The Horror in Brussels

[threegee]

I’m not really sure to which of my many previous, as yet unanswered, questions you refer. Please repeat the question. However, I’m quite happy to accommodate your trying again with the following. I agree, the answers are important and I’ve already responded to this part of your enquiry (see above).

Your responses overlap mine which only results in confusion  Go a little more slowly.  And - if you don't get a reply on a particular thread then - bump that  thread.

No they were not suicide bombers and perhaps they didn’t use machine guns (I personally don’t know) but they did have other methods of killing and torturing innocent people (this I do personally know).  So let’s call a spade a spade shall we. It is killing we are talking about not the methods used.

Well, we are getting somewhere.  The IRA used measured violence to create political pressure.  They make mistakes, and admit to, even apologise for those mistakes. Their objective isn't the genocide of any people.

Go tell that to anybody working in the casualty departments of the major hospitals at the time! Believe me, it was the not knowing that it was about to happen which caused the most disruption. Though I do remember one warning about a planned attack in London and when all resources were nicely concentrated in London they detonated a bomb in … Manchester, I believe it was. Didn’t greatly reduce the number of casualties that warning!

And another warning issued 90 minutes before the bomb detonated. What good was that? How long do you think it takes to get a bomb squad in place? Once in place, how long does it take to find and defuse the bomb? That warning didn’t reduce the number of casualties either.

No, I won't do that because it would be crass.  If you saying that what we are facing through the scourge of Islam is in any way on a similar scale to our own past local difficulties you are totally deluded.

The IRA, as far as my memory serves me, had one purpose – the reunification of Ireland.

Good, and to do that they had to take all the people's of that Island with them.  In their own way they saw this as possible.  They weren't aiming for total world domination, and slaughter on a previously unimaginable scale. At some point in their agenda was an element of compromise, and their territorial ambitions were piffling.

IS, to whom I think you refer when speaking of Islamic terrorism, would also appear to have only one purpose – the reunification of Islam, by establishing a new Islamic caliphate across the middle east. At least that’s how I’ve understood it. Perhaps you have understood something else?

No its not just IS, that's a front.  It's there in the Quaran, 97 times if I remember correctly, and it's world domination.  Perhaps you have missed something?

“Behind every IRA terrorist stood thousands on republicans from whom the terrorists were drawn, most of these people made no bones about their support- they sheltered the terrorists. Are you saying that this is an entirely different phenomenon here??”

I’m not really sure what you mean here. I think that behind the IS terrorists there are supporters, maybe not thousands behind each one but supporters never the less. I haven’t seen anything in news reports or media which would make me believe that IS terrorists are not sheltered by their supporters. If you could clarify your question maybe I can give you a more substantial answer.

I mean that the entire catholic community there was behind the IRA - some more and some less, but when it came to the crunch there would be no doubt as to exactly where they would all take their cue from - it was right there in the voting records.  This "none of my business" doesn't wash with most people. Our country and entire continent need to hear a lot more than "none of my business" if we are to truly believe we don't now have a houseful of sleeping vipers.  Anyone who follows the Quaran has to face up to issues that this raises; this is not OUR problem it is THEIR problem, and this needs to be made plain.  The longer this is delayed the more the extremists will take encouragement from what they see as our terminal stupidity.  Or, as The Guardian puts it:

Quote

“They think a lot about this. They think they know you better than you know yourselves.”

..and, you know what?  I think that in many cases they could be dead right!

[Maggie/915]

Why don't you call it a draw?

[Canny lass]

Because it's about human life, Maggie! It's a question that should be brought out into the open and discussed. The only problem here is that some people seem to have forgotten - assuming that they have ever known - the basic principles of debate. Principles such as making a statement and  supporting it with evidence or expert opinion, - instead of illogical reasoning. Principles such as asking questions and even answering questions from the opposition - even if it means being put on the spot sometimes.. Principles such as accepting that there are other opinions than your own  which also have the right to be supported with evidence or expert opinion. These all help to keep the discussion going. Lying down and pretending to be dead, when put into a corner by an awkward question and hoping your opponent will go away, have never been conducive to good argumentation technique. 

I don't consider this to be a fight. Just a poor discussion of an n interesting topic, worthy of debate. 

Edited March 25, 2016 by Canny lass

[Canny lass]

3g, One last question for today, When you say "It's there in the Quaran, 97 times if I remember correctly, and it's world domination." I'm not sure what you mean. What is in the Quaran 97 times? Does it say 97 times that the  purpose of Islam is world domination?

[mercuryg]

3g, in all honesty, I would strongly advise against referencing 'Above Top Secret' in a serious discussion. Furthermore, a thread that begins with the catch-all 'I'm not racist, as Islam is not a race' (roughly translated as 'I don't like my he followers of Islam'.

Edited March 26, 2016 by mercuryg
Added 'ing'

[mercuryg]

This thread has made interesting reading, and from both the main contributors. There is something I have noticed that differentiates between the two; Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and when it comes to a subject as broad and important as this there are going to be vast differences across the board. That is clear here. At the risk of being told I'm making personal attacks - it is not my intention - I'd like to state the following: although I'm quite well-read on the 'ISIS problem' I have learnt from Canny Lass's points. Threegee, while equally eloquent and always readable, has not actually told me anything I didn't already know, bar a couple of interesting links that have reinforced his views quite admirably. To summarise, much has been akin to a far better written version of stuff that pops up on my FB pages from the likes of the EDL and Britain First. Or in the Daily Mail. I'm not, to clarify, saying I think Threegee is wrong; I believe he has some very much qualified concerns, but they are exaggerated.My opinion, of course, and feel free to dispute it.

Now, mention of the Daily Mail brings me onto another element of the problem - that of the behaviour and attitude of the mainstream press. I read a daily paper and despair; the standard of reporting is terrible, and in many cases it becomes clear there has been no research. Typical was one tabloids declaration that 'Easter Eggs Banned'; claim was that the manufacturers have removed the word Easter from the packaging so as not to offend 'non-Christians' (I wonder who they may be?) Total nonsense, of course, as it only took a few minutes for someone to find pictures of Easter eggs from the 1970's where said word could not be seen. But, a great headline, doing what headlines should do, grabbing the attention and infuriating Bob at the local newsagents, who buys the paper to read what it's all about. And, it spreads like wildfire on social media (it was posted on my FB timeline five times, by people who should have known better). However, the problem is it simply enhances the belief that corporations are being forced to distance themselves from any religious connotations so as not to offend Muslims; they're not, it's the press that is fuelling the fire. Anyway, Happy Holidays- can't say Christmas, can we. Oh, and before Canny Lass gets on my back, I know, I know: I committed the cardinal sin and opened a sentence with And, 

 

[Canny lass]

That you can't start a sentence with a conjunction is just a myth! Some of our greatest writers have done it frequently and correctly. There are two types of coordinating conjunction. When junior school pupils learn that coordinating conjunctions can only be used within a sentence they are learning the rules of grammar. When university students learn that a coordinating conjunction can be placed at the beginning of a sentence to create emphatic effect they are learning the rules of literary style. You are using it quite correctly, Merguryg.

I never criticise anybody's use of language. Language changes all the time. One of the reasons for this is that the more a user diverges from a grammatical rule the quicker that divergance will be accepted into the language as the correct form. These users are all helping in their own way to diversify and keep the language alive. Grammatical rules are there only to facilitate communication. Communication is easier if we all speak/read in the same way but we can break as many rules as we like so long as effective communication is maintained. It's only when communication breaks down because of divergence  that we can talk of 'bad' grammar.

And, who am I to criticize ! I have English as my mother tongue but it's without doubt the worst of my languages because it's the language I use least. It now has many grammatical and lexical elements of Swedish, because that's the language I use most in my daily life. It also has many traces of Icelandic, Norwegian, Danish (to a lesser degree, and particularly in speech as I can't get my throat muscles around the 'hockling' sound) and Spanish, beacause they are the languages I most worked with. It's called transferance and there's not a lot that can be done about it. There are very few second language speakers who do not have it to some degree.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2016 by Canny lass

[Canny lass]

2 hours ago, mercuryg said:

Now, mention of the Daily Mail brings me onto another element of the problem - that of the behaviour and attitude of the mainstream press. I read a daily paper and despair; the standard of reporting is terrible, and in many cases it becomes clear there has been no research. Typical was one tabloids declaration that 'Easter Eggs Banned'; claim was that the manufacturers have removed the word Easter from the packaging so as not to offend 'non-Christians' (I wonder who they may be?) Total nonsense, of course, as it only took a few minutes for someone to find pictures of Easter eggs from the 1970's where said word could not be seen. But, a great headline, doing what headlines should do, grabbing the attention and infuriating Bob at the local newsagents, who buys the paper to read what it's all about. And, it spreads like wildfire on social media (it was posted on my FB timeline five times, by people who should have known better). However, the problem is it simply enhances the belief that corporations are being forced to distance themselves from any religious connotations so as not to offend Muslims; they're not, it's the press that is fuelling the fire. Anyway, Happy Holidays- can't say Christmas, can we. Oh, and before Canny Lass gets on my back, I know, I know: I committed the cardinal sin and opened a sentence with And, 

Newspapers will have you believe only that which they want you to believe and they use a wide variety of techniques to achieve that, not least among them selection of ‘facts’. However, it doesn’t end there. There is a plethora of research available which demonstrates the variety of those techniques. They encompass everything from the proportional relationship of the headline, text and pictures, placement within the newspaper and amount of space allocated to the article (editorial techniques) to the manipulation of grammar, vocabulary - and even some phonological features (writing techniques). All this is done with the sole aim of making the text, and consequently the newspaper, more appealing to a certain type of reader - the type who can buy their newspaper and thereby generate income. Some of us are clearly more susceptible to these techniques than others.

[Brett]

I'm not going to get involved in the debate en masse, mainly because I don't have the time to come and respond to anything that I write at the moment but I figured there'd be some interesting discussion on this particular topic.

As for the statement about muslims wanting world domination due to their holy scripture outlining these points then does it not all boil down to the interpretation of said book? There are many factions of all religions and not all of them follow their religious texts to the letter devout or not.

The fundamentalist regime spreading throughout the middle east and Europe is what people would deem as the true interpretation of the Quran but the Wahhabi interpreted text.

http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2014/11/wahhabism-isis-how-saudi-arabia-exported-main-source-global-terrorism

As for the threat of refugees or migrants coming to our shores and being part of a sleeper cell for a terrorist organisation is something that was always going to happen, yet it seems that we are at most risk by radicalised youths in our own countries. The more worrying bit is that these people are already known to the authorities, and were still able to commit such atrocities. There is no easy answer to the troubles we face and part of the issue may lie with Turkey or other European countries, some of which may lie closer to threegee's door than everyone realises.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/24/inside-the-mafia-isis-connection.html

If your first question is "what is the daily beast and is it a reliable source?" then my response to that would be that you should be asking that question of every article you read. What we tend to find now is that a lot of the main coverage is performed by a core set of journalists and the reporting, stolen, shared, regurgitated and taken out of context across the internet.

I don't have the answers, and I don't expect any of you lot will. Even if we did we wouldn't be likely to get them in front of an audience where they would be listened to, cared about our considered.

Sad times that we are living in at present, and when these topics can stem religious attacks like the one of a Asad Shah in Scotland yesterday because this person was of a particular religion or ethnic group then we need to start worrying about the likes of the gentleman who was arrested for asking a muslim lady about Belgium.

One thing that annoys me about the media is the different ways that they report terrorist attacks based on the racial origins of the person committing the offence. White people can still be terrorists.

I don't tend to see a lot of these discussions on Facebook due to having removed everyone but a core group of friends, but when I heard some of the unresearched, regurgitated opinions that people discuss at work or out in public, my standard response is to research it for themselves and form their own opinion as this is how stereotypes are allowed to remain.

[webtrekker]

 

 

[Canny lass]

Just a quick contribution before I start hunting eggs laid by cockrels and banishing witches, and then getting down to the more serious business of the egg noggs and toddies.

On 2016-03-22 at 13:28, threegee said:

If the estimates of the number of terrorist already in Europe are only partly correct we are in for terrible times.

Estimate being the important word here. What the estimate is based on would be more interesting.

On 2016-03-24 at 23:26, threegee said:

This tiny majority of radicalised Muslims of yours now seems to be in the tens of thousands (Sky is claiming to have received a USB stick with the detailed ISIL database. 

Now I've had a chance to have a more critical look at the video. Thanks for the link, 3g.

Here we are not dealing with estimates. The figure of 22 000 names of IS members on the list is very specific. It sounds a lot. A source is also given - The files on the USB-stick, which- we'll assume are authentic. So, "tens of thousands" is not an exaggeration. However,  if we look at that figure as a percentage of the worlds muslims, 1,7 billion (according to Wikipedia), then these 22 000 represent 0.0013% of the Muslim population of the world. Furthermore, they are spread over 51 countries -an average of 431 members per country. I wouldn't like to even hazard a guess as to the percentage othey represent of the world population as a whole.

Islam and its holy book, the Koran, have been around for almost 1 500 years. The content of the Koran has not changed, so if the message it is trying to get across is world domination then either it's not doing a very good job or people just aren't sufficiently interested in dominating the world. 22 000 members in  1 500 years is not exactly anything to write home about. This is a SMALL fundamentalist group we are dealing with.

On 2016-03-24 at 23:26, threegee said:

Of course this database doesn't include the up-and-coming ones, like those school classes cheering at news of the Brussels slaughter

Well, we don't actually know that. That's pure speculation. That aspect is not taken up in the interview with Abu Hamed, the alleged disillusioned, former IS member who stole and handed over the USB-stick to Sky. What we do know is that the list contains names of people no longer living! Abu Hamed takes up two of them, Junaid Hussain, killed by a drone, and Rayaad Khan from Cardiff who was also killed. Just how many others of the remaining 21 998 names on the list are also dead is not mentioned. It could be all of them. 

Again, mountains and molehills spring readily to mind.

 

Edited March 26, 2016 by Canny lass

[moe19]

2 hours ago, Brett said:

I

.

Sad times that we are living in at present, and when these topics can stem religious attacks like the one of a Asad Shah in Scotland yesterday because this person was of a particular religion or ethnic group then we need to start worrying about the likes of the gentleman who was arrested for asking a muslim lady about Belgium.

.

Police said both Mr Shah and the arrested man were Muslims.

A post on Thursday from an account that appears to be Mr Shah's said: "Good Friday and very happy Easter, especially to my beloved Christian nation x!"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35898543

[Brett]

6 minutes ago, moe19 said:

Police said both Mr Shah and the arrested man were Muslims.

A post on Thursday from an account that appears to be Mr Shah's said: "Good Friday and very happy Easter, especially to my beloved Christian nation x!"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35898543

I appreciate that but it's being treat as a religious attack

Quote

A 32-year-old man has been arrested after a Glasgow shopkeeper was killed in what Police Scotland are treating as a "religiously prejudiced" attack.

Obviously we don't understand the motives of the attack at present.

Ultimately people are dicks and people shouldn't have to live in fear just because they are different.

[moe19]

17 minutes ago, Brett said:

I appreciate that but it's being treat as a religious attack

.

And quite rightly so.

[Canny lass]

On 2016-03-25 at 12:07, Brett said:

"As for the statement about muslims wanting world domination due to their holy scripture outlining these points then does it not all boil down to the interpretation of said book? There are many factions of all religions and not all of them follow their religious texts to the letter devout or not."

http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2014/11/wahhabism-isis-how-saudi-arabia-exported-main-source-global-terrorism

As for the threat of refugees or migrants coming to our shores and being part of a sleeper cell for a terrorist organisation is something that was always going to happen, yet it seems that we are at most risk by radicalised youths in our own countries. The more worrying bit is that these people are already known to the authorities, and were still able to commit such atrocities. There is no easy answer to the troubles we face and part of the issue may lie with Turkey or other European countries, some of which may lie closer to threegee's door than everyone realises.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/24/inside-the-mafia-isis-connection.html

If your first question is "what is the daily beast and is it a reliable source?" then my response to that would be that you should be asking that question of every article you read. What we tend to find now is that a lot of the main coverage is performed by a core set of journalists and the reporting, stolen, shared, regurgitated and taken out of context across the internet.

I don't have the answers, and I don't expect any of you lot will. Even if we did we wouldn't be likely to get them in front of an audience where they would be listened to, cared about our considered.

Sad times that we are living in at present, and when these topics can stem religious attacks like the one of a Asad Shah in Scotland yesterday because this person was of a particular religion or ethnic group then we need to start worrying about the likes of the gentleman who was arrested for asking a muslim lady about Belgium.

One thing that annoys me about the media is the different ways that they report terrorist attacks based on the racial origins of the person committing the offence. White people can still be terrorists.

I don't tend to see a lot of these discussions on Facebook due to having removed everyone but a core group of friends, but when I heard some of the unresearched, regurgitated opinions that people discuss at work or out in public, my standard response is to research it for themselves and form their own opinion as this is how stereotypes are allowed to remain.

Thanks for some very balanced viewpoints, Brett. As you quite rightly, and with a much welcome and refreshing objectivity, point out the interpretation of the holy scriptures in any religion can be many and differing. There will always be a small, fractious minority in any group. They've always been there and they will always be. As long as we have religion we'll have these problems.

Like you, I also believe that any threat comes from radicalised groups already within the country but here I'm talking not only about Islamist radicals but even right wing radicals who actively keep the pot boiling with resultant scaldings all round. They are just as dangerous and I believe, just as many.

My views on the media I've already mentioned so I wont, go into them again but it's refreshing to see that there are others among us who also read critically.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Canny lass

[Canny lass]

On 2016-03-24 at 13:48, threegee said:

In all cases they, like me, couldn’t give a jot about what religion other people have. They, like me, know that everybody in Britain has the right to choose and follow their own belief. The law says so.

Which law would you be talking about there?  We aren't talking about a religion as we've come to know religion; we are talking about a medieval belief set that doesn't broker any dissent

I’ve previously outlined the relevant laws in another thread but, as you've asked, I’ll outline them again:

Universal Declaration of Human rights (UDHR:1949)

(This is not a legally binding document. Therefore, the UN General Assembly adopted (ICESCR) and (ICCPR) in 1966. These were ratified in 1976 thus becoming UK Law.

-          Article 26 right to protection from discrimination

-          Article 27 right to enjoy their own culture and profess/practice their religion

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR:1998)

-          Article 9 freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Human Rights Act (HRA:1998)

This act came into force in UK 2000, thus incorporating the above, ECHR:1998 into UK law

-          Article 9 freedom of thought, conscience and religion

International Covenant on Economic, Social and cultural rights (ICESCR)

-          Chapter 12

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR:1976)

-          Article 18 Freedom of religion

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom (ECHR:1953)

And, albeit to a lesser degree,  the Employment Equality Act: Section 18, the Racial Hatred Act (2000) and the Terrorism Act (2000)

I’m in total agreement with mercuryg. I also think that using ‘above top secret’ in any serious debate is best avoided.

[Canny lass]

On 2016-03-24 at 13:48, threegee said:

Why did you choose to go to a (predominantly) Catholic Italy? What is so special about Italy to you that you had to go to such trouble and expense compared with settling in one of the other countries who share your religious beliefs, closer to where you come from and with a similar climate/culture? (I’m thinking first and foremost of Northern Ireland but I could stretch it to Byker or Blagdon).

This is easy, and in fact I get asked this all the time!  And, as far as I know, no one has been arrested for asking me.

It's the climate, the food, and the health aspects.  But underlying this is the fact that I can relate to the locals Romano-Judaic belief set.  I'm not a churchgoer (and neither are many here), but if the community were in any way threatened I'd be there in a local church showing my support, and indeed I do modestly help the local church charities.

Of course the reverse question is also valid: why would anyone want to move to the UK climate if it wasn't on purely economic grounds, as there are those other points-of-the-compass?  Why make a tiny crowded island any more crowded?  Our own civilisation broke out of here for more living space, and generally did rather well by that.

That’s much the same as the Syrians then, but maybe with a slightly different order of priority. They, primarily, also come to Europe for the sake of their health! In Syria their physical health is threatened by many things: weapons, torture and starvation – to name just three!  Their mental health takes quite a battering too. It’s not easy living in a war zone.

Food is also important! Just being able to get your hands on it for a start! There’s plenty of it in Europe. Of course the Syrians, if they are of the Muslim persuasion, don’t eat pork. There is nothing strange about that.  The UK has, and still does, cater for the food requirements of several religious groups.

There was a time, not so long ago, when Catholics in Britain could not, because of their religion, eat meat on Fridays.  Schools and hospitals, to my personal knowledge, served therefore only fish on Fridays. No doubt there were a few other institutions doing likewise.  That particular religious food requirement caused me and many other non-Catholic children to go hungry in school every Friday, as there was no alternative food provided!

Another example of how the UK has recognized and met religious food requirements is that of the Jewish religion. The Jews eat only kosher food, food that conforms to the regulations of Kashrut (Jewish Dietary Law) and is allowed by Halakha (Jewish Law). Believe me, during my nursing days I, and even the odd Muslim nursing colleague or two, have served many a kosher meal to Jewish patients. Britain, and the rest of Europe, respects the religious rights of the Jews so why not those of the Muslims? But, of course you’d know all about that being able as you are to relate to the Romano-Judaic life-style. One rule for them and one for the others is it?

Muslims, it will no doubt surprise you to hear, can easily relate to the Christian religion. You say yourself that you are not a practicing (you don’t go to church) – whatever it is you are. However, when you say that “if the community were in any way threatened I’d be there in a local church showing my support, and indeed I do modestly help the local church charities”, you demonstrate clearly that you have adopted a Christian ‘life-style’.

Muslims are only too willing to show their support for threatened communities and usually in a very hands on manner.  Take a look at some of the footage from TV during the two latest terror attacks – Germany and now Brussels. There are plenty of women wearing hijabs, of course that may not indicate at they are Muslims. It could just be the latest fashion among Europeans. Those women were manifesting their support, physical and spiritual, in every possible manner. There were, no doubt some Muslim males doing the same thing. They are, unfortunately, not so easily identifiable, as you haven’t yet told us what the distinguishing features of a male Muslim are and it appears to be only yourself who knows. 

Then there’s the climate. Living as I do in a colder climate I can tell you that it’s deemed quite exotic by some people! Just ask the Swedish tourist industry! You are transferring your own dislike of cold weather on to people you know nothing about. Have you ever stopped to consider that people from warm countries may just appreciate a cooler climate?  It’s my belief that rain, when it comes in droplet form, is infinitely preferable to rain that comes in bullet form and I’m pretty sure that most Syrians would agree with me!

[Canny lass]

On 2016-03-24 at 18:33, threegee said:

If you saying that what we are facing through the scourge of Islam is in any way on a similar scale to our own past local difficulties you are totally deluded.

This is what the Huffington Post said a few days ago:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/europe-terrorism-chart-isis

For those of you who are not familiar with ‘Statista’ I suggest you google it. It’s said to be one of the most reliable sources of data in the world. The chart which they provide in this article speaks for itself. Terrorism is far less of a problem now than when the IRA was using “measured violence to create political pressure”.

3g, you say I’m deluded for comparing the terrorism of the IRA to that of IS. Deluded? Moi?

It’s not me who firmly believes that 22 000, possibly dead, individuals are going to force Islam on 7½ billion people and it’s certainly not me who unshakably believes that a handful of women are about to outbreed the entire population of the UK.