|
SocaWho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
quickflick wrote:Simon Jenkins, appearing in The Guardian on 24 March, 2016 wrote:Think like the enemy. Let’s suppose I am an Islamic State terrorist. I don’t do bombs or bullets. I leave the dirty work to the crazies in the basement. My job is what happens next. It is to turn carnage into consequences, body parts into politics. I am a consultant terrorist. I wear a suit, not explosives. A blood-stained concourse is a means to an end. The end is power. This week I had another success. I converted a squalid psychopathological act into a warrior-evoking, population-terrifying, policy-changing event. I sent a continent into shock. Famous politicians dropped everything to shower me with cliches. Crowned heads deluged me with glorious odium. I measure my success in column inches and television hours, in ballooning security budgets, butchered liberties, amended laws and – my ultimate goal – Muslims persecuted and recruited to our cause. I deal not in actions but in reactions. I am a manipulator of politics. I work through the idiocies of my supposed enemies. Textbooks on terrorism define its effects in four stages: first the horror, then the publicity, then the political grandstanding, and finally the climactic shift in policy. The initial act is banal. The atrocities in Brussels happen almost daily on the streets of Baghdad, Aleppo and Damascus. Western missiles and Isis bombs kill more innocents in a week than die in Europe in a year. The difference is the media response. A dead Muslim is an unlucky mutt in the wrong place at the wrong time. A dead European is front-page news. So on Tuesday the TV news channels behaved like Isis recruiting sergeants. Their blanket hyperbole showed not the slightest restraint (nor for that matter did that of most newspapers). The BBC flew Huw Edwards to Brussels. It flashed horror across the airwaves continually for 24 hours, incanting the words “panic”, “threat”, “menace” and “terror”. Vox pops wallowed in blood and guts. One reporter rode a London tube escalator to show possible future targets, to scare the wits out of commuters. It was a terrorist’s wildest dream. With the ground thus prepared, the politicians entered on cue. France’s President Hollande declared “all of Europe has been hit”, megaphoning Isis’s crime. His approval rating immediately jumped. David Cameron dived into his Cobra bunker and announced the UK “faces a very real terror threat”. An attack is now “highly likely”, according to the security services. Flags fly at half-mast. The Eiffel Tower is decked in Belgian colours. President Obama interrupts his Cuba visit to stand “in solidarity with Belgium”. Donald Trump declares that “Belgium and France are literally disintegrating”. It is hard to imagine what could more effectively promote the Isis cause. Osama bin Laden set out on 9/11 to depict western nations as feckless and paranoid, their liberalism a surface charade easily punctured. A few explosions and their pretensions would wither and they would turn as repressive as any Muslim state. By Tuesday evening, such a feeding frenzy was in full flood as the security lobby piled in. Cameron’s snoopers’ charter (or “investigatory powers” bill) was lauded as vital to national security. This is despite continued opposition both in parliament and from intelligence experts. This month in the Times, former NSA technical director Bill Binney ridiculed the bill’s “incredibly intrusive” powers of untargeted interception. Each citizen’s browsing history will soon be in the possession of the government, vulnerable to hacking by every marketer and blackmailer in the land. Under the government’s Prevent strategy, universities and schools must develop programmes to counter “non-violent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism”. The bureaucracy will be awesome. Primary schools are reportedly asking children to spy on one another to check “suspicious behaviour”. So must passengers on Virgin trains, as requested after each station. England is becoming old East Germany. The Brexit camp, in the person of Ukip’s Nigel Farage, claims that Brussels proves the need to leave Europe. The home secretary, Theresa May, says the opposite. Terrorists would roam free, she says, since it would take 143 days to process terrorist DNA samples as against 15 minutes in the EU. Reacting to terrorist incidents otherwise, in ways that do not play into terrorism’s hands, may seem hard. A free media feels a duty to report events, as politicians feel a duty to show they can protect the public. That it’s hard to show restraint is no excuse for actively promoting terror. Everyone involved in this week’s reaction, from journalists to politicians to security lobbyists, has an interest in terrorism. There is money, big money, to be made – the more terrifying it is presented, the more money. We can respond to events in Brussels with a quiet and dignified sympathy, with candles and silences. To downplay something is not to ignore it. The terrorists have specific aims, deploying their atrocities for a political cause. There is no sensible defence in a free society against atrocity. But there is a defence against its purpose. It is to avoid hysteria, to show caution and a measure of courage, not Cameron’s lapse into public fear. It is not to alter laws, not to infringe liberties, not to persecute Muslims. During the more dangerous and consistent IRA bombing campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s, Labour and Conservative governments insisted on treating terrorism as criminal, not political. They relied on the police and security services to guard against a threat that could never be eliminated, only diminished. On the whole it worked, and without undue harm to civil liberties. Those who live under freedom know it demands a price, which is a degree of risk. We pay the state to protect us – but calmly, without constant boasting or fearmongering. We know that, in reality, life in Britain has never been safer. That it suits some people to pretend otherwise does not alter the fact. In his admirable manual, Terrorism: How to Respond, the Belfast academic Richard English defines the threat to democracy as not the “limited danger” of death and destruction. It is the danger “of provoking ill-judged, extravagant and counterproductive state responses”. The menace of Brussels lies not in the terror, but in the reaction to the terror. It is the reaction we should fear. But liberty never emerges from a Cobra bunker. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/24/scariest-brussels-reactoin-paranoid-politicians-isis-atrocity-belgium Pointless article. As I mentioned before...why is that the Thais, Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, Indonesians, Somalis, Nigerians, Burmese, Israelis, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus,Russians, etc, have their own issues with Muslim Extremists as well. How can you make an argument that everyone else is wrong except the Muslim Extremists? The Left constantly make arguments that it is due to the Western Forces like America that have invaded the Middle East that have led to the sort of resentment that Muslims have for the West...yes that may be true to an extent...but I don't remember the Chinese, Thais, Somalians, etc invading the Middle East to claim oil for their own and destabilising these regions. It is a society problem. The Taliban in Afghanistan are even blowing up Buddhist statues that have existed for many centuries...so it the Buddhists fault as well? Look at Japan...they have almost zero Muslim Immigration yet I do not see a single Muslim Terrorist attack over there... Look at China...they have had issues with Uigher Muslim Extremists yet they are crushing them with brute force and blunt legislation to suppress them so they don't grow. Look at Thailand they are having issues with Muslim extremists in the South of Thailand (Yala) where bombings are a frequent occurrence despite the Buddhists being a majority. The Burmese Monks are having their troubles with Muslim separatists.. I don't remember any of the above countries being affiliated with the troubles taking place in the Middle East to warrant the same sort of backlash that say a country like the United States has experienced. So suppose they took the advice of the author of this article what do you think would happen? These countries differ from the West because they do not give in to Political Correctness to compromise the safety of their nation and their sovereignty....all for the sake of pandering to the Left. After the Paris bombings it was alleged the leader of this attack merely went back to his home in Melbeck, Brussels...How could authorities not know of his whereabouts? It was also reported that the Greeks or Turkish authorities warned them of his whereabouts many times to the Belgian Authorities and did nothing. The Left are so naive to believe that Flowers and Candles will help to mitigate Islamic Terrorism.... and this is a very dangerous statement from the author... Quote:The menace of Brussels lies not in the terror, but in the reaction to the terror. It is the reaction we should fear. But liberty never emerges from a Cobra bunker. ..since its basically telling us to cop it in the ass....its an outrageous assertion to make since its giving the extremists a free kick. Edited by SocaWho: 26/3/2016 02:19:52 PMEdited by SocaWho: 26/3/2016 02:22:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Simon Jenkins, appearing in The Guardian on 24 March, 2016 wrote:Think like the enemy. Let’s suppose I am an Islamic State terrorist. I don’t do bombs or bullets. I leave the dirty work to the crazies in the basement. My job is what happens next. It is to turn carnage into consequences, body parts into politics. I am a consultant terrorist. I wear a suit, not explosives. A blood-stained concourse is a means to an end. The end is power. This week I had another success. I converted a squalid psychopathological act into a warrior-evoking, population-terrifying, policy-changing event. I sent a continent into shock. Famous politicians dropped everything to shower me with cliches. Crowned heads deluged me with glorious odium. I measure my success in column inches and television hours, in ballooning security budgets, butchered liberties, amended laws and – my ultimate goal – Muslims persecuted and recruited to our cause. I deal not in actions but in reactions. I am a manipulator of politics. I work through the idiocies of my supposed enemies. Textbooks on terrorism define its effects in four stages: first the horror, then the publicity, then the political grandstanding, and finally the climactic shift in policy. The initial act is banal. The atrocities in Brussels happen almost daily on the streets of Baghdad, Aleppo and Damascus. Western missiles and Isis bombs kill more innocents in a week than die in Europe in a year. The difference is the media response. A dead Muslim is an unlucky mutt in the wrong place at the wrong time. A dead European is front-page news. So on Tuesday the TV news channels behaved like Isis recruiting sergeants. Their blanket hyperbole showed not the slightest restraint (nor for that matter did that of most newspapers). The BBC flew Huw Edwards to Brussels. It flashed horror across the airwaves continually for 24 hours, incanting the words “panic”, “threat”, “menace” and “terror”. Vox pops wallowed in blood and guts. One reporter rode a London tube escalator to show possible future targets, to scare the wits out of commuters. It was a terrorist’s wildest dream. With the ground thus prepared, the politicians entered on cue. France’s President Hollande declared “all of Europe has been hit”, megaphoning Isis’s crime. His approval rating immediately jumped. David Cameron dived into his Cobra bunker and announced the UK “faces a very real terror threat”. An attack is now “highly likely”, according to the security services. Flags fly at half-mast. The Eiffel Tower is decked in Belgian colours. President Obama interrupts his Cuba visit to stand “in solidarity with Belgium”. Donald Trump declares that “Belgium and France are literally disintegrating”. It is hard to imagine what could more effectively promote the Isis cause. Osama bin Laden set out on 9/11 to depict western nations as feckless and paranoid, their liberalism a surface charade easily punctured. A few explosions and their pretensions would wither and they would turn as repressive as any Muslim state. By Tuesday evening, such a feeding frenzy was in full flood as the security lobby piled in. Cameron’s snoopers’ charter (or “investigatory powers” bill) was lauded as vital to national security. This is despite continued opposition both in parliament and from intelligence experts. This month in the Times, former NSA technical director Bill Binney ridiculed the bill’s “incredibly intrusive” powers of untargeted interception. Each citizen’s browsing history will soon be in the possession of the government, vulnerable to hacking by every marketer and blackmailer in the land. Under the government’s Prevent strategy, universities and schools must develop programmes to counter “non-violent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism”. The bureaucracy will be awesome. Primary schools are reportedly asking children to spy on one another to check “suspicious behaviour”. So must passengers on Virgin trains, as requested after each station. England is becoming old East Germany. The Brexit camp, in the person of Ukip’s Nigel Farage, claims that Brussels proves the need to leave Europe. The home secretary, Theresa May, says the opposite. Terrorists would roam free, she says, since it would take 143 days to process terrorist DNA samples as against 15 minutes in the EU. Reacting to terrorist incidents otherwise, in ways that do not play into terrorism’s hands, may seem hard. A free media feels a duty to report events, as politicians feel a duty to show they can protect the public. That it’s hard to show restraint is no excuse for actively promoting terror. Everyone involved in this week’s reaction, from journalists to politicians to security lobbyists, has an interest in terrorism. There is money, big money, to be made – the more terrifying it is presented, the more money. We can respond to events in Brussels with a quiet and dignified sympathy, with candles and silences. To downplay something is not to ignore it. The terrorists have specific aims, deploying their atrocities for a political cause. There is no sensible defence in a free society against atrocity. But there is a defence against its purpose. It is to avoid hysteria, to show caution and a measure of courage, not Cameron’s lapse into public fear. It is not to alter laws, not to infringe liberties, not to persecute Muslims. During the more dangerous and consistent IRA bombing campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s, Labour and Conservative governments insisted on treating terrorism as criminal, not political. They relied on the police and security services to guard against a threat that could never be eliminated, only diminished. On the whole it worked, and without undue harm to civil liberties. Those who live under freedom know it demands a price, which is a degree of risk. We pay the state to protect us – but calmly, without constant boasting or fearmongering. We know that, in reality, life in Britain has never been safer. That it suits some people to pretend otherwise does not alter the fact. In his admirable manual, Terrorism: How to Respond, the Belfast academic Richard English defines the threat to democracy as not the “limited danger” of death and destruction. It is the danger “of provoking ill-judged, extravagant and counterproductive state responses”. The menace of Brussels lies not in the terror, but in the reaction to the terror. It is the reaction we should fear. But liberty never emerges from a Cobra bunker. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/24/scariest-brussels-reactoin-paranoid-politicians-isis-atrocity-belgium
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
TheDecider wrote:Dr Ben Carson wrote:mcjules wrote:SocaWho wrote:The thing is that the Lefties romanticise those horse riding jihadis with a blade riding off into the sunset in the same way they ideologise their cult hero Che Gueverra on T shirts =d> Reaching for new heights of stupidity, as always. I'm amazed that you know who Che Guevarra is. It cuts you to the bone you cant respond without insulting him and even less so with your regular account. You can't argue with stupid. But you can hide behind a Multi.
|
|
|
|
|
SocaWho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
quickflick wrote:Dan_The_Red wrote:433 wrote:quickflick wrote:scott21 wrote:quickflick wrote:
However here is where it gets tricky. The healthiest societies have fairly relaxed laws but very high moral standards. So 11.mvfc.11 can post distasteful cartoons as much as he likes. But it's disgusting and it's incumbent upon the rest of us to call him out for it.
You'll noticed I didn't ask for that cartoon to be taken down. I'm not authoritarian. But I think it behoves the rest of us to call it what it is... a disgrace.
nek minnut  They had the right to publish those cartoons. Nobody has the right to gun them down. But, still, take a step back. They were being very insensitive to a people who are already very marginalised. And by God this is true, Muslims in France are treated like second-class citizens. What did I say about healthy societies having relatively relaxed laws but high moral standards? They lowered the moral standards by mocking Muslims. Those who carried out (or co-ordinated) the attacks deserve to go to prison for life. But it's fucking stupid and insensitive of others to ridicule Muslims. They didn't deserve what they got. They are innocent victims. I'm not suggesting that is not the case. But it was fucking stupid of them to do it. They were pouring fuel into a fire. Everybody has a responsibility to tone it down and treat others the way they would like to be treated. Don't ridicule, don't denigrate, don't add to the poisonous racist discourse, don't shoot, don't bomb. So unless we're super nice to Islam and don't call it a violent cult, then Muslims will kill us. Whereas if we're super nice to Islam and don't offer any critique whatsoever, then Muslims won't kill us. By golly, what a peaceful people. Mate Quickflick must surely be takin the piss, his argument is so ridiculous I'm still laughing from this morning. He changes the goalposts after every post it's so easy for everyone else to find the glaring flaw in his logic. This recent one is the perfect example. Seriously how disgusting is it to insinuate the Charlie hebdo attacks were warranted because of a satire piece of Mohammad, and then to lecture us about freedom of speech? What an idiot. Promoting that trail of thought leads to the destruction of civilisation. Edited by Dan_The_Red: 24/3/2016 11:02:30 PM Christ! Aren't you embittered. You're so wound up you're actually not even trying to misrepresent my opinion by wording. You've given up on that. You're actually just changing what I said. When did I insinuate the Charlie Hebdo attack were warranted? quickflick wrote:Those who carried out (or co-ordinated) the attacks deserve to go to prison for life. When did I say they didn't have the right to publish those cartoons? quickflick wrote:They had the right to publish those cartoons. Nobody has the right to gun them down. Did you pass grade 3 reading comprehension class, pal? Those statements make it fairly clear what my position. That the opposite of suggesting the attacks were warranted. How have I moved the goalposts? I've said the same thing all along. Freedom of speech is sacrosanct (I'm a JS Mills devotee FFS!) but don't act like a%$ehole. Just treat people the way you want to be treated. Muslims in France (and elsewhere) are treated like second-class citizens. How would you feel if people spat at you on the street? How would you feel if you were unable to procure the job you want because your name is Abdul. Then you say your name is Étienne, have the same qualifications and experience, and you get the job. That's the way it is for Muslims in France. It's a shit world. They're treated like shit. You can hate me all you like. I'm not bothered. You can attempt to misrepresent what I've said all along, I can cope with that. You can even delude yourself into thinking that I've said things I haven't said. Whatever. That's says more about you than it does about me. You can fear Islamic extremism. That's understandable. But I'll quote myself again. quickflick wrote:Don't ridicule, don't denigrate, don't add to the poisonous racist discourse, don't shoot, don't bomb If you can't understand that. If you can't appreciate the importance of treating others the way you want to be treated (not just for them, but for your own growth as a person). If you can't do that, then you've got real problems and I feel really sorry for you. Your narrative is quite simple...bend over and take it up the ass from these extremists . and to resist or fight back is nothing short of bigotry. to quote your words ...Don't ridicule, don't denigrate, don't add to the poisonous racist discourse, don't shoot, don't bomb you keep forgetting who did the bombing in brussels Edited by Socawho: 25/3/2016 01:42:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Dan_The_Red wrote:433 wrote:quickflick wrote:scott21 wrote:quickflick wrote:
However here is where it gets tricky. The healthiest societies have fairly relaxed laws but very high moral standards. So 11.mvfc.11 can post distasteful cartoons as much as he likes. But it's disgusting and it's incumbent upon the rest of us to call him out for it.
You'll noticed I didn't ask for that cartoon to be taken down. I'm not authoritarian. But I think it behoves the rest of us to call it what it is... a disgrace.
nek minnut They had the right to publish those cartoons. Nobody has the right to gun them down. But, still, take a step back. They were being very insensitive to a people who are already very marginalised. And by God this is true, Muslims in France are treated like second-class citizens. What did I say about healthy societies having relatively relaxed laws but high moral standards? They lowered the moral standards by mocking Muslims. Those who carried out (or co-ordinated) the attacks deserve to go to prison for life. But it's fucking stupid and insensitive of others to ridicule Muslims. They didn't deserve what they got. They are innocent victims. I'm not suggesting that is not the case. But it was fucking stupid of them to do it. They were pouring fuel into a fire. Everybody has a responsibility to tone it down and treat others the way they would like to be treated. Don't ridicule, don't denigrate, don't add to the poisonous racist discourse, don't shoot, don't bomb. So unless we're super nice to Islam and don't call it a violent cult, then Muslims will kill us. Whereas if we're super nice to Islam and don't offer any critique whatsoever, then Muslims won't kill us. By golly, what a peaceful people. Mate Quickflick must surely be takin the piss, his argument is so ridiculous I'm still laughing from this morning. He changes the goalposts after every post it's so easy for everyone else to find the glaring flaw in his logic. This recent one is the perfect example. Seriously how disgusting is it to insinuate the Charlie hebdo attacks were warranted because of a satire piece of Mohammad, and then to lecture us about freedom of speech? What an idiot. Promoting that trail of thought leads to the destruction of civilisation. Edited by Dan_The_Red: 24/3/2016 11:02:30 PM Christ! Aren't you embittered. You're so wound up you're actually not even trying to misrepresent my opinion by wording. You've given up on that. You're actually just changing what I said. When did I insinuate the Charlie Hebdo attack were warranted? quickflick wrote:Those who carried out (or co-ordinated) the attacks deserve to go to prison for life. When did I say they didn't have the right to publish those cartoons? quickflick wrote:They had the right to publish those cartoons. Nobody has the right to gun them down. Did you pass grade 3 reading comprehension class, pal? Those statements make it fairly clear what my position. That the opposite of suggesting the attacks were warranted. How have I moved the goalposts? I've said the same thing all along. Freedom of speech is sacrosanct (I'm a JS Mills devotee FFS!) but don't act like a%$ehole. Just treat people the way you want to be treated. Muslims in France (and elsewhere) are treated like second-class citizens. How would you feel if people spat at you on the street? How would you feel if you were unable to procure the job you want because your name is Abdul. Then you say your name is Étienne, have the same qualifications and experience, and you get the job. That's the way it is for Muslims in France. It's a shit world. They're treated like shit. You can hate me all you like. I'm not bothered. You can attempt to misrepresent what I've said all along, I can cope with that. You can even delude yourself into thinking that I've said things I haven't said. Whatever. That's says more about you than it does about me. You can fear Islamic extremism. That's understandable. But I'll quote myself again. quickflick wrote:Don't ridicule, don't denigrate, don't add to the poisonous racist discourse, don't shoot, don't bomb If you can't understand that. If you can't appreciate the importance of treating others the way you want to be treated (not just for them, but for your own growth as a person). If you can't do that, then you've got real problems and I feel really sorry for you.
|
|
|
|
Dr Ben Carson
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 40,
Visits: 0
|
paladisious wrote:Dr Ben Carson wrote:I post from one account. Not a multi.
You're blaming the victim now instead of sanctioning the person who is insulting. I'm blaming who for what now? I just posted some numerical facts, I never accused anyone of anything, but you seem all defensive about something when all I posted was your own words. :-k Pretty suss, dude. Now you're trying to troll me. Why cant you stay on topic of this thread?
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
Dr Ben Carson wrote:I post from one account. Not a multi.
You're blaming the victim now instead of sanctioning the person who is insulting. I'm blaming who for what now? I just posted some numerical facts, I never accused anyone of anything, but you seem all defensive about something when all I posted was your own words. :-k Pretty suss, dude.
|
|
|
|
|
SocaWho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Dan_The_Red wrote:433 wrote:quickflick wrote:scott21 wrote:quickflick wrote:
However here is where it gets tricky. The healthiest societies have fairly relaxed laws but very high moral standards. So 11.mvfc.11 can post distasteful cartoons as much as he likes. But it's disgusting and it's incumbent upon the rest of us to call him out for it.
You'll noticed I didn't ask for that cartoon to be taken down. I'm not authoritarian. But I think it behoves the rest of us to call it what it is... a disgrace.
nek minnut They had the right to publish those cartoons. Nobody has the right to gun them down. But, still, take a step back. They were being very insensitive to a people who are already very marginalised. And by God this is true, Muslims in France are treated like second-class citizens. What did I say about healthy societies having relatively relaxed laws but high moral standards? They lowered the moral standards by mocking Muslims. Those who carried out (or co-ordinated) the attacks deserve to go to prison for life. But it's fucking stupid and insensitive of others to ridicule Muslims. They didn't deserve what they got. They are innocent victims. I'm not suggesting that is not the case. But it was fucking stupid of them to do it. They were pouring fuel into a fire. Everybody has a responsibility to tone it down and treat others the way they would like to be treated. Don't ridicule, don't denigrate, don't add to the poisonous racist discourse, don't shoot, don't bomb. So unless we're super nice to Islam and don't call it a violent cult, then Muslims will kill us. Whereas if we're super nice to Islam and don't offer any critique whatsoever, then Muslims won't kill us. By golly, what a peaceful people. Mate Quickflick must surely be takin the piss, his argument is so ridiculous I'm still laughing from this morning. He changes the goalposts after every post it's so easy for everyone else to find the glaring flaw in his logic. This recent one is the perfect example. Seriously how disgusting is it to insinuate the Charlie hebdo attacks were warranted because of a satire piece of Mohammad, and then to lecture us about freedom of speech? What an idiot. Promoting that trail of thought leads to the destruction of civilisation. Edited by Dan_The_Red: 24/3/2016 11:02:30 PM Quickflick is eager to question my selection of words...but here he is insuiating that the brussels act was an act of stupidity. Unbelievable. Its an act of evil...not stupidity you brainless twat, quickflick...get your wording right!! Edited by Socawho: 25/3/2016 12:56:36 AM
|
|
|
|
Dr Ben Carson
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 40,
Visits: 0
|
paladisious wrote:Dr Ben Carson wrote:mcjules wrote:Dr Ben Carson wrote:mcjules wrote:SocaWho wrote:The thing is that the Lefties romanticise those horse riding jihadis with a blade riding off into the sunset in the same way they ideologise their cult hero Che Gueverra on T shirts =d> Reaching for new heights of stupidity, as always. I'm amazed that you know who Che Guevarra is. It cuts you to the bone you cant respond without insulting him and even less so with your regular account. You can't argue with stupid. You're [size=9]a big man hiding behind a multi[/size] and calling someone stupid. Quote:Dr Ben Carson
Posted: Thursday, March 24, 2016 11:06:14 PM
Weekender
Joined: 3/23/2016
Posts: 29 I post from one account. Not a multi. You're blaming the victim now instead of sanctioning the person who is insulting.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
Dr Ben Carson wrote:mcjules wrote:Dr Ben Carson wrote:mcjules wrote:SocaWho wrote:The thing is that the Lefties romanticise those horse riding jihadis with a blade riding off into the sunset in the same way they ideologise their cult hero Che Gueverra on T shirts =d> Reaching for new heights of stupidity, as always. I'm amazed that you know who Che Guevarra is. It cuts you to the bone you cant respond without insulting him and even less so with your regular account. You can't argue with stupid. You're [size=9]a big man hiding behind a multi[/size] and calling someone stupid. Quote:Dr Ben Carson
Posted: Thursday, March 24, 2016 11:06:14 PM
Weekender
Joined: 3/23/2016
Posts: 29
|
|
|
|
Dr Ben Carson
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 40,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:Dr Ben Carson wrote:mcjules wrote:SocaWho wrote:The thing is that the Lefties romanticise those horse riding jihadis with a blade riding off into the sunset in the same way they ideologise their cult hero Che Gueverra on T shirts =d> Reaching for new heights of stupidity, as always. I'm amazed that you know who Che Guevarra is. It cuts you to the bone you cant respond without insulting him and even less so with your regular account. You can't argue with stupid. You're a big man hiding behind a multi and calling someone stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan_The_Red
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:quickflick wrote:scott21 wrote:quickflick wrote:
However here is where it gets tricky. The healthiest societies have fairly relaxed laws but very high moral standards. So 11.mvfc.11 can post distasteful cartoons as much as he likes. But it's disgusting and it's incumbent upon the rest of us to call him out for it.
You'll noticed I didn't ask for that cartoon to be taken down. I'm not authoritarian. But I think it behoves the rest of us to call it what it is... a disgrace.
nek minnut They had the right to publish those cartoons. Nobody has the right to gun them down. But, still, take a step back. They were being very insensitive to a people who are already very marginalised. And by God this is true, Muslims in France are treated like second-class citizens. What did I say about healthy societies having relatively relaxed laws but high moral standards? They lowered the moral standards by mocking Muslims. Those who carried out (or co-ordinated) the attacks deserve to go to prison for life. But it's fucking stupid and insensitive of others to ridicule Muslims. They didn't deserve what they got. They are innocent victims. I'm not suggesting that is not the case. But it was fucking stupid of them to do it. They were pouring fuel into a fire. Everybody has a responsibility to tone it down and treat others the way they would like to be treated. Don't ridicule, don't denigrate, don't add to the poisonous racist discourse, don't shoot, don't bomb. So unless we're super nice to Islam and don't call it a violent cult, then Muslims will kill us. Whereas if we're super nice to Islam and don't offer any critique whatsoever, then Muslims won't kill us. By golly, what a peaceful people. Mate Quickflick must surely be takin the piss, his argument is so ridiculous I'm still laughing from this morning. He changes the goalposts after every post it's so easy for everyone else to find the glaring flaw in his logic. This recent one is the perfect example. Seriously how disgusting is it to insinuate the Charlie hebdo attacks were warranted because of a satire piece of Mohammad, and then to lecture us about freedom of speech? What an idiot. Promoting that trail of thought leads to the destruction of civilisation. Edited by Dan_The_Red: 24/3/2016 11:02:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
TheDecider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 402,
Visits: 0
|
Dr Ben Carson wrote:mcjules wrote:SocaWho wrote:The thing is that the Lefties romanticise those horse riding jihadis with a blade riding off into the sunset in the same way they ideologise their cult hero Che Gueverra on T shirts =d> Reaching for new heights of stupidity, as always. I'm amazed that you know who Che Guevarra is. It cuts you to the bone you cant respond without insulting him and even less so with your regular account. You can't argue with stupid.
|
|
|
|
Dr Ben Carson
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 40,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:SocaWho wrote:The thing is that the Lefties romanticise those horse riding jihadis with a blade riding off into the sunset in the same way they ideologise their cult hero Che Gueverra on T shirts =d> Reaching for new heights of stupidity, as always. I'm amazed that you know who Che Guevarra is. It cuts you to the bone you cant respond without insulting him and even less so with your regular account.
|
|
|
|
|
TheDecider
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 402,
Visits: 0
|
SocaWho wrote:The thing is that the Lefties romanticise those horse riding jihadis with a blade riding off into the sunset in the same way they ideologise their cult hero Che Gueverra on T shirts =d> Reaching for new heights of stupidity, as always. I'm amazed that you know who Che Guevarra is.
|
|
|
|
|
SocaWho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
433 wrote:quickflick wrote:scott21 wrote:quickflick wrote:
However here is where it gets tricky. The healthiest societies have fairly relaxed laws but very high moral standards. So 11.mvfc.11 can post distasteful cartoons as much as he likes. But it's disgusting and it's incumbent upon the rest of us to call him out for it.
You'll noticed I didn't ask for that cartoon to be taken down. I'm not authoritarian. But I think it behoves the rest of us to call it what it is... a disgrace.
nek minnut They had the right to publish those cartoons. Nobody has the right to gun them down. But, still, take a step back. They were being very insensitive to a people who are already very marginalised. And by God this is true, Muslims in France are treated like second-class citizens. What did I say about healthy societies having relatively relaxed laws but high moral standards? They lowered the moral standards by mocking Muslims. Those who carried out (or co-ordinated) the attacks deserve to go to prison for life. But it's fucking stupid and insensitive of others to ridicule Muslims. They didn't deserve what they got. They are innocent victims. I'm not suggesting that is not the case. But it was fucking stupid of them to do it. They were pouring fuel into a fire. Everybody has a responsibility to tone it down and treat others the way they would like to be treated. Don't ridicule, don't denigrate, don't add to the poisonous racist discourse, don't shoot, don't bomb. So unless we're super nice to Islam and don't call it a violent cult, then Muslims will kill us. Whereas if we're super nice to Islam and don't offer any critique whatsoever, then Muslims won't kill us. By golly, what a peaceful people. The thing is that the Lefties romanticise those horse riding jihadis with a blade riding off into the sunset in the same way they ideologise their cult hero Che Gueverra on T shirts
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
quickflick wrote:scott21 wrote:quickflick wrote:
However here is where it gets tricky. The healthiest societies have fairly relaxed laws but very high moral standards. So 11.mvfc.11 can post distasteful cartoons as much as he likes. But it's disgusting and it's incumbent upon the rest of us to call him out for it.
You'll noticed I didn't ask for that cartoon to be taken down. I'm not authoritarian. But I think it behoves the rest of us to call it what it is... a disgrace.
nek minnut They had the right to publish those cartoons. Nobody has the right to gun them down. But, still, take a step back. They were being very insensitive to a people who are already very marginalised. And by God this is true, Muslims in France are treated like second-class citizens. What did I say about healthy societies having relatively relaxed laws but high moral standards? They lowered the moral standards by mocking Muslims. Those who carried out (or co-ordinated) the attacks deserve to go to prison for life. But it's fucking stupid and insensitive of others to ridicule Muslims. They didn't deserve what they got. They are innocent victims. I'm not suggesting that is not the case. But it was fucking stupid of them to do it. They were pouring fuel into a fire. Everybody has a responsibility to tone it down and treat others the way they would like to be treated. Don't ridicule, don't denigrate, don't add to the poisonous racist discourse, don't shoot, don't bomb. So unless we're super nice to Islam and don't call it a violent cult, then Muslims will kill us. Whereas if we're super nice to Islam and don't offer any critique whatsoever, then Muslims won't kill us. By golly, what a peaceful people.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
quickflick wrote:
Just promote freedom of speech.
Quote:Evangelical Protestantism
Fourthly (though perhaps not finally), a distinctive process
of globalization is provided by Evangelical Protestantism,
especially in its Pentecostal version (which accounts for
something like 80 percent of its worldwide growth). Its
globalizing force is best seen by comparing it with the
other dynamic religious phenomenon of our time, that of
the Islamic resurgence. While the latter has been limited to
countries that have always been Muslim and to Muslim
diaspora communities, Evangelical Protestantism has
been exploding in parts of the world to which this religious
tradition has always been alien, indeed, mostly unknown.
The most dramatic explosion has occurred in Latin
America (it was magisterially described in David Martin’s
1990 book, Tongues of Fire). But the same variety of
Protestantism has been rapidly growing in East Asia (with
the notable exception of Japan), in all the Chinese
societies (including, despite repression, the People’s
Republic), in the Philippines, the South Pacific, and
throughout sub-Saharan Africa. There are recent, as yet
vague, accounts of an incipient growth in Eastern Europe.
And while the origins of this religion are in the United
States (the "metropolis"), its new incarnations are
thoroughly indigenized and independent of foreign
missionaries or financial support.
Evangelical Protestantism brings about a cultural
revolution in its new territories (in that respect it is very
different from its social function on its American
homeground). It brings about radical changes in the
relations between men and women, in the upbringing and
education of children, in the attitudes toward traditional
hierarchies. Most importantly, it inculcates precisely that
"Protestant ethic" that Max Weber analyzed as an
important ingredient in the genesis of modern capitalism -
a disciplined, frugal, and rationally oriented approach to
work. Thus, despite its indigenization (converts in Mexico
and Guatemala sing American gospel songs in Mayan
translation), Evangelical Protestantism is the carrier of a
pluralistic and modernizing culture whose original location
is in the North Atlantic societies.
It is not clear at this point how this startlingly new
phenomenon relates to the previously enumerated
processes of cultural globalization. It certainly enters into
conflicts with indigenous cultures. Most of the persecution
of Christians recently publicized by human rights
organizations - notably in China, in the Islamic world, and
(sporadically) in Latin America - has been directed against
Evangelical Protestants. What is clear is that this type of
Protestantism is creating a new international culture,
increasingly self-conscious as such (here the relation to
American Evangelicals is relevant), with vast social,
economic, and political ramifications. While the new
Protestantism should not be misunderstood as a
movement of social protest or reform (its motives are
overwhelmingly personal and religious), it has large and
unintended consequences. These are decidedly favorable
to pluralism, to the market economy, and to democracy. It
should be observed here that there may be other
globalizing popular movements, but Evangelicalism is
clearly the most dynamic. http://courses.arch.vt.edu/courses/wdunaway/gia5524/berger97.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
The one thing that does relieve me...
SocaWho calls me a Marxist and Murdoch Rags thinks I'm a right-winger.
That suggests I'm exactly where I should be.
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Why do we need to say "the left", "the right", etc. This is incredibly reductive. Lots of people don't fit into either category. You're quite right that many (whom you categorise as "left") are anti-freedom of speech. The same goes for those whom you might call "the right". What was Christopher Hitchens? Left, right, what? What is AC Grayling? Left, right, or what? The answer. Don't say "left", "right". Just promote freedom of speech.
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
scott21 wrote:quickflick wrote:
However here is where it gets tricky. The healthiest societies have fairly relaxed laws but very high moral standards. So 11.mvfc.11 can post distasteful cartoons as much as he likes. But it's disgusting and it's incumbent upon the rest of us to call him out for it.
You'll noticed I didn't ask for that cartoon to be taken down. I'm not authoritarian. But I think it behoves the rest of us to call it what it is... a disgrace.
nek minnut They had the right to publish those cartoons. Nobody has the right to gun them down. But, still, take a step back. They were being very insensitive to a people who are already very marginalised. And by God this is true, Muslims in France are treated like second-class citizens. What did I say about healthy societies having relatively relaxed laws but high moral standards? They lowered the moral standards by mocking Muslims. Those who carried out (or co-ordinated) the attacks deserve to go to prison for life. But it's fucking stupid and insensitive of others to ridicule Muslims. They didn't deserve what they got. They are innocent victims. I'm not suggesting that is not the case. But it was fucking stupid of them to do it. They were pouring fuel into a fire. Everybody has a responsibility to tone it down and treat others the way they would like to be treated. Don't ridicule, don't denigrate, don't add to the poisonous racist discourse, don't shoot, don't bomb.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/People should be able to say what they want. It is the left that want to censor people to suit their own agenda. They will retort by calling you a racist. But free speech works both ways, this is the area the left always seem to forget.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
quickflick wrote:
However here is where it gets tricky. The healthiest societies have fairly relaxed laws but very high moral standards. So 11.mvfc.11 can post distasteful cartoons as much as he likes. But it's disgusting and it's incumbent upon the rest of us to call him out for it.
You'll noticed I didn't ask for that cartoon to be taken down. I'm not authoritarian. But I think it behoves the rest of us to call it what it is... a disgrace.
nek minnut
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Crusader wrote:Eastern Glory wrote:Dr Ben Carson wrote:Crusader wrote:Joffa wrote:Crusader wrote:marconi101 wrote:Terrorism isn't exclusive to religion or to a certain religion. It permeates ideologies: from anarchists and fundamentalist Muslims, leftist and conservative groups, ethnic groups to religious groups. The vast majority of terrorism over history has been politically-motivated. If you have a social/political/economic system where an impassioned minority have, according to them, been repressed then they, if they have access to weaponry, will most likely indulge in terrorist or anti-state activities.
ISIL however is different. They have a political motive that is intrinsically linked to their religious motive: the introduction of a Salafist, Sharia Law enforced caliphate. Why they exist IMO has more to do with recent geo-political movements and actions in the Middle East more so than the religion itself (although of course they draw inspiration from its darker passages). The poor socio-economic status of that area, coupled with the decades long series of Western intervention and the radicalization of Islamic sects have created a perfect storm for a group like ISIL to sprout up.
I'm doing a political science course at uni on global terrorism and simply stating Islam as the root cause or problem is simply illogical and untrue, there are many factors involved. So a well educated young muslim from a prosperous family makes a video describing how he plans to kill the infidel for islam, shouts Allahu akbar and blows himself up but it is ok islam had nothing to do with it. You heard so at uni. He's correct, Islam has little to do with what is happening in the same way that Catholicism had little to do with the IRA or the Holocaust....no matter how badly some people wish to believe it to be so. Completely wrong. Their is nothing in Catholic or Christian theology to justify the IRA or holocaust, however the actions of ISIS in terrorism, rape, slavery, pedophilia and murder are fully justified within islamic jurisprudence, the hadiths and the Koran. ISIS go to great lengths to justify their actions by making direct links between their actions and those of their prophet. Nail on the head. As much as I want to deny it. I'm coming around to this... I'm not suggesting that there should be, but I wonder if there will ever be an inquest in Australia as to whether to ban books like the Quran and Hadiths, if it's blatantly clear that they incite violence against the Australian populous? I think in reality, we really are only one more attack away from that idea gathering some followers. And that is the danger that political correctness and SJWs like Quicklflick who use it as a weapon to silence others. You aren't a bigot and want to see a discussion about a serious issue but will be vilified if you voice a reasoned opinion. I have to jump in here. I'm a JS Mills liberal. I believe people, even those like 11.mvfc.11 and SocaWho have the right to say whatever they wish as long as they don't directly incite hatred. They have that right. Likewise, I have the right to say that they're wrong and it's inappropriate. I'm exercising my right to freedom of speech in that respect. So I'm opposed to the banning of books and limiting of freedom of speech. When they use freedom of speech to promote a hateful agenda, I have to use freedom of speech to tell them they're fucking thick. I actually agree with Brandis that everyone has the right to be a bigot. They have that right to say what they like. These values underpin classic liberalism; the greatest political philosophy ever devised. But when somebody expresses bigoted viewpoints, it is incumbent upon the rest of society to call them out. I think the best way to do this is ruthless satire. However here is where it gets tricky. The healthiest societies have fairly relaxed laws but very high moral standards. So 11.mvfc.11 can post distasteful cartoons as much as he likes. But it's disgusting and it's incumbent upon the rest of us to call him out for it. You'll noticed I didn't ask for that cartoon to be taken down. I'm not authoritarian. But I think it behoves the rest of us to call it what it is... a disgrace.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan_The_Red
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
SocaWho wrote:what i find mind boggling is that the Chinese, Thais, Hindus, Buddhists, Burmese, Nigerians, Russians, etc seem to have their own struggles with Extremist Muslims as well...I guess that makes them racist or bigots as well
Edited by Socawho: 24/3/2016 05:09:35 PM It's irrefutable that Islam is the common denominator for so much global civil unrest. Disgraceful anyone (other than its followers) even try to deny it.
|
|
|
|
|
Socceroofan4life
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Nothing turns into a shit show faster than religion talk.
|
|
|
|
|
SocaWho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
what i find mind boggling is that the Chinese, Thais, Hindus, Buddhists, Burmese, Nigerians, Russians, etc seem to have their own struggles with Extremist Muslims as well...I guess that makes them racist or bigots as well
Edited by Socawho: 24/3/2016 05:09:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:vanlassen wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:mcjules wrote:quickflick, don't waste your time. They'll strawman you and call you every name under the sun. Let them live with their irrational hate. Q: What do you call a right winger who argues based on rationality, logic & evidence? A: A left winger What to you call a Left Winger that decides to get a job based on merit and become a valued member of society? A Right Winger. Would that Q&A be coming from irrationality, illogical & non-evidenced based thinking? It's not a peer reviewed joke, sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
Crusader
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
marconi101 wrote:Quote:Completely wrong.
Their is nothing in Catholic or Christian theology to justify the IRA or holocaust, however the actions of ISIS in terrorism, rape, slavery, philia and murder are fully justified within islamic jurisprudence, the hadiths and the Koran. ISIS go to great lengths to justify their actions by making direct links between their actions and those of their prophet I'm not disagreeing with that, their faith is intrinsic to their extremism. They are clearly religiously motivated, their intended caliphate would be heavily theocratic and they take inspiration and guidance directly from the Koran and from the sophistry of their leaders. I'm not going to deny the religious aspect of ISIL's actions and motives like many have done. If only these backed-up bearded desert virgins read the Bible! Their morality would be far more improved. After all, seeing as they take parts of the Koran so literally I can imagine how better it would be if they applied their zeal to Joshua of Nazareth. I'd imagine ISIL taking a liking to passages like: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (1 Timothy 2:12, said by St Paul, a celebrated early Church figure), or “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18), also "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22), another one “This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3). Lovely stuff You say Christian theology didn't justify the IRA: well obviously, I highly doubt the writers of the Bible and the early Church fathers had any understanding of Ireland or the political/social tapestry of the 20th and 21st centuries so their advice would have been outdated or irrelevant. Also that Holocaust episode: the systematic murder of millions of people clearly and openly (in writing by Hitler, without question) inspired by religious hatred fueled by hundreds of years of anti-semitism that was never, NEVER repudiated by the Catholic Church. In todays day and age the majority of terrorist activity is being undertaken by radical Muslims, about that there is no doubt. However the geo-political, economic and social factors need to be recognized as well as the religious ones. ISIL didn't emerge out of a membrane from a different reality, they were created by our globalised society. As Carlin once said, "Garbage in, garbage out" Why would the Catholic Church repudiate the holocaust when it was nothing to do with them? Stupid argument.
|
|
|
|
|
SocaWho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Dr Ben Carson wrote:11.mvfc.11 wrote:SocaWho wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:scotty21 wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:scotty21 wrote:
Is it accurate? Yep, Do you really think that Muhammad Al-Isis is going to ask you if you're a lefty before he blows you up?
Could be argued that a statement like this is sad, pathetic & disgusting How so? I am not having a crack at Islam or Muslims I am referring to extremists. I am saying that these people give zero fucks about left and right they just want to kill people. So why deflect and blame the "evil government" and use stupid phrases like "simplistic thinking". Why not focus on the issue of ending extremism? Also lol at the selective quoting. It seems what you couldn't grasp is I am raising the big picture, which you construe as being insensitive. Its worth noting it was a right wing government that 'took us' into the Iraq war on lies & simplism & is typically insensitive to the plight of refugees. Your statement is bluntly about death, including the term 'Muhammad Al-Isis' Rags...do me a favour...travel to Syria , proclaim to ISIS you are a Lefty and you fight for the same cause...and see if they dont force you to wear an orange jumpsuit.:lol: Edited by Socawho: 24/3/2016 01:12:33 PM  #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o These people have more in common with fascists than those whom they target their hatred toward. (and they are hateful people) The LGBT activist crowd are the equivalent to the brown shirts of early 1930's Nazi Germany. Once their purpose has been served they'll be disposed of by the Islamists in a night of long knives. +1 At least the Right have a certain threshold of tolerence ....whereas Tolerence is not even existant to these militants
|
|
|
|