Just where do we go from here?

[Chris]

They have the right to be stupid, haven't they ?

Everyone has that right. But I'm not convinced the use of insults as a substitute for rational discussion is really a sign of intelligence.

[DVV]

Sorry, Chris, but I'm fed up hearing that, reading that.... when it's obviously grotesque.

So let me re-phrase it without insult :
it's up to anybody to believe that "real" Muslims are those who don't follow the example of their prophet.

And everybody has the right to believe Van Gogh was the Ripper.

[Smoking Joe]

On a slightly different tack,but still on the same incident,Did not the women of Woolwich put the men to shame?And come to that the two uniformed policemen supposedly skulking in close proximity and doing nothing. And thank goodness for the armed policewoman who shot those two vile people.
Maybe,in view of the time it took the police appear.....20 mins by newspaper reports ,14 and a half minutes by police reports,it might be a good enough reason to arm ALL police,Im sure it will be discussed. There might even be a case for allowing all U.K citizens ,or at least those who pass scrutinization ,to own small arms.Ive never been in favour of it in the past,but perhaps now might be the time. Im not too concerned with the argument that those weapons might fall into the hands of criminals......because,of course,the criminals have allready got them.
Yes,of course, can anyone spot the deliberate weakness in that argument?

[Chris]

DVV

But of course anyone can play at that game. Perhaps you're aware of Psalm 137's gleeful celebration of the prospective murder of innocent children? Or, for that matter, the former supposition that the God of the Christians would torture his enemies mercilessly, not just for an hour or two, but for all time. Where does that leave you?

[Errata]

Last week, in Avignon, a poor priest has been horribly beaten in the street, for no reason, by young Muslims.
Nothing on the TV news. Nothing.
Had this happened to an Imam, you would have seen big headlines, ministers would have come to Avignon, blaming racism, etc etc.

He wasn't beaten for no reason, he was beaten for a bad reason. He was robbed. Four North African kids rolled a priest. Which is bad. It happens in New York City with a fair amount of regularity. They are easy targets, and there is a certain idea that they aren't supposed to have things worth taking, so when they do the kids who mug them feel a certain amount of permission is given. It's not okay. It's never okay. It's as bad as the Israeli's who beat the crap out of an 82 year old Coptic priest, it's as bad as the Imam getting a Molotov cocktail thrown at him not 20 miles from where I sit. It's as bad as my childhood rabbi getting beaten outside the synagogue and having "Christ Killer" carved into his car. I'm not saying you never get to hit the clergy, but I'm saying that barring finding him on bed with your wife, or touching someone inappropriately, you don't get to hit clergy.

So what do all of those stories have in common? None of them rated news coverage to any degree. A newspaper article or two. Not even the Imam who blocked a Molotov cocktail thrown at his head with a trash can lid, Which I thought was particularly ninja-like. So the question is, why isn't this considered newsworthy? I asked my sister, who is a journalist and a journalism teacher. She said that first of all, she would never publish such a story without permission from all involved. It exposes a weakness that it is not in the best interest of the victim to advertise. Secondly she said that she was pretty sure that people around here wouldn't care. The want to know about their football team, they want to know why Obama is the devil, they want to know about the economy, jobs, traditional Christian values being flouted or upheld, they don't care about a Rabbi being beaten. And given the letters to the editor after that article ran, I'm not sure a lot of people weren't glad it happened.

Did you know we are within 10 years of curing AIDS? Did you know that archeologists have discovered a new proto human? Did you know we may have found a cure for diabetes? That we may have discovered the cause of Alzheimers? That we found an endless and non controversial supply of embryonic stem cells? That we may have found a cure for MRSA? Did you know that Jorge Videla died? That Cynthia Brown died? Do you know who Cynthia Brown even was? I think these are important stories. They got some journal articles, a couple of things rated national newspapers. Why am I reading about people bitching about problems politicians already fixed, and not about the trigger for Alzheimers?

It isn't that the kids were Muslim and the victim was a priest. It's because producers didn't think it was worth the airtime. And given that the only places you can find the story now are on white pride websites, it's possible that it was only newsworthy at all because the victim was a priest, and not a stockbroker. And even if everything you say is true, that if it had been an Imam that there would have been a hue and cry, so what? I live in a place where all Muslims are vilified for the oppression of Copts in Egypt, but when one of their kids beats and rapes a girl for being a "Christ killing Jew" they are curiously silent. The real irony is that when those same kids beat a couple of Coptic kids for being "terrorists" the community was also curiously silent. I thought those cases warranted a hue and cry. Evidently I was in the vast minority. If you want a hue and cry, make it yourself. Don't cower in the corner and whine that the news should do it for you. It's not going to unless you make them. A restaurant doesn't stop serving crap food unless they are forced to. This is no different.

You see it as some sort of vast Muslim conspiracy. It isn't. It's lazy consumers. You have to create a demand for what you want. Media outlets will fulfill that demand. It's why we have imbedded reporters. Embedding in a military unit doesn't get a reporter better information than if they stayed independent. It makes for better tv. It's what we want to watch. So they send civilians into harms way to fulfill our desire for that. They would have no problems, none, sending a reporter to a priest in Avignon if their audience demanded it. They aren't in business to inform you. They are in business to make money. I hate to say this, but I don't know any other way to say it. Grow up. Demand what you want. Don't sit there and wait for it to be handed to you.

[DVV]

False.
The author of Psalm 137 isn't THE prophet of the Christians.
Christians have even a story in which Christ go to hell to save the damned.

On the contrary, those who make jihad and kill have the promise to reach paradise, according to islam. Believe it or not, but Muhammad Attah was certain to sleep in heaven after Sept 11.

I hope you sense the difference.

Now, for real, no more posts on this thread.

[Phil H]

In interesting isn't it that those who fanned the flames by the use of slogans and sound bites have now departed.

Without I might add addressing the reasonable questions asked.

Phil

[Chris]

False.
The author of Psalm 137 isn't THE prophet of the Christians.

I didn't suggest (s)he was.

[Robert]

"In (sic) interesting isn't it that those who fanned the flames by the use of slogans and sound bites have now departed."

Let's have this clear : are you accusing posters on this thread of trying to whip up hatred?

[Chris Scott]

In interesting isn't it that those who fanned the flames by the use of slogans and sound bites have now departed.

Without I might add addressing the reasonable questions asked.

Phil

If you include me in that I used no "slogans" and all the words and thoughts I expressed were my own and not "sound bites". All questions were addressed - perhaps you just didn't like the answers.

[Phil H]

Well, I don't seem to have had an answer to my question about what constitutes the indigenous population, and hence why politicians fail to deliver....

And I have accused no one of anything.

Phil

[Robert]

So that stuff about "fanning the flames" was bollocks? Thank you.

[Smoking Joe]

Accusations of "fanning the flames" -"islamophobe" - "race hatred"and the like have long been useful tools in stifling any opinions on this issue that veer from the politically correct view that has been force fed to the general public. Its worked in the media ,and it seems its also worked here. I regret starting this thread.My apologies.

[Chris]

Accusations of "fanning the flames" -"islamophobe" - "race hatred"and the like have long been useful tools in stifling any opinions on this issue that veer from the politically correct view that has been force fed to the general public. Its worked in the media ,and it seems its also worked here. I regret starting this thread.My apologies.

How has anyone's opinion been stifled? Did I miss some posts being deleted by the moderator, or something like that?

You didn't assume when you started the thread that everyone would agree with you, did you?

[Phil H]

I thought the discussion had been very good until people suddenly seemed to decide to retire from the field. Excahnges have been frank but honest and on the whole polite, I'd say.

But there is plenty of scaope to exchange further views on whether name calling is used to "stifle" "any opinions on this issue that veer from the politically correct view that has been force fed to the general public."

Has a view been "force fed to the public?" I'd say not - that in Britain society has always been tolerant of minorities and shies away from anything that smacks of antipathy towards them.

In my experience there has been and continues to be a balanced discussion of racial and immigration issues - albeit in a measured way. Surely that is what all the recent focus on UKIP has been about?

What we cannot have is the bigots of the BNP and EDL running around able to spit their bile without check. But they are able to exist, stand for election and have some success - where is debate being stifled?

Its worked in the media ,and it seems its also worked here.

Has it, or have people moved on to deal with what are now the clear legal, and practical issues.

I asked a while back for a poster (I forget whom) to clarify what they meant by the indigenous population. Defining that is key to any debate - who are we talking about? There are differences between the 1950s black (Commonwealth?) immigration - where that community has now been largely integrated; and current EU/eastern European arrivals. The issues are specific and I hear them being aired all the time.

Please don't apologise for starting any thread. Free speech is our birthright and should be valued.

Phil