Just where do we go from here?

[Smoking Joe]

A soldier hacked to death with machetes by two men in woolwich today, who reportedly shouted Allah Akbar during and after the incident.made no attempt to escape and were shot by police. Obvious what the answer is, but no politician has the guts to do anything.
It can only get worse.

[Chris Scott]

As you say - the answer is obvious but unpalatable to those who make the rules.
But I have a horrible feeling that incidents like this - and believe me it will not be the last - will lead to serious civil unrest and vigilante justice.

[Smoking Joe]

Chris,
I fear, as you say, it wont be the last incident. .These guys will be heroes to some,and any vigilantism will be both the fault of the perpertrators and their followers, and our ***** footing establishment. To those who say that one cant condemn or judge one religion by the actions of a few maniacs I say this.....Ill preface this by stating Im no racist,no political affiliations and have no religious beliefs either.
We are told repeatedly by experts and do-gooders that Islam is the religion and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. That might well be true.However it is totally irrelevant.Its meaningless fluff,designed to make us all feel better,and to allay our fear of and diminish our image of rampant fanatics rampaging through our countries,and across the globe in the name of Islam.
The true fact is,is that its the fanatics who rule Islam at this monent in history.It is the fanatics who march. Its the fanatics who wage any of 50 wars worldwide.Its the fanatics who systematically slaughter christian or tribal groups through Africa and are slowly taking over the continent in an islamist wave.Its the fanatics who car bomb,behead,murder or honor-kill.Its the fantaics who take over mosque after mosque.Its the fanatics who zealously stone to death or hang rape victims or homosexuals.Its the fanatics who raise and teavch their young to become suicide bombers.
The hard truth is that the majority-the peaceful majority-the silent majority is cowed and seemingly powerless.
The communist Russia was composed of citizens who wanted to live in peace,yet their communist leaders were responsible for the deaths of around 20,000,000 people.The peaceful majority were irrelevant. Chinas population was peaceful too,but the party leaders somehow contrived to murder millions of people...again the peaceful majority were irrelevant.

The average Japanese was peaceful too prior to WW2 ,yet Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across south east asia in an orgy of killing that included 5-12vmillion chinese by rifle fire, bomb, shovel and bayonet.Again the peaceful majority were irrelevant.
History lessons are incredibly simple and blunt,but for all the patronizing nonsense and philosophical pomposities we hear ,or read the plain truth is we have missed the basic and uncomplicated point that peace loving muslims have become irrelevant because of their silence.And whats more gutless and spineless politicians have indirectly or directly helped that very attitude.
Peace loving muslims will become our enemy too one day if they dont speak up and out.Just like Nazi germany when the peace loving population woke up one morning and found the nazi fanatics owned them,and the end of their world had begun.
As for us here, now, who watch these barbaric incidents unfold,we should first pay attention to the only group that matters. The fanatics who threaten our lives,and maybe more importantly our way of life.

[Chris]

Obvious what the answer is, but no politician has the guts to do anything.

What is the 'answer' that's so obvious to you?

[Smoking Joe]

Chris....
I suggest you offload your patronizing attitude on to someone else-somewhere else.

[Chris]

Chris....I thought judging by your words on each and every thread here that you didnt need to ask anybody or anyone their answers or opinions on anything.

Why so hostile?

You said you knew the answer to preventing a repetition of this tragic occurrence. Surely you expected someone to ask you what that answer was?

[Smoking Joe]

Chris,
There was no hostilty,your question seemed a tad patronizing.plus there are several" Chris's" on the board .Maybe my response was coloured by my disgust,frustration and "sick to the stomach" feeling regarding the events today.
The answer IS obvious. The problem is, one isnt free to utter certain opinions ,either here or in real life.Having said that the "obvious" was obvious many years ago,and we were warned then.The Politician who warned us then was shuffled off into the political backwaters and has been much maligned since. To mention his name ,in some quarters is akin to Blasphemy,treason, or belonging to the S.S . I dont see the point in getting banned for answering your question straight forwardly.

[Chris Scott]

What is the 'answer' that's so obvious to you?

The answer is to take a robust stand against the Islamisation of the UK, US and continental Europe. But no politician will now dare to voice any criticism of Islam as it is the ultimate anti PC sin.

[Smoking Joe]

The answer is to take a robust stand against the Islamisation of the UK, US and continental Europe. But no politician will now dare to voice any criticism of Islam as it is the ultimate anti PC sin.
UNQUOTE
Maybe ,after this atrocity ,the sheer weight of straws has finally broken the Camels back.Perhaps a good start would be to re-patriate immediately that odious preacher who we have been trying to deport for what seems like centuries.Ignore Brussels ,andIf he gets tortured in Jordan to extract evidence -so what. And all his kith and kin. At least then we would know where the enemy was.

[Chris]

The answer IS obvious.

I think I get your drift in a very general sense, but I really can't guess what exactly you think should be done. If you think that explaining it will get you banned, I can only assume the worst.

The answer is to take a robust stand against the Islamisation of the UK, US and continental Europe.

Equally, I don't understand what that actually means. Not allowing people of a particular religion to come into the country; not allowing people to practise a particular religion; deporting people of a particular religion? Could we still claim to be a civilised country if we did those things?

[Chris Scott]

It lies, for starters, in allowing meaningful discussion and criticism of Islam and not bowing to pressure groups from within that religion who seek to silence all comment on their religion or Prophet, classing all such comments as blasphemy.
When followers of any religion parade publicly on the street and demand that the UK pander to that faith and its followers there is something very wrong.
It is not only politicians and public officials or figures who are reluctant and reticent to voice any criticism, however mild, of Islam but many ordinary people, including friends and relatives of mine who seem convinced that we have to be very careful in any comments about this faith. I am fed up with being told what I can and cannot say!
Apart from the fact that immigration in the UK needs much tighter control in general, then in answer to your query then, yes, if the answer lies to an appreciable extent in moderating those who come from Muslim countries and regions then so be it. If it involves incomers from certain countries and regions being much more closely monitored and higher standards of entry requirements being imposed, I for one would have no problem with that.

[Chris]

It lies, for starters, in allowing meaningful discussion and criticism of Islam and not bowing to pressure groups from within that religion who seek to silence all comment on their religion or Prophet, classing all such comments as blasphemy.

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand comments like these. What do you feel is stopping you from having a meaningful discussion about Islam, either here or anywhere else?

[Chris Scott]

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand comments like these. What do you feel is stopping you from having a meaningful discussion about Islam, either here or anywhere else?

How many examples do you need? The hysterical and violent reactions around the world to The Innocence of Muslims film, the Danish cartoons etc etc. These create an atmosphere in which we are told we must be sensitive to Muslim sensitivities and not offend their faith. But any criticism of the faith or their prophet is seen as blasphemy which, conveniently, stifles any meaningful dialogue.
As an example, if I were to write a play which required an actor to portray the prophet Mohammed on stage I GUARANTEE you that no UK theatre company would touch it at any price. I know this as I mooted the idea some years ago and I was told in no uncertain terms not to bother. One theatre manager told me "Muslims would find it deeply offensive" I pointed out that I was not Muslim and so did not consider myself constrained by the sensibilities of their religion. But that now seems irrelevant. If one wants to eat halal meat or not in the UK now in many instances there is no choice as many outlets not only stock only halal meat but not label it is as such to give consumers the choice.
But of course any criticism of Islam is met with hysterical and shrills cries of racist, bigot and Islamophobe. Might I suggest the introduction of a new term to make a clear distinction. That term would be Muslimophobe to denote someone who has hatred for Muslims as people, an irrational and unquestioning reaction. I would reserve the term Islamophobe for someone whose hatred is not for Muslims but for Islam as a belief system.

[Chris Scott]

sadly I still say this will not be the end of this...
From the evening paper:-
"EDL leader Tommy Robinson has called for "feet on the streets" after the death of a serving soldier in Woolwich this afternoon.
One of the two men claiming to be responsible for beheading the soldier "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you" just seconds after killing him.
Members of the Far Right EDL have taken to the organisation's Facebook page to try and coordinate a demonstration."

A reporter for Channel 5 has just posted on Facebook:-
"Steer clear of Braintree, Essex...
The EDL are in Woolwich and mosques are being attacked in Essex. Riots number two could be imminent..."

[Chris]

Chris

Really I was asking about "meaningful discussion and criticism", which was the phrase you had used.

No doubt we could have an interesting discussion about cartoons depicting Mohammed or the film you mentioned, or even the stage play you mooted, but they aren't really what I was asking about.

Artistic productions aside, there's nothing to stop you having a meaningful discussion about Islam and nothing to stop you criticising it, is there?