may be able to find proof - could be effective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wycombe Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Moshi Moshe Mohammed: Londond bombings are referred to as "worst peacetime LAND attack". </div></BLOCKQUOTE> bit of a tenous way of saying its the "worst" of something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver_blue Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Moshi Moshe Mohammed: I don't understand why suspected Al Qaeda -- no matter how vague the suspicion is -- should be allowed entry. On my application for American residency, I was asked if I was ever a member of the communist or nazi party or an organization that attempted to overthrow a government -- with the implication that membership in those may disqualify me from entry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't either. And I think that's the biggest problem with our immigration system. It's not actually about policy - about whether we should have quotas or allow greater or lesser numbers of immigrants in. It's that the whole system is hugely inefficient - if governments would actually work to get the system (whatever it is) working properly then I'd have more confidence that things like this might be caught. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moshi Moshe Mohammed Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wicom: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Moshi Moshe Mohammed: Londond bombings are referred to as "worst peacetime LAND attack". </div></BLOCKQUOTE> bit of a tenous way of saying its the "worst" of something? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes Could've just said "one of the worst" and be done with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cockney Cobbler Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wicom: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Moshi Moshe Mohammed: Londond bombings are referred to as "worst peacetime LAND attack". </div></BLOCKQUOTE> bit of a tenous way of saying its the "worst" of something? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd say, but then London >>> rest of the UK :insertthesmileywinkthingyhere: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 It's interesting to speculate as to what would be happening had combat 18 or someone carried out the bombings. I reckon any known members would have been rounded up forthwith. Nobody would have mentioned civil rights. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wycombe Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: It's interesting to speculate as to what would be happening had combat 18 or someone carried out the bombings. I reckon any known members would have been rounded up forthwith. Nobody would have mentioned civil rights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I bet the police have far better intelligence on those groups so that wouldn't be so much of an issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCranker Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: It's interesting to speculate as to what would be happening had combat 18 or someone carried out the bombings. I reckon any known members would have been rounded up forthwith. Nobody would have mentioned civil rights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you trying to legitimise your own prejudice with the prejudice of others? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wicom: I bet the police have far better intelligence on those groups so that wouldn't be so much of an issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> They're easier to infiltrate. As I said earlier, we don't need more muslim soldiers or bobbies on the beat, we need ones with the balls to infiltrate the groups only they're capable of infiltrating. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: It's interesting to speculate as to what would be happening had combat 18 or someone carried out the bombings. I reckon any known members would have been rounded up forthwith. Nobody would have mentioned civil rights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you trying to legitimise your own prejudice with the prejudice of others? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I was of course expecting such a comment, but not from you. You really think I'm a fan? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoroPhil Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 I'm pretty sure al-Qaeda is an illegal terrorist group in the UK (and EU) so if anyone entering the country was found to be a member they wouldn't be allowed in. It's proving that they are which is the hard part. I'm guessing all members don't get a pen, baseball cap and monthly newsletter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BoroPhil: I'm guessing all members don't get a pen, baseball cap and monthly newsletter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Correct - but most members will not even be sure if they are AQ or not. It's more an organisation of organisations when it's undercover. Which is why I suggest we must treat all jihadis as AQ. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCranker Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: It's interesting to speculate as to what would be happening had combat 18 or someone carried out the bombings. I reckon any known members would have been rounded up forthwith. Nobody would have mentioned civil rights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you trying to legitimise your own prejudice with the prejudice of others? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I was of course expecting such a comment, but not from you. You really think I'm a fan? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> A fan of what? Prejudice? Yeah I think you're prejudicial. tbh I think you even know you're prejudicial. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker: A fan of what? Prejudice? Yeah I think you're prejudicial. tbh I think you even know you're prejudicial. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't deny it. As long as my predjudice is based on reasoning rather than hatred, what's the prob? I should point out that the idea of being governed by the likes of combat 18 is every bit as abhorrent to me as sharia law. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCranker Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Yeah I understand that and that wasn't the point I was making. I was merely pointing out that you're trying to defend you saying **** it when it comes to civil rights for muslim fundmentalists by saying people would say **** it when it comes to civil rights for Combat 18. For one I think you're wrong as defenders of human rights tend to be defenders of human rights. If they exclude Combat 18 members then they ain't defenders of human rights no more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver_blue Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: Don't deny it. As long as my predjudice is based on reasoning rather than hatred, what's the prob? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> If it's based on reasoning then it's not prejudice though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCranker Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Oh and prejudice isn't based on reasoning by it's very nature. It's judgement in the absence of knowledge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by silver_blue: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: Don't deny it. As long as my predjudice is based on reasoning rather than hatred, what's the prob? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> If it's based on reasoning then it's not prejudice though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> It's pre judging, which I admit too. When I see a Pakistani in western clobber, I have no problems. When I see one with the beard and robes, I see an enemy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker: Yeah I understand that and that wasn't the point I was making. I was merely pointing out that you're trying to defend you saying **** it when it comes to civil rights for muslim fundmentalists by saying people would say **** it when it comes to civil rights for Combat 18. For one I think you're wrong as defenders of human rights tend to be defenders of human rights. If they exclude Combat 18 members then they ain't defenders of human rights no more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I was pointing out that supporters of combat 18 would not get a single word in the nationals in the following days about their civil rights. I think I'm right, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver_blue Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: It's pre judging, which I admit too. When I see a Pakistani in western clobber, I have no problems. When I see one with the beard and robes, I see an enemy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> But that's not actually based on reason - because the vast majority of Pakistanis in robes aren't the enemy, and the greater threat is probably going to come from someone who's wearing western clothes and therefore blends in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver_blue Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: I was pointing out that supporters of combat 18 would not get a single word in the nationals in the following days about their civil rights. I think I'm right, too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> But then, supporters of Al'Quaeda wouldn't get a word about their civil rights. It's when the line between "supporters of Al'Quaeda" and "Muslims" becomes blurred that the stuff about civil rights comes out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by silver_blue: But that's not actually based on reason - because the vast majority of Pakistanis in robes aren't the enemy, and the greater threat is probably going to come from someone who's wearing western clothes and therefore blends in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I see them as badges of a refusal to integrate, worn with pride. Unless they're hiding union jack boxers, I see someone who's life revolves around islam to the detriment of everything else - and those are my enemies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoroPhil Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by silver_blue: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: Don't deny it. As long as my predjudice is based on reasoning rather than hatred, what's the prob? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> If it's based on reasoning then it's not prejudice though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> It's pre judging, which I admit too. When I see a Pakistani in western clobber, I have no problems. When I see one with the beard and robes, I see an enemy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> That is a shocking thing to say. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt before, but you come across as bigoted racist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cockney Cobbler Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: It's pre judging, which I admit too. When I see a Pakistani in western clobber, I have no problems. When I see one with the beard and robes, I see an enemy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> But in the case of the London bombs it was Pakistanis (and a Jamican) in western clobber that were the enemy. That is the problem with these bombs, there isn't a clear distinction, you can't spot a suicide bomber from a mile off unless you are assuming that all muslims are terrorists. But isn't this what the fundamentalists want? They want westerners to start distrusting all followers of the Islamic faith, to start treating them unequally and to stick a huge wedge between 'westerners' and 'Islamists' which will give rise to violence and war. Or am I looking at this too simplistically? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoroPhil Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by silver_blue: But that's not actually based on reason - because the vast majority of Pakistanis in robes aren't the enemy, and the greater threat is probably going to come from someone who's wearing western clothes and therefore blends in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I see them as badges of a refusal to integrate, worn with pride. Unless they're hiding union jack boxers, I see someone who's life revolves around islam to the detriment of everything else - and those are my enemies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Why the f*ck should they have to wear western clothes? I thought we were supposed to be defending freedom - including freedom of what to wear. You aren't anti-Muslim fundamentalist, you are anti-Muslim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver_blue Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: I see them as badges of a refusal to integrate, worn with pride. Unless they're hiding union jack boxers, I see someone who's life revolves around islam to the detriment of everything else - and those are my enemies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> But why does that make them your enemies? Even if it's true that they are refusing to integrate? There's a big jump between not wanting to integrate with a particular society and actually wishing to harm it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by silver_blue: But then, supporters of Al'Quaeda wouldn't get a word about their civil rights. It's when the line between "supporters of Al'Quaeda" and "Muslims" becomes blurred that the stuff about civil rights comes out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. What worries me is it's often the muslim clerics and leaders who are the ones to blur the line. We (almost) all agree now that AQ supporters have to be locked up or thrown out. I take it further - I think to get rid of the danger we need to throw out those who dress and act like AQ supporters even if they're not. I don't believe they will or even want to integrate in western society, and they will always be a danger. At the very least, they need keeping tabs on, but I don't think we have the resources to do it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BoroPhil: Why the f*ck should they have to wear western clothes? I thought we were supposed to be defending freedom - including freedom of what to wear. You aren't anti-Muslim fundamentalist, you are anti-Muslim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> They can put a union jack badge on the robes, and I'm fine. Anyway, aren't we banning hoodies? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoroPhil Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cockney Cobbler: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: It's pre judging, which I admit too. When I see a Pakistani in western clobber, I have no problems. When I see one with the beard and robes, I see an enemy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> But in the case of the London bombs it was Pakistanis (and a Jamican) in western clobber that were the enemy. That is the problem with these bombs, there isn't a clear distinction, you can't spot a suicide bomber from a mile off unless you are assuming that all muslims are terrorists. But isn't this what the fundamentalists want? They want westerners to start distrusting all followers of the Islamic faith, to start treating them unequally and to stick a huge wedge between 'westerners' and 'Islamists' which will give rise to violence and war. Or am I looking at this too simplistically? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> It's exactly what they want. 99% of British muslims happily co-exist with Whites. This is where it becomes ironic as the BNP and al-Qaeda have similar aims - to create a massive wedge between us. We have to ensure that doesn't happen. People like Bert are trying to ensure it does. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cockney Cobbler Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bert Preast: I see them as badges of a refusal to integrate, worn with pride. Unless they're hiding union jack boxers, I see someone who's life revolves around islam to the detriment of everything else - and those are my enemies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> But Bert, I don't see how this helps the situation. I know you don't think we can reason or negotiate with these guys and yes Islamic people don't help themselves if they don't attempt to integrate in to the society they live in, but isn't that partly because we don't let them, we put the barriers up and show an intolerance or lack of understanding of their beliefs because it is foreign to us and not western enough or 'civilised' enough to us. I agree people of Islamic faith need to do more to integrate in to western society if they choose to live in a western democracy, but equally we should do more in accepting that their faith is just as important to them as democracy is to us. A bit of give and take on both sides, although who gives first? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by silver_blue: But why does that make them your enemies? Even if it's true that they are refusing to integrate? There's a big jump between not wanting to integrate with a particular society and actually wishing to harm it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I know. But I don't think we can afford to take the risk anymore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCranker Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 Man I love how Bert gets all incredulous when I mention his BNP leanings and then comes out with **** like people with beards and robes are the enemy. Classic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cockney Cobbler: But in the case of the London bombs it was Pakistanis (and a Jamican) in western clobber that were the enemy. That is the problem with these bombs, there isn't a clear distinction, you can't spot a suicide bomber from a mile off unless you are assuming that all muslims are terrorists. But isn't this what the fundamentalists want? They want westerners to start distrusting all followers of the Islamic faith, to start treating them unequally and to stick a huge wedge between 'westerners' and 'Islamists' which will give rise to violence and war. Or am I looking at this too simplistically? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> They dressed as westerners for the day of the bombings, but all had dressed in traditional gear in the months leading up to the - since they became jihadis, I'd reckon. The fundamentalists want to convert every muslim in the west into a jihadi. They get quite annoyed with anyone who doesn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cockney Cobbler Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BoroPhil: It's exactly what they want. 99% of British muslims happily co-exist with Whites. This is where it becomes ironic as the BNP and al-Qaeda have similar aims - to create a massive wedge between us. We have to ensure that doesn't happen. People like Bert are trying to ensure it does. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think Bert is purposefully creating a divide, I think he has a certain amount of mistrust because of what he has seen with his own two eyes. It is rebuilding that trust between westerners and Islamist that is required but unfortunately I agree with Bert when he says, or would say, I can't see someone like OBL rebuilding any trust as he wants to destroy the west not make friends with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheCranker: Man I love how Bert gets all incredulous when I mention his BNP leanings and then comes out with **** like people with beards and robes are the enemy. Classic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> MCB > BNP > C18 > AQ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bert Preast Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BoroPhil: It's exactly what they want. 99% of British muslims happily co-exist with Whites. This is where it becomes ironic as the BNP and al-Qaeda have similar aims - to create a massive wedge between us. We have to ensure that doesn't happen. People like Bert are trying to ensure it does. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Rubbish. It's no way more that 96%. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.