Re: Multiculturalism, can we remove religion? : Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:41 am  

Is there a problem with an element of radical Muslims, yes

Are there laws already in place to prevent the things mentioned, yes.

Are convictions being made regularly on the things mentioned, yes.

Are there any bases left uncovered ?

[DaveO]

Re: Multiculturalism, can we remove religion? : Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:34 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Anyone who does not recognise that there is an increasingly radical element within the Muslim community is a fool.

As is anyone who choses to look at this in the narrow way you appear to be doing.

There is an increasingly radical element within Irish Republicanism as well. Dangerous radicals are just that. It doesn't matter what sort of radical they are. They all need to be dealt with.

What would be really foolish would be to polarise the issue of radicals who happen to be Muslim's as some sort of special case. That is just what they want. It would justify their Jihad.

Far better to treat "today's" terrorist threat dispassionately and with a cool head rather than frothing at the mouth because this threat is linked to a small percentage of religious nutcases.

And if you are concerned the wider Muslim population offers tactic support for the radicals, well when I lived in London near Kilburn I remember being in pubs in the 1980's where collections were taken for the IRA and republican songs sung. Some Muslim's will no doubt offer the same kind of misguided support as some in the Irish community did back then. This is not new.

I don't see any difference between an increased threat from one terrorist group over another. I don't think it is helpful to emphasise the religious links of the Muslim fundamentalist threat as it simply stokes up anti-Muslim feeling generally which is also what the fundamentalists want.

Re: Multiculturalism, can we remove religion? : Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:46 pm  

Amen to that.

I also remember working in a Catholic school in the 80's and how the hunger strikes radicalised some of my pupils.

I curently live in a Muslim area (we are the only non-Muslims on my street) and note how the type of comments produced by the originator of this discussion is radicalising some youth: they feel threatened and so inwardly look for support. I attend a local forum and can attest to the efforts of many Muslims to stop the radicalisation of their youth. By the way, it is one of the towns referred to by Rumple...

Young people are easily radicalised by anyone offering an exciting and new slant on life. Youth are very aware of the faults of society and of the hypocrisy of their elders. They have not yet had the disappointment of losing the strife to make their society better (better to them) so cynicism is aimed at their opponents not those who promise that better society.

Sadly, as two posters show so easily, you can point at those youths who seem different from other youths by outward religious belief, dress, or diet. You can ignore other seismic shifts as the people look like you. I am less worried by Muslim fundamentalism than by young white youths who want to dismantle the Welfare State.

Re: Multiculturalism, can we remove religion? : Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:53 pm  

DaveO wrote: As is anyone who choses to look at this in the narrow way you appear to be doing. Feel free to illustrate the "narrowness" of the points I have outlined. We can start with our home brewed bombers. DaveO wrote: There is an increasingly radical element within Irish Republicanism as well. Dangerous radicals are just that. It doesn't matter what sort of radical they are. They all need to be dealt with. Indeed. And we have a couple of bitter Nationalists on this forum, but as we are discussing Islamist Radicals, perhaps you could stick with them in the first instance? DaveO wrote: What would be really foolish would be to polarise the issue of radicals who happen to be Muslim's as some sort of special case. That is just what they want. It would justify their Jihad. That is arrant nonsense. Two minutes spent on Google would reveal numerous articles and intelligence reports that clearly identify the dangers posed, past, present, and in the future from Radical Islamists. Perhaps you would be so good as to share just why they are all wrong in identifying this group as the No 1 threat, and you are right? DaveO wrote: Far better to treat "today's" terrorist threat dispassionately and with a cool head rather than frothing at the mouth because this threat is linked to a small percentage of religious nutcases. Feel free to point out any frothing at the mouth Your own does not count..... DaveO wrote: And if you are concerned the wider Muslim population offers tactic support for the radicals, well when I lived in London near Kilburn I remember being in pubs in the 1980's where collections were taken for the IRA and republican songs sung. Some Muslim's will no doubt offer the same kind of misguided support as some in the Irish community did back then. This is not new.[/url] Indeed. As they did in many UK cities that had a fairly large population who claimed to be Irish. Relevance? DaveO wrote: I don't see any difference between an increased threat from one terrorist group over another. I don't think it is helpful to emphasise the religious links of the Muslim fundamentalist threat as it simply stokes up anti-Muslim feeling generally which is also what the fundamentalists want. Seriously? You cannot appreciate that a particular terrorist organisation is deemed by experts as being more threatening than another? Or that the threat posed is greater in some countries? You might want to check out the 5 levels as used by MI5 to see what the current UK status is. And you also appear ignorant to the fact, that Islamic terrorism is simply a form of religious terrorism committed by Muslims to achieve varying political goals. The mind boggles!

DaveO wrote: As is anyone who choses to look at this in the narrow way you appear to be doing. Feel free to illustrate the "narrowness" of the points I have outlined. We can start with our home brewed bombers. DaveO wrote: There is an increasingly radical element within Irish Republicanism as well. Dangerous radicals are just that. It doesn't matter what sort of radical they are. They all need to be dealt with. Indeed. And we have a couple of bitter Nationalists on this forum, but as we are discussing Islamist Radicals, perhaps you could stick with them in the first instance? DaveO wrote: What would be really foolish would be to polarise the issue of radicals who happen to be Muslim's as some sort of special case. That is just what they want. It would justify their Jihad. That is arrant nonsense. Two minutes spent on Google would reveal numerous articles and intelligence reports that clearly identify the dangers posed, past, present, and in the future from Radical Islamists. Perhaps you would be so good as to share just why they are all wrong in identifying this group as the No 1 threat, and you are right? DaveO wrote: Far better to treat "today's" terrorist threat dispassionately and with a cool head rather than frothing at the mouth because this threat is linked to a small percentage of religious nutcases. Feel free to point out any frothing at the mouth Your own does not count..... DaveO wrote: And if you are concerned the wider Muslim population offers tactic support for the radicals, well when I lived in London near Kilburn I remember being in pubs in the 1980's where collections were taken for the IRA and republican songs sung. Some Muslim's will no doubt offer the same kind of misguided support as some in the Irish community did back then. This is not new.[/url] Indeed. As they did in many UK cities that had a fairly large population who claimed to be Irish. Relevance? DaveO wrote: I don't see any difference between an increased threat from one terrorist group over another. I don't think it is helpful to emphasise the religious links of the Muslim fundamentalist threat as it simply stokes up anti-Muslim feeling generally which is also what the fundamentalists want. Seriously? You cannot appreciate that a particular terrorist organisation is deemed by experts as being more threatening than another? Or that the threat posed is greater in some countries? You might want to check out the 5 levels as used by MI5 to see what the current UK status is. And you also appear ignorant to the fact, that Islamic terrorism is simply a form of religious terrorism committed by Muslims to achieve varying political goals. The mind boggles!

Re: Multiculturalism, can we remove religion? : Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:24 am  

Hillbilly_Red wrote:

Amen to that.

I also remember working in a Catholic school in the 80's and how the hunger strikes radicalised some of my pupils.

And I assume your response as a teacher, would have been to point out the futility of the hunger strikers actions, and possibly highlight Maggie Thatcher response? " Mr. Sands was a convicted criminal. He chose to take his own life. It was a choice that his organisation did not allow to many of its victims". BTW, I wonder how many of your pupils, or indeed, anyone on this Forum could recall from memory the names of the other nine.

Hillbilly_Red wrote:

I curently live in a Muslim area (we are the only non-Muslims on my street) and note how the type of comments produced by the originator of this discussion is radicalising some youth: they feel threatened and so inwardly look for support. I attend a local forum and can attest to the efforts of many Muslims to stop the radicalisation of their youth. By the way, it is one of the towns referred to by Rumple...

I think you will find it is peer pressure and radical Imans who are responsible for the mindset of those Muslims who see terrorism as a viable option, not the facts as noted by the OP.

Hillbilly_Red wrote:

Young people are easily radicalised by anyone offering an exciting and new slant on life. Youth are very aware of the faults of society and of the hypocrisy of their elders. They have not yet had the disappointment of losing the strife to make their society better (better to them) so cynicism is aimed at their opponents not those who promise that better society.

re young people, with the greatest of respect, you are stating the obvious. Teenagers have rebelled since Adam was a boy, and while cynicism and impassioned debate are to be expected, commiting terrorists acts are not.

Hillbilly_Red wrote:

Sadly, as two posters show so easily, you can point at those youths who seem different from other youths by outward religious belief, dress, or diet. You can ignore other seismic shifts as the people look like you. I am less worried by Muslim fundamentalism than by young white youths who want to dismantle the Welfare State.

Please, don't feel sad on my behalf. Follow the advice I gave to another poster and spare a couple of minutes on Google, where you can read everything you need to understand the dangers posed by this particular section of society.
I would also be delighted to hear your theory as to why you think white youths are dismantling the Welfare State....

Re: Multiculturalism, can we remove religion? : Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:19 am  

"your response as a teacher, would have been to point out the futility of the hunger strikers "

NO! To state any sacrifice, no matter how upsetting or antagonistic to your beliefs is "futile" is to patronise those who are arguing for that side: bad in any job.

"I think you will find it is peer pressure and radical Imans who are responsible for the mindset of those Muslims who see terrorism as a viable option, not the facts as noted by the OP."

Terrorism is seen as a viable option by many groups and so those Muslims who go down that route have already seen it as one possiblilty. That radical Imans act as catalysts cannot be denied but they are few: most Imans I meet are peaceful. I accept you are concentrating on Muslim terrorism but this narrows the debate to too narrow a focus. There are Muslims who are a threat to what we feel is a ggod society, but there are also many other groups. a number of these are militarising youth.

Re young white people : this does not refer to violence. For reasons we could discuss for pages, there is a growing mind set amongst several graduate and business "young people" with whom I come into contact in my new non-teacher job.
They are very distinct to those I graduated with in the mid 70's; a growing number keenly feel the need to bring in American business models for health, welfare, and education which would reduce the ability to access these freely but involve some payment or private insurance.
It is these neo-liberal attitudes which worry me; they act under the radar but will alter society to something I would abhor. Not as dramatic as terrorism but equally ruthless in changing society.

A sideline: when a teacher I had to defend some fellow teachers from violent hatred from the BNP. I also had to go into an area where young "Asians" were rioting. Neither could be condoned. Both had to be resisted. So I cannot focus only on one group.

Re: Multiculturalism, can we remove religion? : Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:25 am  

Hillbilly_Red wrote:

"your response as a teacher, would have been to point out the futility of the hunger strikers "

NO! To state any sacrifice, no matter how upsetting or antagonistic to your beliefs is "futile" is to patronise those who are arguing for that side: bad in any job.

There I would completely disagree with you. As the teacher, I would suggest part of your remit would be to fully explain as to why they were on hunger strike..... what the short and long time political gains of this policy may be....and also point out the ultimate waste of a human life. No matter what your students eventually believed, anything less than a full and frank appraisal, including giving your own opinion, is a complete dereliction of your duty.

Hillbilly_Red wrote:

Terrorism is seen as a viable option by many groups and so those Muslims who go down that route have already seen it as one possiblilty. That radical Imans act as catalysts cannot be denied but they are few: most Imans I meet are peaceful. I accept you are concentrating on Muslim terrorism but this narrows the debate to too narrow a focus. There are Muslims who are a threat to what we feel is a ggod society, but there are also many other groups. a number of these are militarising youth.

You can widen the debate to include everything from the referendum on Scottish Independence, to the price of cheese, neither I would suggest adressess the problems that the World currently faces with Islamist terrorism .A problem that has reared its head at various times since the 12th Century by the way. And with the best will in the World, is it not obvious that the problem does not lie with the vast majority of law abiding muslims, many who abhor the highjacking of their faith, but within that narrow radicalised section who have been clearly identified as a threat?

Hillbilly_Red wrote:

Re young white people : this does not refer to violence. For reasons we could discuss for pages, there is a growing mind set amongst several graduate and business "young people" with whom I come into contact in my new non-teacher job.
They are very distinct to those I graduated with in the mid 70's; a growing number keenly feel the need to bring in American business models for health, welfare, and education which would reduce the ability to access these freely but involve some payment or private insurance.
It is these neo-liberal attitudes which worry me; they act under the radar but will alter society to something I would abhor. Not as dramatic as terrorism but equally ruthless in changing society.

Whilst I would agree with your thoughts on our American Neo liberal chums, you did specifically mention white youths. Is the pigment of their skin in some way indicative of their Political mindset? Society has changed and evolved over Millennia, so I am not sure how much of a threat is posed by a few White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

On the other hand, I and many better informed people, are aware that a failure to confront and deal with any terrorist threat is not an option. And yes, that includes having the Political will, to step on a few toes within the many different Cultures who make up our own Society

[DaveO]

Re: Multiculturalism, can we remove religion? : Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:28 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Feel free to illustrate the "narrowness" of the points I have outlined. We can start with our home brewed bombers.

Indeed. And we have a couple of bitter Nationalists on this forum, but as we are discussing Islamist Radicals, perhaps you could stick with them in the first instance?

Given my point was it is foolish to focus on one group why on earth should I do that? Hence your point was marrow in my opinion.

This thread was started with a post that basically cited various teachings and aspects the poster believed to be something that will lead to Muslim's committing terrorist offences. I don't see it as any different from some Irish youth being radicalised once again by Republican hard liners.

That is arrant nonsense. Two minutes spent on Google would reveal numerous articles and intelligence reports that clearly identify the dangers posed, past, present, and in the future from Radical Islamists. Perhaps you would be so good as to share just why they are all wrong in identifying this group as the No 1 threat, and you are right?

Read what I said again. It is not nonsense at all. It is obviously true that whatever radical groups there are will pose varying levels of threat at any one time. It may be Muslim fundamentalists offer the highest threat at the moment but given you don't ever hear us talk of the"Christian IRA" perhaps you can see what I am driving at. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful as are the vast majority of Irish Catholics. As soon as you bring religion into it sectarianism results and lo and behold you end up radicalising others in those groups. The minority of people from these groups who commit terrorist acts are all terrorists first and that is how we should see them. Not Muslim's or Catholics. When people get lazy and do the latter it is counter productive.

The relevance of the tacit support for the IRA I mentioned is that it was no reason to demonise or mistrust the wider Irish Catholic community and hence the same applies now to the Muslim community. There is a clear implication intentional or otherwise in yours and the original post that we should simply because they are Muslim.

Seriously? You cannot appreciate that a particular terrorist organisation is deemed by experts as being
more threatening than another? Or that the threat posed is greater in some countries? You might want to check out the 5 levels as used by MI5 to see what the current UK status is.

Of course I can appreciate a particular terrorist organisation is deemed by experts as being
more threatening than another. Whichever one poses the biggest threat will no doubt get the most attention from MI6. I am not on about a particular terrorist organisation but the ease with which Muslims in general are tarred with the same brush. It is not helpful to do this as all it will do is radicalise more people.

And you also appear ignorant to the fact, that Islamic terrorism is simply a form of religious terrorism committed by Muslims to achieve varying political goals.

And how to you draw that conclusion? We are not discussing what the goals of these people are. The IRA want us out of Northern Ireland. Al Qaeda want us out of Afghanistan. They probably want to impose Sharia law on the entire world population. The aims of either organisation are not relevant to the polarisation I was referring to in my original reply.

It may even be there is sympathy for the ultimate aims of both organisations within the Irish and Muslim communities. It doesn't mean those that do sympathise believe these things will come to pass and more importantly will actually indulge in terrorist acts to try and bring them about but the way some people go on you'd think it was inevitable all Muslims are terrorists in the making.

The mind boggles!

Indeed!

Re: Multiculturalism, can we remove religion? : Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:28 am  

DaveO wrote: Given my point was it is foolish to focus on one group why on earth should I do that? Hence your point was marrow in my opinion. Generally, it's traditional when debating a subject that you first discus the primary points. In this case, controversial teachings from the Koran, before widening the exchange to include various other points. Specifically, Radical Islamist terrorists. If you simply dismiss the subject matter as "too narrow" and cannot be bothered to address it, then you add nothing to the debate. DaveO wrote: This thread was started with a post that basically cited various teachings and aspects the poster believed to be something that will lead to Muslim's committing terrorist offences. I don't see it as any different from some Irish youth being radicalised once again by Republican hard liners. Wrong again. What the OP highlighted was 6 points from the Koran; 1) "The laws in various Islamic states show that they think that Aisha [who was married to Mohammad at the age of six] was under 10 when Mohammed had sex with her. And to Muslims, Mohammed is regarded as the perfect man; it is part of their religion that they should emulate his behavior." 2) "Muslim men are taught in mosques that women are second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority." 3) "The Koran makes a distinction between legal wives and slaves, and instructs Muslim men that they can have sex with either their wives or their slaves." 4) "Not only are Muslim men permitted legally and morally to rape their slaves, but they are also forgiven if they turn a slave girl into a prostitute." 5) "There are also features of Islam which are supremacist and which look with contempt at non-Muslims." 6) "The Hadiths also permit Muslims to rape women who are captured after a battle (whereupon they become the property of Muslims, that is, they become slaves)." There is absolutely no mention of this leading to the wider Muslim community committing terrorist offences. You read it, didn't like the points being raised for discussion, and immediately attempted to foist your own irrational spin to it, as well as crowbarring in a reference to the IRA! DaveO wrote: Read what I said again. It is not nonsense at all. It is obviously true that whatever radical groups there are will pose varying levels of threat at any one time. And yet you wrote: What would be really foolish would be to polarise the issue of radicals who happen to be Muslim's as some sort of special case. That is just what they want. It would justify their Jihad. Muslin Terrorists ARE a special case by the very nature of the size of the threat they present. Don't just take my opinion for that, read the LINKlink which I previously posted to one of your posts. Oh, and I doubt your average terrorist needs any input from an outsider to justify their Jihad. . DaveO wrote: The relevance of the tacit support for the IRA I mentioned is that it was no reason to demonise or mistrust the wider Irish Catholic community Ah, that would be the wider catholic community from whom the IRA received tacit support,and yet you opined should not be mistrusted for providing this tacit support would it? Train crash logic at its best my friend! Yet again you crowbar a reference specifically about the IRA, and not one of the many other terrorist organisations into a discussion about Radical Islam. Why do you continually do that? If you want a debate on the merits of Irish terrorists start a new thread, and I'll do my best to point you in the right direction, although i suspect you might be a bit upset with my thoughts on them. DaveO wrote: how to you draw that conclusion? We are not discussing what the goals of these people are. Until you understand the goals of a terrorist Organisation, you are never going to develop a long term Military and Political strategy to defeat it. Simply attempting to shoot/bomb them out of existence has only a limited effect. Yes, you will have a measure of success against its leaders, but you can't exterminate a philosophy with high explosives.You must get inside their heads, realise what brought about the initial radicallisation of its members, and attempt to address this. John Major proved the old adage, that you make peace with your enemies, not your friends, when he made the morally unpleasant decisions that ended the conflict with the provos. And I think I'll leave it there.

DaveO wrote: Given my point was it is foolish to focus on one group why on earth should I do that? Hence your point was marrow in my opinion. Generally, it's traditional when debating a subject that you first discus the primary points. In this case, controversial teachings from the Koran, before widening the exchange to include various other points. Specifically, Radical Islamist terrorists. If you simply dismiss the subject matter as "too narrow" and cannot be bothered to address it, then you add nothing to the debate. DaveO wrote: This thread was started with a post that basically cited various teachings and aspects the poster believed to be something that will lead to Muslim's committing terrorist offences. I don't see it as any different from some Irish youth being radicalised once again by Republican hard liners. Wrong again. What the OP highlighted was 6 points from the Koran; 1) "The laws in various Islamic states show that they think that Aisha [who was married to Mohammad at the age of six] was under 10 when Mohammed had sex with her. And to Muslims, Mohammed is regarded as the perfect man; it is part of their religion that they should emulate his behavior." 2) "Muslim men are taught in mosques that women are second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority." 3) "The Koran makes a distinction between legal wives and slaves, and instructs Muslim men that they can have sex with either their wives or their slaves." 4) "Not only are Muslim men permitted legally and morally to rape their slaves, but they are also forgiven if they turn a slave girl into a prostitute." 5) "There are also features of Islam which are supremacist and which look with contempt at non-Muslims." 6) "The Hadiths also permit Muslims to rape women who are captured after a battle (whereupon they become the property of Muslims, that is, they become slaves)." There is absolutely no mention of this leading to the wider Muslim community committing terrorist offences. You read it, didn't like the points being raised for discussion, and immediately attempted to foist your own irrational spin to it, as well as crowbarring in a reference to the IRA! DaveO wrote: Read what I said again. It is not nonsense at all. It is obviously true that whatever radical groups there are will pose varying levels of threat at any one time. And yet you wrote: What would be really foolish would be to polarise the issue of radicals who happen to be Muslim's as some sort of special case. That is just what they want. It would justify their Jihad. Muslin Terrorists ARE a special case by the very nature of the size of the threat they present. Don't just take my opinion for that, read the LINKlink which I previously posted to one of your posts. Oh, and I doubt your average terrorist needs any input from an outsider to justify their Jihad. . DaveO wrote: The relevance of the tacit support for the IRA I mentioned is that it was no reason to demonise or mistrust the wider Irish Catholic community Ah, that would be the wider catholic community from whom the IRA received tacit support,and yet you opined should not be mistrusted for providing this tacit support would it? Train crash logic at its best my friend! Yet again you crowbar a reference specifically about the IRA, and not one of the many other terrorist organisations into a discussion about Radical Islam. Why do you continually do that? If you want a debate on the merits of Irish terrorists start a new thread, and I'll do my best to point you in the right direction, although i suspect you might be a bit upset with my thoughts on them. DaveO wrote: how to you draw that conclusion? We are not discussing what the goals of these people are. Until you understand the goals of a terrorist Organisation, you are never going to develop a long term Military and Political strategy to defeat it. Simply attempting to shoot/bomb them out of existence has only a limited effect. Yes, you will have a measure of success against its leaders, but you can't exterminate a philosophy with high explosives.You must get inside their heads, realise what brought about the initial radicallisation of its members, and attempt to address this. John Major proved the old adage, that you make peace with your enemies, not your friends, when he made the morally unpleasant decisions that ended the conflict with the provos. And I think I'll leave it there.