[Archived] Extra ! Extra ! Read All About It !

[K-Hod]

There is a problem, but not to the scale of 1 in 10 Muslims. The wrong'uns are still wrong'uns, whatever religion they follow.

Come to think of it, there must be at least 10 Muslims I know and speak to regularly, I'll try and work out which one is a terrorist. Eee, it'll be like a game of guess who...

[yoda]

There are some wrong'uns amongst that religion. But 1 in 10? No way. In that case, anyone in Lancashire best look over their shoulder when they're out and about/at work/in a taxi/Indian restaurant/takeaway etc.

Muslims have been in Britain for about 50 years, if they wanted to take over, they'd have had a go already.

No more naive than anyone else is paranoid...

If you add a nought on the end you will still be light in years,

I know a lot of Muslims in the area through business, a fair proportion would like Sharia law,

I rather suspect if they had it, they wouldn't want it within a few minutes though,

The reality of experience!

[otto man]

There are some wrong'uns amongst that religion. But 1 in 10? No way. In that case, anyone in Lancashire best look over their shoulder when they're out and about/at work/in a taxi/Indian restaurant/takeaway etc.

Muslims have been in Britain for about 50 years, if they wanted to take over, they'd have had a go already.

No more naive than anyone else is paranoid...

Yup, they took the same mocking tone in Paris didn't they? Paranoid? You are keeping up with current events aren't you?

Just remind where me did the 14 year old who was trying to provoke a beheading come from?

[K-Hod]

Yup, they took the same mocking tone in Paris didn't they? Paranoid? You are keeping up with current events aren't you?

Just remind where did the 14 year old who was trying to provoke a beheading come from?

Yep, keeping up with current events, of course, news is easy to digest these days.

He was from Blackburn, I followed the story, he's a wrong'un no doubt, all the attacks have been a disgrace. The perpetrators need to be dealt with, as I've already mentioned on here several times.

[Pedro]

Also in Andy Murray winning it when he doesn't appear to be in possession of a personality ;-)

I like Andy Murray. I think he is serious but I have seen him on TV when he relaxes and he has a good sense of humour. I was only thinking the other day, for that lad (and the countless others who aren't famous) who have come through the Dunblane tragedy and lost friends etc at such a formative age - what a credit they are to themselves. That event still shocks and saddens me greatly.

[Pedro]

Such as directly lieing to his supporters regarding no go areas for the London police because of the high level of Muslims living there. Similar comments re Paris though I don't now the real situation there.

The man appeals to a section of the electorate but America won't elect him....... fortunately for the rest of the world.

I'll be happy to accept what you say here if you can provide the evidence. I don't feel your say so is enough to justify the point.

It depends where you dig for information Paul. There are countless instances of false reporting in recent years. I would have thought that you had cottoned on to some of the higher profile cases. Not too far back, start on the Gulf War, further than that the Falklands war. Here's a couple of links but believe me, the organisation is as bad as the others.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/mps-accuse-bbc-of-creating-false-balance-on-climate-change-with-unqualified-sceptics-9231176.html

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/24/from-savile-to-syria-bbc-in-breach-of-charter-again-with-staged-panorama-chemical-doc/

[Steve Moss]

There are some wrong'uns amongst that religion. But 1 in 10? No way. In that case, anyone in Lancashire best look over their shoulder when they're out and about/at work/in a taxi/Indian restaurant/takeaway etc.

1 in 10 radicals does not equate to 1 in 10 killers. Most human beings, even radicals, have an aversion to personally killing another. Even in military units, where the percentage of those who are psychologically capable of killing another is higher than the base population, only 15-20% are actually able to consciously kill another.

And of those who are willing to kill, there is a much small percentage who are willing to effectively suicide as a part of their willingness to inflict violence.

However, 1 in 10 radicals is more than enough of a breeding ground to mean that there is a constant supply of Islamist killers. And some polls say that the support for Sharia law in the US and UK is much higher than 10%.

[yoda]

Do the Muslim Council of Brum' still openly campaign for the introduction of Sharia law

[jim mk2]

The worrying aspect of Trump's outburst is that bigotry, racism and fascism seems to be perfectly acceptable in the US these days. And not only only that - they seem to have become fundamental values of the Republican party. Trump and Ben Carson seem to be engaged in a competition to come up with the most reactionary, bigoted and unconstitutional declarations possible. The few moderate Republicans must be ashamed at the direction their party has taken - and wonder if they will ever hold office again. For the sake of the normal Americans who believe in decency and progressive liberal values, I sincere hope they don't.

[Steve Moss]

The worrying aspect of Trump's outburst is that bigotry, racism and fascism seems to be perfectly acceptable in the US these days. And not only only that - they seem to have become fundamental values of the Republican party. Trump and Ben Carson seem to be engaged in a competition to come up with the most reactionary, bigoted and unconstitutional declarations possible. The few moderate Republicans must be ashamed at the direction their party has taken - and wonder if they will ever hold office again. For the sake of the normal Americans who believe in decency and progressive liberal values, I sincere hope they don't.

What exactly has Trump said or done which warrants calling him a racist?

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

'Bigot/Racist/Fascist'...the typical and now well worn tedious (and usually unfounded) retort for anyone expressing a different opinion to those with 'leftist' views.

One of my biggest pet hates in recent times.

[Paul]

I can only say the ability of Steve and ottoman to miss the point so spectacularly is surprising.

To recap otto man stated 10% of Muslims are radicalised to which I asked for the source of this information. All I read in reply is that it's "widely reported". Correct it is widely reported but what is the source? Where have security agencies stated this? Can you demonstrate clearly where the information comes from?

France reports 3800 Muslims are thought to be radicalised from a population of 66,000,000. This seems at odds with the 10% quoted as widely reported but uncorobated.

At no point did I suggest any support or sympathy with terrorists or radicalised Muslims. I provided a source of non partisan reference. Please provide similar for the 10% claim.

With regard to Sharia law I showed no support for it. I pointed out that when Muslims were polled as to their views on Sharia law in THEIR country those who supported Sharia were classed as radicalised. The point was to question what is a "radicalised" person? How is this defined? Seems a reasonable question when otto man claims 10% of Muslims are "radicalised."

[Pedro]

I can only say the ability of Steve and ottoman to miss the point so spectacularly is surprising.

To recap otto man stated 10% of Muslims are radicalised to which I asked for the source of this information. All I read in reply is that it's "widely reported". Correct it is widely reported but what is the source? Where have security agencies stated this? Can you demonstrate clearly where the information comes from?

France reports 3800 Muslims are thought to be radicalised from a population of 66,000,000. This seems at odds with the 10% quoted as widely reported but uncorobated.

At no point did I suggest any support or sympathy with terrorists or radicalised Muslims. I provided a source of non partisan reference. Please provide similar for the 10% claim.

With regard to Sharia law I showed no support for it. I pointed out that when Muslims were polled as to their views on Sharia law in THEIR country those who supported Sharia were classed as radicalised. The point was to question what is a "radicalised" person? How is this defined? Seems a reasonable question when otto man claims 10% of Muslims are "radicalised."

It stems from a chap called Ben Shapiro. I wouldn't take it as fact though.

[Paul]

It depends where you dig for information Paul. There are countless instances of false reporting in recent years. I would have thought that you had cottoned on to some of the higher profile cases. Not too far back, start on the Gulf War, further than that the Falklands war. Here's a couple of links but believe me, the organisation is as bad as the others.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/mps-accuse-bbc-of-creating-false-balance-on-climate-change-with-unqualified-sceptics-9231176.html

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/24/from-savile-to-syria-bbc-in-breach-of-charter-again-with-staged-panorama-chemical-doc/

Pedro - thanks. The climate change one I knew about. Having heard a number of interviews involving scientists and sceptics I'm always baffled as to why the BBC bother with the sceptics. I think it is to ensure balanced reporting even if it does take it to the nth degree. I'm not sure though that is the deliberate falsifying I felt you have suggested.

For me Panorama was, a long time ago, must watch TV with high quality investigative journalism. Today I feel it's a shadow of its former self. I couldn't get the video clips to play of the napalm item but did read several of the links.

Do you not feel those organisations and individuals writing these pieces have an agenda?

I thought, for example, the BBC response on Dr Hallam's words being edited was quite reasonable. I haven't read the whole article deeply but equally didn't skim. I have to say that when I reached the part suggesting the BBC was complicit in perpetuating the myth the destruction of WTC 7 was an "inside job" things were getting a bit far fetched.

[Steve Moss]

I can only say the ability of Steve and ottoman to miss the point so spectacularly is surprising.

To recap otto man stated 10% of Muslims are radicalised to which I asked for the source of this information. All I read in reply is that it's "widely reported". Correct it is widely reported but what is the source? Where have security agencies stated this? Can you demonstrate clearly where the information comes from?

France reports 3800 Muslims are thought to be radicalised from a population of 66,000,000. This seems at odds with the 10% quoted as widely reported but uncorobated.

At no point did I suggest any support or sympathy with terrorists or radicalised Muslims. I provided a source of non partisan reference. Please provide similar for the 10% claim.

With regard to Sharia law I showed no support for it. I pointed out that when Muslims were polled as to their views on Sharia law in THEIR country those who supported Sharia were classed as radicalised. The point was to question what is a "radicalised" person? How is this defined? Seems a reasonable question when otto man claims 10% of Muslims are "radicalised."

The total population of France is 66 million. The French Muslim population is 6.1 million. Of the 3,800 who are "radicals", does that mean that they're willing to shoot/blow up non-believers or that they think it's okay for others to shoot/blow up non-believers? You'd have to do your own research on that.

In the USA, some claim upwards of 51% of USA Muslims support Sharia law. Nearly a quarter believe that it is okay to use violence against those who insult Islam or Muhammad. Almost 20% said violence is appropriate to impose Sharia law in the USA. https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/

I have no idea whether that is true or not. Another poll (which did not include the US or UK, but did include Russia and Eastern Europe, in addition to Asia and Africa) shows that support for Sharia law within their country of residence ranges from 8% to 94%. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

In 2013, Pew found that 1% of American Muslims and 3% world wide viewed suicide bombings of civilians is justified, and 7% of American and 80% world wide viewed these tactics as sometimes justified. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-app-a/?beta=true&utm_expid=53098246-2.Lly4CFSVQG2lphsg-KopIg.1&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewforum.org%2F2013%2F04%2F30%2Fthe-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview%2F%3Fbeta%3Dtrue

There is a Muslim population of 1.6 billion world wide and roughly 5 million in the USA. Whether it is a low percentage or high percentage (depending on whom you believe and what your definition of "radical" might be), this still results in a very large gross number. This gross number, either on the low end or high end, exceeds the number of many nations' military. So, a "radical" Muslim might be one who wants to shoot us, or is okay with others shooting us, or just wants Sharia law. You decide for yourself. Either way, there are a lot of them.

As for me, I have no problem with Muslims who reject Sharia law and want to work and raise their families peacefully. I do have a problem with those who want to live under Sharia law, in addition to those who want to live in the West and receive benefits. Distinguishing between those groups is critical. One we can invite in as neighbors and friends. The others are potential enemies and should stay in their home nations. They have no right to come here unless invited.

[ultrablue]

I wonder what the poll results would be if you asked American Christians if they would prefer to live under biblical law? I expect the favourables would be pretty similar, if not higher than those US Muslims wanting Sharia. Asking a religious group a hypothetical preference is basically like asking 'how religious are you?', it's wholly unreliable. Those numbers on suicide bombing etc. are much more worrying, but again - it's a hypothetical.

The poll seems to be pretty suspect too. This Centre for Security Policy is widely reported to be a conservative think tank run by a well-known islamophobe. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/frank-gaffney-jr

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35037943
The poll was of answered by self selecting Muslims online - leaving it wide open to manipulation.

If you look at the likelihood of actual change to the system and culture, there is no danger whatsoever of Sharia law taking over the US. No serious politician is running for any office on a Pro-Sharia platform. However, there is a leading Presidential candidate who wants to tear up the first, fourth and fourteenth amendment to the constitution. And he is currently backed by millions of Americans. Now that kind of very real and present extremism is much more worrying.

[AllRoverAsia]

Freedom of Speech - works well if you like what I'm saying.

I see there's a petition to ask the UK Government to ban Trump from entry into the UK.

It's well past the stage where I can write what I really think. Thank you Brave New World.

Meanwhile:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-quarter-of-the-british-public-support-donald-trumps-plan-to-ban-all-muslim-travel-and-immigration-a6766606.html

[dave birch]

Ultra, What's "Biblical Law"?

That's a first for me.

[Paul]

Storm Desmond: (Blackburn) Muslim charity dispatched to Cumbria amid further flood warnings:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/storm-desmond-muslim-charity-dispatched-to-cumbria-amid-further-flood-warnings-a6767066.htm

Preston Muslim group rallies to help victims of Cumbria floods:

http://blogpreston.co.uk/2015/12/preston-muslim-group-rallies-to-help-victims-of-cumbria-floods/

[adopted scouser]

Freedom of speech is NOT divisible, and it's what we base our democracy on.

Isn't it peculiar that the right to freedom of speech is only in question when Muslims have been mentioned ?

Let him come over, he'll only end up looking stupid anyway, we are not having our rights that have stood for hundreds of years be dictated to by the terminally offended.

[ultrablue]

Ultra, What's "Biblical Law"?

That's a first for me.

Really? Don't remember when shops had to be closed on Sunday? When marriage was only between one man and one woman? You've heard about slavery, the death penalty and the witch trials? All were justified for centuries through one interpretation of the laws in the Bible. Of course, other interpretations were used to undo some of these laws.

And so it is for Sharia. The Quran contains laws both good and bad. No doubt some Muslim majority countries have terrible laws. But this is not a Muslim problem, it's a Saudi problem. It's a Sudanese problem, it's an Afghani problem.

But ask these people if they want to live under Sharia and you are effectively asking them if they like their holy book. To answer 'no' could be interpreted as having to denounce your faith. And Christians are just the same! Ask a US Republican if the Bible leads their political decisions and close to 100% would say yes!

[T J Hooker]

There are some wrong'uns amongst that religion. But 1 in 10? No way. In that case, anyone in Lancashire best look over their shoulder when they're out and about/at work/in a taxi/Indian restaurant/takeaway etc.

Muslims have been in Britain for about 50 years, if they wanted to take over, they'd have had a go already.

No more naive than anyone else is paranoid...

Id say more than 1 in 10 of humans in general are arsehole pricks(technical term) so its not hard to believe that more than 1 in 10 Muslims would support sharia law ect...

[otto man]

The commandments?

[yoda]

I wonder what the poll results would be if you asked American Christians if they would prefer to live under biblical law? I expect the favourables would be pretty similar, if not higher than those US Muslims wanting Sharia. Asking a religious group a hypothetical preference is basically like asking 'how religious are you?', it's wholly unreliable. Those numbers on suicide bombing etc. are much more worrying, but again - it's a hypothetical.

The poll seems to be pretty suspect too. This Centre for Security Policy is widely reported to be a conservative think tank run by a well-known islamophobe. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/frank-gaffney-jr

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35037943

The poll was of answered by self selecting Muslims online - leaving it wide open to manipulation.

If you look at the likelihood of actual change to the system and culture, there is no danger whatsoever of Sharia law taking over the US. No serious politician is running for any office on a Pro-Sharia platform. However, there is a leading Presidential candidate who wants to tear up the first, fourth and fourteenth amendment to the constitution. And he is currently backed by millions of Americans. Now that kind of very real and present extremism is much more worrying.

When you say biblical law do you really mean Christian law ?

Which part of the American constitution did destroying the trade towers break ?

[ultrablue]

I said biblical law because although there are a lot of Christian denominations they all share one book.

No idea what you are getting at with that second question. Killing people breaks that law saying its illegal to kill people.