Major Incident In London

[Scotty]

Four posts in a row from Thenodrog - all slagging people off, all making little or no point at all (apart from the wonderful "I warned you" line).

We all can tell there's a problem. However, changing immigration laws to stop all Muslims coming into the country is profoundly unfair, unrealistic suggestion and shows no understanding of the situation at all. Do you not think that may pi55 off a few more Muslims who are already over here and perhaps incite them to let off a few more bombs?

Or do we deport all the Muslims in this country too? Where do we stop Phil? What about the Irish Catholics who may sympathise with the IRA? Get rid of them as well? Talk about using a sledgehammer to crack an egg.

Oh, and that suggestion of Blue Phil's is about as close to racism as you can get. Here's the dictionary definition of racism (from the Online Cambridge Dictionary):

the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races

Now, no doubt Phil will argue that Muslims are not a race, rather a cultural or religious group, but he'd be arguing on a technicality and we all know it.

And what about the millions of Muslims who live a peaceful, religious life just like millions of Christians and Catholics here do. To tarnish all those people with the same brush as terrorists is deeply insulting to them, not to mention totally discriminatory.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Scotty

[thenodrog]

Four posts in a row from Thenodrog - all slagging people off, all making little or no point at all (apart from the wonderful "I warned you" line).

We all can tell there's a problem.  However, changing immigration laws to stop all Muslims coming into the country is profoundly unfair, unrealistic suggestion and shows no understanding of the situation at all.  Do you not think that may pi55 off a few more Muslims who are already over here and perhaps incite them to let off a few more bombs?

Or do we deport all the Muslims in this country too?  Where do we stop Phil?  What about the Irish Catholics who may sympathise with the IRA?  Get rid of them as well? Talk about using a sledgehammer to crack an egg.

Oh, and that suggestion of Blue Phil's is about as close to racism as you can get.  Here's the dictionary definition of racism (from the Online Cambridge Dictionary):

the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races

Now, no doubt Phil will argue that Muslims are not a race, rather a cultural or religious group, but he'd be arguing on a technicality and we all know it.

And what about the millions of Muslims who live a peaceful, religious life just like  millions of Christians and Catholics here do. To tarnish all those people with the same brush as terrorists is deeply insulting to them, not to mention totally discriminatory.

331689[/snapback]

1. Where have I suggested a policy of deportation?

2. 'I warned you' is a pretty valid line, especially when compared to your daft views...... btw I still am warning you.

3. Quote "the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races

Now, no doubt Phil will argue that Muslims are not a race, rather a cultural or religious group, but he'd be arguing on a technicality and we all know it."Unquote

Muslims are NOT of one race. Fact! To criticise Islam or aspects of Islam is simply not racist! Period! Technicality or not, or however you personally want to twist things the way you are peddling innaccuracies and you know it. And by throwing cheap shots and sensationalism and screaming 'RACIST' every 5 minutes and at every opportunity that you are intellectually threatened is pathetic and infantile and is typical of a lynch-mob mentality.

There thats that!

Now......... Given the latest information that the perpetrators were 'British' citizens, and given that you admit in your last post that there is definitely a serious threat posed to the security of the citizens of country by Islamic fanatics, and given your constant criticism of other peoples attempts at proposing solutions.............. so lets now hear yours please Scotty.

[philipl]

I wouldn't normally quote Ken Livingstone but this article from this morning's Financial Times eloquently expresses the sentiments I feel:

For the last 10 days, and with extraordinary intensity last Wednesday and Thursday, Londoners have lived out triumph and grief with the eyes of the world on them. A spontaneous city-wide outburst of joy at winning the Olympics, the tragedy of the bomb attacks, the implacable resolve to bring to justice those responsible, and immediate determination from millions of Londoners that the city would not shift from its chosen path all passed in days.

"An anonymous Londoner put it best on a wreath. I quote it not simply for its eloquence but because in my ­opinion it expressed how virtually every Londoner responded.

The wreath read: “If you are looking to boost morale, our pride, then you have succeeded. If you want to ensure our commitment to our way of life you have achieved much. If you expect ­people to crawl out of smoke-filled tunnels, head to work and otherwise get on with their daily lives you were right. If your aim was to raise our strength and defiance, congratulations. Burning with fear? Not bloody likely.”

Libération, the French newspaper, said: “Never has such calm been seen faced with such an event.”

London responded in its own way. It was no better than New York or Madrid. There is no competition in the face of barbarity. It was simply different. Particularly to an international business audience I want to explain that difference because it will help them understand the nature of London.

London’s character was indelibly marked by being for centuries the world’s greatest port. London simply had more physical connections with the rest of the globe than any other place on the planet. Shakespeare was born in Stratford but he worked in ­London, and his paying audience was those who made their living by trade. Three hundred years ago, one-quarter of those invited to celebrations of the coronation of George II were foreigners living in London.

Around this nucleus developed the world’s greatest international financial centre. New York now handles even greater financial volumes than London. But that is due to the weight of the US domestic market; in terms of a truly international centre London still exceeds even New York.

There are 1.2m people in London working in financial and business ­services. Many tens of thousands of them do no work connected to Britain’s economy. London is frequently more affected by the movements of the ­economies of east Asia or the US than it is by that of the UK.

Around this gigantic port and financial centre grew what else made London the international centre it is today. To follow global financial operations London required a truly international press and media – this newspaper is a product of it. London’s exposure to innumerable cultures gave its creative industries a fuel of ideas, and therefore a drive, that has made it one of the greatest entertainment, architecture, media, music and advertising centres of the world.

Simultaneously came people. One-quarter of London’s senior and middle financial management comes from abroad. Nearly one-third of Londoners are from ethnic minorities.

Naturally, only a relatively small fraction of London’s citizens

understand its position as the world’s greatest international financial centre. But what they have come to know

and appreciate deeply is having the greatest international lifestyle on the planet. From those executing high finance in the executive suites and trading floors of the Square Mile or Canary Wharf, through London’s prosperous suburbs of Richmond or Southgate, to the curry houses of Brick Lane, Londoners thrive on the global character of the city.

Those who propose we cut ourselves off from the world do not understand it cannot be done. London without its international character would not be London.

A commentator on recent events said London had become the world’s first “transnational city” – an exaggeration with an important element of truth. The world’s journalists and business people already know it.

A year ago London ran an exhibition celebrating the first contact between Europe and Asia – the Silk Road. A leading Indian software company gave London the type of publicity you cannot buy in the Times of India. “London is a place where you are not only close to the market but you feel at home after a week.”

But that is the top. I knew again how deep that feeling had penetrated for Londoners when I saw their response after last Thursday. I do not know Marie Fatayi-Williams, a Muslim who flew to London from Nigeria because her son Anthony was missing. But she understood London. “Anthony is a Nigerian, born in London, worked in London, he is a world citizen. Here today we have Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus all united in love for Anthony.”

There are no words to follow that."

[thenodrog]

I wouldn't normally quote Ken Livingstone but this article from this morning's Financial Times eloquently expresses the sentiments I feel:

For the last 10 days, and with extraordinary intensity last Wednesday and Thursday, Londoners have lived out triumph and grief with the eyes of the world on them. A spontaneous city-wide outburst of joy at winning the Olympics, the tragedy of the bomb attacks, the implacable resolve to bring to justice those responsible, and immediate determination from millions of Londoners that the city would not shift from its chosen path all passed in days.

"An anonymous Londoner put it best on a wreath. I quote it not simply for its eloquence but because in my ­opinion it expressed how virtually every Londoner responded.

The wreath read: “If you are looking to boost morale, our pride, then you have succeeded. If you want to ensure our commitment to our way of life you have achieved much. If you expect ­people to crawl out of smoke-filled tunnels, head to work and otherwise get on with their daily lives you were right. If your aim was to raise our strength and defiance, congratulations. Burning with fear? Not bloody likely.”

Libération, the French newspaper, said: “Never has such calm been seen faced with such an event.”

London responded in its own way. It was no better than New York or Madrid. There is no competition in the face of barbarity. It was simply different. Particularly to an international business audience I want to explain that difference because it will help them understand the nature of London.

London’s character was indelibly marked by being for centuries the world’s greatest port. London simply had more physical connections with the rest of the globe than any other place on the planet. Shakespeare was born in Stratford but he worked in ­London, and his paying audience was those who made their living by trade. Three hundred years ago, one-quarter of those invited to celebrations of the coronation of George II were foreigners living in London.

Around this nucleus developed the world’s greatest international financial centre. New York now handles even greater financial volumes than London. But that is due to the weight of the US domestic market; in terms of a truly international centre London still exceeds even New York.

There are 1.2m people in London working in financial and business ­services. Many tens of thousands of them do no work connected to Britain’s economy. London is frequently more affected by the movements of the ­economies of east Asia or the US than it is by that of the UK.

Around this gigantic port and financial centre grew what else made London the international centre it is today. To follow global financial operations London required a truly international press and media – this newspaper is a product of it. London’s exposure to innumerable cultures gave its creative industries a fuel of ideas, and therefore a drive, that has made it one of the greatest entertainment, architecture, media, music and advertising centres of the world.

Simultaneously came people. One-quarter of London’s senior and middle financial management comes from abroad. Nearly one-third of Londoners are from ethnic minorities.

Naturally, only a relatively small fraction of London’s citizens

understand its position as the world’s greatest international financial centre. But what they have come to know

and appreciate deeply is having the greatest international lifestyle on the planet. From those executing high finance in the executive suites and trading floors of the Square Mile or Canary Wharf, through London’s prosperous suburbs of Richmond or Southgate, to the curry houses of Brick Lane, Londoners thrive on the global character of the city.

Those who propose we cut ourselves off from the world do not understand it cannot be done. London without its international character would not be London.

A commentator on recent events said London had become the world’s first “transnational city” – an exaggeration with an important element of truth. The world’s journalists and business people already know it.

A year ago London ran an exhibition celebrating the first contact between Europe and Asia – the Silk Road. A leading Indian software company gave London the type of publicity you cannot buy in the Times of India. “London is a place where you are not only close to the market but you feel at home after a week.”

But that is the top. I knew again how deep that feeling had penetrated for Londoners when I saw their response after last Thursday. I do not know Marie Fatayi-Williams, a Muslim who flew to London from Nigeria because her son Anthony was missing. But she understood London. “Anthony is a Nigerian, born in London, worked in London, he is a world citizen. Here today we have Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus all united in love for Anthony.”

There are no words to follow that."

331704[/snapback]

Fine words about London (even if Stratford-on-Avon is dismissed out of hand) but did he mention Leeds at all?

Or to quote the Bard 'Ah there's the rub!' (or maybe one of the rubs )

[Scotty]

1.  Where have I suggested a policy of deportation?

2.  'I warned you' is a pretty valid line, especially when compared to your daft views...... btw I still am warning you. 

3.  Quote "the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races

Now, no doubt Phil will argue that Muslims are not a race, rather a cultural or religious group, but he'd be arguing on a technicality and we all know it."Unquote

Muslims are NOT of one race.  Fact!  To criticise Islam or aspects of Islam is simply not racist!  Period!  Technicality or not, or however you personally want to twist things the way you are peddling innaccuracies and you know it.  And by throwing cheap shots and sensationalism and screaming 'RACIST' every 5 minutes and at every opportunity that you are intellectually threatened is pathetic and infantile and is typical of a lynch-mob mentality. 

There thats that! 

Now......... Given the latest information that the perpetrators were 'British' citizens, and given that you admit in your last post that there is definitely a serious threat posed to the security of the citizens of country by  Islamic fanatics, and given your constant criticism of other peoples attempts at proposing solutions.............. so lets now hear yours please Scotty.

331702[/snapback]

1) I wasn't refering to you - I was referring to Phil's post.

2) You're a c0ck.

3) Yeah, yeah, yeah. Banning all Muslims from the country no matter what there views or beliefs isn't racist at all. It's certainly massively discriminatory, it's certainly hugely unfair, and it's certainly an unworkable, ridiculous suggestion that would only serve to make the situation worse.

As for my solution - I haven't got one. There isn't an easy solution - and there certianly isn't one as simplistic as Phil's (incidentally, I don't remember reading YOUR solution Theno). The fact is that if someone is motivated enough to kill themselves in order to kill others then there's not a lot that can be done. Of course, if there are Muslim clerics inciting young people then that should be stopped. Of course, if there are illegal immigrants who are planning terrorist attacks then they should be deported / arrested / whatever.

The thing we've all got to realise though is that the amount of people who feel the same way as these bombers is tiny. They are a very small minority in the Muslim community. The security services need to concentrate their efforts on wheedling these individuals out (something I'm sure they are trying to do).

[den]

It really is sad to read all the same old posters, making all the same old points over and over again. Not only on this topic, but other topics as well.

Taking some of the points in isolation, there are reasonable discussions to be had, no doubt about that. When the same points are pushed consistently and regularly, it makes for distasteful and unsettling reading for some people, of that I'm confident.

As for moderating this topic, there isn't an easy solution IMO. [Well, there is - just close the topic]. that doesn't really go with the spirit of the site though. I also think some people are intent on pushing things to the limit, knowing exactly what they're doing.

That's my personal opinion. Don't be surprised to see the topic closed though.

Please refrain from personal insults.

[Paul]

Why?  Can you elaborate on that?  I asked Flopsy this question Paul and he did not elaborate. ................ As far as moderation is concerned there is little need for any, save for stamping down on direct insults e.g. referring to people as 'arse' and 'snidey racist' etc.  Even some mods are guilty of this btw.  Unfortunately imo the insult is ignored / forgiven or even encouraged if the mods own politics / sentiments concur.  As unforgivable as a biased ref in football imo.

331660[/snapback]

The answer to your question is in your own words theno. I'm not in the slightest concerned by the topic of conversation, I'm not overly concerned by the opposing views put forward but I am concerned by the personal insults and attacks from parties with differing views.

There is no bias at all - and even if you chose to post a thousand examples I'm not going to rise to that one - as I am equally disappointed in the attacks from all parties. It is not necessary and past experience tells me where it will end.

Terrorism has been a fact of life in our society for 30/40 years and we still don't have the answers. Abusing each other on a football forum will not resolve the issues.

[greggyk]

Things are really starting to pick up now.

Police are saying they are after the mastermind of the oportation who they believe lives in London.

Also today, we've been watching interviews from the bombers friends and family(and unless they are faking) they claim they had no idea about what kind of people these people really were and didnt think they could do anything like this.

So you have to ask, were these bombers intentional suicide bombers. Of course they knew what they were doing but did the mastermind not tell them they had to die also. Seems to me that the mastermind set the timers differently to how the bombers though because he wanted them dead also making it easier for the mastermind to get away with it.

[colin]

Slightly strange tale from yesterdays Manchester Evening News (I'd do a link to its on-line version but it's not there)

A woman from Congleton in Cheshire was on the tube when one of the bombs went off and the whole system stopped.

Uninjured, she made her way out and decided to continue her journey by bus.

Did she get on any old bus or did she get on "that" bus?

Yup, she got on that bus. Remarkably she escaped with just cuts & bruises.

If these come in threes she should do the Lottery at the next available opportunity.

[blue phil]

Four posts in a row from Thenodrog - all slagging people off

Oh, and that suggestion of Blue Phil's is about as close to racism as you can get.  Here's the dictionary definition of racism (from the Online Cambridge Dictionary):

the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races

Now, no doubt Phil will argue that Muslims are not a race, rather a cultural or religious group, but he'd be arguing on a technicality and we all know it.

331689[/snapback]

Not that you would ever slag people off , Scotty ....

But seeing as you have may I state that your post above , as usual , is based on no evidence whatsoever - merely the same finger poining nonsense backed up by false and misleading allegations . You and your ilk would have made great inquisitors in another place and time ....

As for the "technicality" bit ; well yes that would be my line of defence - to argue that racism and my stated views have no connection at all . That is clearly supported by your dictionary defintion and would have to be supported by any sane , objective person (of which this forum unfortunately is sadly lacking )

Alll in all , Scotty , you'll have to do better ......hell , I can even quote in my defence a post from P5 of this thread ....." And I completely agree with Blue Phil above, this has nothing to do with race at all." *

(OK - it's a quote from some dubious character named Scotty but it's still worth a look at for amusement sake ....)

[greggyk]

Is this the lady your talking about Colin?

Very lucky

[Scotty]

    Alll in all , Scotty , you'll have to do better ......hell , I can even quote in my defence a post from P5 of this thread ....." And I completely agree with Blue Phil above, this has nothing to do with race at all."  *

 

  (OK - it's a quote from some dubious character named Scotty but it's still worth a look at for amusement sake ....)

331797[/snapback]

Clearly the heat's getting to you Phil (must hard what with your skinhead and all) but the quote above was in reference to the attacks in London, not any of your posts.

You want all Muslims banned from entering the country, no matter what their beliefs or views are. I think that's a ridiculous, discriminatory, unworkable, unfair solution that belies what you really feel, but won't admit on here. Hell, I'd have more respect for you if you told us all what you really feel rather than continually hinting at it.

[thenodrog]

Clearly the heat's getting to you Phil (must hard what with your skinhead and all)

331808[/snapback]

Heat? Skinheads? Surely that has no bearing on the matter. I always thought that high temperatures affected people with excessive body fat most Scotty.

[Scotty]

Heat?  Skinheads?  Surely that has no bearing on the matter.  I always thought that high temperatures affected people with excessive body fat most Scotty.

331821[/snapback]

Ho, ho ho. Low blow. You sad, sad man.

[thenodrog]

Ho, ho ho.  Low blow.  You sad, sad man.

331823[/snapback]

Eh? Sorry but I dont understand that last response...... c0ck.

[Glenn]

This is beginning to cross the line. Feel free to continue the discussion but the trading of insults needs to stop NOW. I've argued against the closing of this thread but if it isn't brought back to a more civil level then closure is the only option.

BTW, This isn't aimed at one single person, it's aimed at the half a dozen of you that are allowing an intresting debate to degenerate into a slagging match and points scoring exercise.

[Paul]

This thread is closed due to the level of personal abuse and the inability of those with opposing views to debate without resorting to insult.

[Paul]

OK again a couple of people have suggested the actions of a few are being allowed to hinder the majority interest in sensible debate on this subject. So I will open it up again.

Any post that hints at a personal attack will be set to "Invisible" - this means the admin/mod team can see the post but it is hidden from the rest of the board. Now fight fair please.

[colin]

Is this the lady your talking about Colin?

Very lucky

331798[/snapback]

She's the one. Is she leading a charmed life? (ahem) Or what?

[American]

OK again a couple of people have suggested the actions of a few are being allowed to hinder the majority interest in sensible debate on this subject. So I will open it up again.

Any post that hints at a personal attack will be set to "Invisible" - this means the admin/mod team can see the post but it is hidden from the rest of the board. Now fight fair please.

331847[/snapback]

I'm trying to find some sensible debate (from either side) in the last 2 days of posts I just read.

[colin]

Never done this before but can I nominate this for a Grooby for the most stupid and pointless post ever. 

Of course you can old chap, the nominations come up sometime in the middle of winter.

Do you ever bother to read what you have written before you post Colin?

Very rarely Gordon, Generally I just tend to blindfold myself and hit those keys at random.

Sorry but I cannot condone stupidity and ignorance and particularly not on a subject as serious as this thread.  Grow up. 

Absolutely, something we agree on. Love you.xxxx

[andy82]

The controlled explosion in Leeds was on the next street from me. Seems odd to think there was a bomb making factory down the road. The lad from Beeston went to my Uni too - i'd not be surprised if theres a few more of that group of lads that are involved in similar things.

[dave birch]

Been following this thread since the atrocity. Something like the bombings were always going to stir emotions.

I've got to admit that I share some of the feelings from both sides of the debate.

Knowing as much as we do about the "bombers" I can understand the feelings of Theno, BP and ASEF, after all the "bombers" are of stock that migrated to England and, to my mind, should have assymilated and become English.

If you don't want to feel and be English, then go to Pakistan if you feel more Pakistani, or to Saudi or to Iran or Australia for that matter. Having said that, there are tens of thousands of migrants that are quite happy being English of Pakistani or whatever stock, who are being tainted by those radicals amongst them. That, in itself leads to a couple of other problems; 1. Do those that are "tainted" dob the radicals to the local plod or do they acknowledge a bond between themselves and overlook the indiscretions? 2. Should the state search out and deport or imprison those that are furthering the cause of the radicals?

It would seem that there are some religious that are preaching the Jihad line and there are those preaching a moderate line. (I heard one British Imam on ABC radio this morning saying he was being critisised by his congregation for preaching a moderate form of Islam).

I have been heavily critisised in the past for being "Australian" and turning my back on my English heritage (which I believe that I haven't). I happen to think that had all those migrants to England all those years ago had taken my approach to living in a new country, then there wouldn't have been all the "racial" "religious" problems. You don't have to turn your back on your religious beliefs or traditions from the old country, you just have to accept the way of life in the new country, and if you don't like it there is always the option of returning "home".

The other day I heard of a bloke that had investigated all the suicide bombings since the 1980's. Apparently, every single one had involved a person or persons from a "Democratic country". That is, people from countries where there was a totalitarian regime installed were not involved in bombings. Makes you think, doesn't it, freedom of speech and run the risk, or no freedom of speech and "relative" safety

Finally, I don't like the idea of censorship on this website and am glad that this thread remains open and would be annoyed if posts were "hidden". It's for me to decide whether something is worth replying to or getting upset about.

There is a simple solution to those that get upset, don't read the thread, and certainly don't post. No one is going to hear you calling Theno/BP/ASEF/Colin /Scotty et al a "raging poofter/racist/tree hugger etc" when you are in front of your computer, and it might just vent your spleen enough to stop you posting(or is that part of the problem, the need to be heard?). I don't agree with everything that's posted on these pages and think that some of it is bordering on the downright stupid, but I don't get the urge to show my disgust by firing off a reply.

Edited July 14, 2005 by dave birch

[Paul]

Admin has received a number of PMs and e-mails regarding this thread. The thread was re-opened last night as a direct result of this and rightly so.

Personally I am very concerned that some feel intimidated and unable to express their views for fear of ridicule. This is a terrible situation and not one that requires the "if you can't stand the heat" type response. We have 3600+ members on here and each has the right to an opinion.

I'm therefore appealing to those who cannot agree without resorting to abuse to consider your impact on others. I'm not looking at any person(s) in particular as it is obvious there is fault from members with varying opinions. It is very unfair, and pretty much against the values of our society, for the majority to be intimidated by a minority.

I have no intention of debating this subject**, I'm simply asking each of you, all intelligent individuals, to calm it down a bit and allow others to feel they can post withour fear of ridicule.

thanks

** which is not a dogmatic statement. I'm simply not going to debate the bombings as I don't want to. The moderation is not for debate as we are asking nothing more than for people to behave properly towards each other.

[Fife Rover]

And what about the millions of Muslims who live a peaceful, religious life just like  millions of Christians and Catholics here do. To tarnish all those people with the same brush as terrorists is deeply insulting to them, not to mention totally discriminatory.

331689[/snapback]

Catholics ARE Christians! Until the reformation the only Christians in the world were what are now called Catholics.

EDIT: Whoops! Sorry and no offence intended; I have just realised I should have said in the Western World - completely forgot about the Eastern Authodox Christians. Purely due to not thinking things out properly before committing to paper or speech. There is a lesson to us all!

Edited July 14, 2005 by Fife Rover