Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Not in my name.
Topic Started: Jan 11 2015, 05:00 PM (669 Views)
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I watched the BBC! programme today called 'The big question' basically a multi racial, multi cultural, multi religion, programme on matters of today, and the discussion n was about freedoms of expression events in France.
One white journalist was coldly angry at the views being presented by another of the panel, who was opposing the printing of pictures of the Prophet Mohamed He said he had a journalist colleague who wanted to print a picture of Mohamed dressed in a T shirt with the words printed across it
'NOT IN MY NAME' but was afraid to do so in fear of repercussions. Hardly offensive, derogatory or provocative was it ?

Now had a depiction of Christ , the Virgin Mary, a Hindu god, a Buda, Sikh Holy man. or of any other religion, all wearing T shits or bannerd with the words NOT IN MY NAME in response to the killings and shootings in in France they would have been viewed with tolerance and sympathy , with in most cases an understanding of the purpose and intent with no resentments.

If no more cartoons or depictions are printed or displayed of the Prophet Mohammad due to fear, and to strengthen the power and enforcement of their religion, then the terrorists have achieved their purpose ,and their actions will be seen as justified by the more radical followers of the peaceful religion.

JE SUIS CHARLEE
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
krugerman
Jan 12 2015, 08:17 AM
"People should be able to say what they want"

This simplistic answer, if implemented, would cause havoc and mayhem, what about defamation and slander, sub judicae, treason, risk to national interest, perjury, false testimony, incitement to riot, incitement to religious or racial hatred.

Free speech is very precious, so much so that it must have rules and guidelines as to its use, or misuse, it cannot be used as a tool to hide behind in order to compromise either the law, common decency or morality, it has to have limitations.

A free society does not mean anyone can go around doing what they want, and the same applies to free speech, people should not be allowed to say whatever they want.

In essence I disagree with you.

I believe in Freedom Of Speech.

The ONLY time I believe FoS should be curtailed in any way at all is when the people exercising FoS are doing so to call for the limiting of FoS.

So you and I should both be allowed to take the piss out of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, Hinduism and anything else we feel like taking the piss out of.

No matter how offended, faux or otherwise, some people claim to have been by the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo the publishers had the absolute right to not only publish them, but to do so and not expect to be attacked for doing so.

Should I, as a Pagan, get all offended the next time Marvel trots out another Thor movie?
No, I shouldn't, I should do what I have done so far - enjoy the movies for what they are, light entertainment.
Should I have been offended that Heimdall was portrayed by a black man when he most certainly should have been white?
No, I should do what I did, accept that Hollywood will play fast and loose with such things whenever they feel like it.

The ONLY rule that should govern FoS is that it must never be exercised in order to call for the curtailing of FoS.

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Jan 12 2015, 09:51 PM
For what it's worth;

A comment on The Big Question on TV was that religion in the West "has to thank secularism for giving us freedom of speech". Secularism may not have the same effect on all religions.

I believe it does, only it is resisted more by some religions.
In fact it is the dangers perceived from secularism that I believe have caused the radical elements of Islam to take action (not just terrorism). Pakistan and Turkey both began to exhibit bits of Western culture, especially in cities, and the theologians saw their position threatened, and democracy on the horizon. Even in Iran where there was no tolerance of other religions the students, younger people, began to behave like kids out West ........ something had to be done.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
The mistake in thinking here is the assumption that fanatics will stop their fanaticism when faced with such overwhelming resistance. I see no evidence from history that such is a likely response. These people really do believe that their cause is just and that they are applying the will of their God here and now on this Earth. What is it that suddenly will change their views? Me thinks this problem will be with us for a very long time, decades.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 13 2015, 08:13 AM
The mistake in thinking here is the assumption that fanatics will stop their fanaticism when faced with such overwhelming resistance. I see no evidence from history that such is a likely response. These people really do believe that their cause is just and that they are applying the will of their God here and now on this Earth. What is it that suddenly will change their views? Me thinks this problem will be with us for a very long time, decades.

Now here's the thing ......... like you, like most people that give it some thought, there doesn't seem to be an easy answer, an easy solution. How can the radical element ever be beaten when even their children are indoctrinated to continue the struggle, on and on? Until you realise that these terrorists are State funded, State operatives, and serve the State purpose. So the problem isn't exactly how to convert radicals into moderates, it is about preventing rulers from fascism
Quote:
 
The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.
1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.
2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens. ...... and more

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 13 2015, 09:19 AM
RJD
Jan 13 2015, 08:13 AM
The mistake in thinking here is the assumption that fanatics will stop their fanaticism when faced with such overwhelming resistance. I see no evidence from history that such is a likely response. These people really do believe that their cause is just and that they are applying the will of their God here and now on this Earth. What is it that suddenly will change their views? Me thinks this problem will be with us for a very long time, decades.

Now here's the thing ......... like you, like most people that give it some thought, there doesn't seem to be an easy answer, an easy solution. How can the radical element ever be beaten when even their children are indoctrinated to continue the struggle, on and on? Until you realise that these terrorists are State funded, State operatives, and serve the State purpose. So the problem isn't exactly how to convert radicals into moderates, it is about preventing rulers from fascism
Quote:
 
The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.
1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.
2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens. ...... and more

I would like to see your definition of "State Operatives" and proof that these Terrorists are such. Facts please not opinions from the Red Nag myth machine.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 13 2015, 09:19 AM
RJD
Jan 13 2015, 08:13 AM
The mistake in thinking here is the assumption that fanatics will stop their fanaticism when faced with such overwhelming resistance. I see no evidence from history that such is a likely response. These people really do believe that their cause is just and that they are applying the will of their God here and now on this Earth. What is it that suddenly will change their views? Me thinks this problem will be with us for a very long time, decades.

Now here's the thing ......... like you, like most people that give it some thought, there doesn't seem to be an easy answer, an easy solution. How can the radical element ever be beaten when even their children are indoctrinated to continue the struggle, on and on? Until you realise that these terrorists are State funded, State operatives, and serve the State purpose. So the problem isn't exactly how to convert radicals into moderates, it is about preventing rulers from fascism
Quote:
 
The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.
1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.
2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens. ...... and more

Thought provoking posts both /8/

IMHO the only way you defeat extremism is to isolate the extremists from the much larger group of those they most adhere to to seek support. The very last thing you do is to push them together.

No one should pretend it's an easy or short road to follow. There never are easy solutions but there are always quick ways to make problems worse.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 13 2015, 10:32 AM
Affa
Jan 13 2015, 09:19 AM
RJD
Jan 13 2015, 08:13 AM
The mistake in thinking here is the assumption that fanatics will stop their fanaticism when faced with such overwhelming resistance. I see no evidence from history that such is a likely response. These people really do believe that their cause is just and that they are applying the will of their God here and now on this Earth. What is it that suddenly will change their views? Me thinks this problem will be with us for a very long time, decades.

Now here's the thing ......... like you, like most people that give it some thought, there doesn't seem to be an easy answer, an easy solution. How can the radical element ever be beaten when even their children are indoctrinated to continue the struggle, on and on? Until you realise that these terrorists are State funded, State operatives, and serve the State purpose. So the problem isn't exactly how to convert radicals into moderates, it is about preventing rulers from fascism
Quote:
 
The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.
1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.
2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens. ...... and more

Thought provoking posts both /8/

IMHO the only way you defeat extremism is to isolate the extremists from the much larger group of those they most adhere to to seek support. The very last thing you do is to push them together.

No one should pretend it's an easy or short road to follow. There never are easy solutions but there are always quick ways to make problems worse.
Only the other day one commentator, on the Radio, said that there was an obligation on the Muslim community to identify potential Terrorists in their midst and report these to the Authorities and that failure to do so was proof that they conspired. Clearly he had decided that the whole Muslim Community were responsible. In truth both here and in France it appears that most of the Muslim Community were very surprised by the actions of some individuals who they claimed were not acting in their name or their interests. I recall that the Germans once put the blame for their perceived economic woes onto a single religious group, even resorted to pulling down mens trousers, in the street in full view of Joe Public, to determine if their penises had the mark of that religion, marked their Passports with a red stamp and insisted they wear a yellow star for all to see. That was not that long ago. I recall that the Vichy French did to help a group of French citizens who happened to also be Jews. That was not that long ago. My fear is that the process of identification and separation will get out of control, be counter productive and worsen the situation. We need solutions that do not force separation, but total integration. Unfortunately being British is no longer as prized as it once was.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
To be clear you have to get the bulk of muslims to eschew contact and support for the extremists

Anyone that thinks through why we get so many foiled terrorist plots knows that this already happens. Those that post idiocy condemning all muslims and even worse those bigots who call for Islam to be banned do the very opposite, They are the terrorists' best recruiting sergeants
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
nute
Jan 12 2015, 07:39 AM
gansao
Jan 11 2015, 09:15 PM
nute
Jan 11 2015, 09:06 PM
A basic right of the society we live in is freedom of speech. It is not something which should be open to modification just because the exercising of this right offends a particular segment of society. If those that are offended feel strongly enough they are free to use the democratic process to try to have this freedom modified. To try to do so by intimidation is unacceptable.

Whats next, bacon for sale in Tesco's to be kept out of sight with the cigarettes just in case it offends vegetarians... or muslims?

There have historically been pictures of Mohamed, the world has not ended.


Maybe we shouldnt keep the bacon out of sight but should we have cartoons in the papers depicting Jews gorging bacon and calling them hypocritical Christ killers? Where does freedom of expression end and outright insulting start. A football manager was reprimanded just the other week for saying that Jews follow money and he used to call Chinese people chinks. So why tolerate ( or even encourage)insulting muslim core beliefs?

People should be able to say what they want, period. As long as it is not encouraging violence and hatred as far as im concerned its part of the society we live in. Is it going to now be unacceptable to call fat people fat because it offends them? Pretty much any action will offend some one somewhere.

The cartoons which apparently offend are just cartoons, if you object to them don't read them. If enough people object to them then there will be no market for the papers which carry them. If people are that offended by a basic freedom of our society they are free to move elsewhere. The magazine in question was pretty insulting to Christ as well, as someone who views himself as deeply christian to me its just a cartoon, i don't look at it.
The objections and killings have been counter productive, and the magazine which was having financial difficulties , instead of having a print run of
60,000 copies now has printed over three million copies. with a cartoon of Mohammad on everyone of them, and that picture to be circulated around the world They object to the female form being on display, so will their next attack be on a nudist colony, or displays of topless flesh on the beaches in France and Spain?
Are we rapidly reaching the stage in Britain of a house being divided against itself by religion and cultural ways?

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.
Abraham Linncoln

United we stand divided we fall ..

A similar phrase also appears in the biblical New Testament – translated into English from the historic Greek in Mark 3:25 as "And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand". Similar verses of the New Testament include Matthew 12:25 ("And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand") and Luke 11:17 ("But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.").
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 13 2015, 11:00 AM
To be clear you have to get the bulk of muslims to eschew contact and support for the extremists

Anyone that thinks through why we get so many foiled terrorist plots knows that this already happens. Those that post idiocy condemning all muslims and even worse those bigots who call for Islam to be banned do the very opposite, They are the terrorists' best recruiting sergeants
Agreed and as you said the vast majority of Muslims do not identify with these extremists. My concern is that the likes of Le Penn could whip up a storm. We also need to recognise that Politicians have done little to improve education and skills within this community, both here and in France, they tend to live in separation from others as designed by Politicians and the chance of real jobs is lower than the national average. The extremists amongst that community identify themselves as victims.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Jan 13 2015, 11:01 AM
nute
Jan 12 2015, 07:39 AM
gansao
Jan 11 2015, 09:15 PM
nute
Jan 11 2015, 09:06 PM
A basic right of the society we live in is freedom of speech. It is not something which should be open to modification just because the exercising of this right offends a particular segment of society. If those that are offended feel strongly enough they are free to use the democratic process to try to have this freedom modified. To try to do so by intimidation is unacceptable.

Whats next, bacon for sale in Tesco's to be kept out of sight with the cigarettes just in case it offends vegetarians... or muslims?

There have historically been pictures of Mohamed, the world has not ended.


Maybe we shouldnt keep the bacon out of sight but should we have cartoons in the papers depicting Jews gorging bacon and calling them hypocritical Christ killers? Where does freedom of expression end and outright insulting start. A football manager was reprimanded just the other week for saying that Jews follow money and he used to call Chinese people chinks. So why tolerate ( or even encourage)insulting muslim core beliefs?

People should be able to say what they want, period. As long as it is not encouraging violence and hatred as far as im concerned its part of the society we live in. Is it going to now be unacceptable to call fat people fat because it offends them? Pretty much any action will offend some one somewhere.

The cartoons which apparently offend are just cartoons, if you object to them don't read them. If enough people object to them then there will be no market for the papers which carry them. If people are that offended by a basic freedom of our society they are free to move elsewhere. The magazine in question was pretty insulting to Christ as well, as someone who views himself as deeply christian to me its just a cartoon, i don't look at it.
The objections and killings have been counter productive, and the magazine which was having financial difficulties , instead of having a print run of
60,000 copies now has printed over three million copies. with a cartoon of Mohammad on everyone of them, and that picture to be circulated around the world They object to the female form being on display, so will their next attack be on a nudist colony, or displays of topless flesh on the beaches in France and Spain?
Are we rapidly reaching the stage in Britain of a house being divided against itself by religion and cultural ways?

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.
Abraham Linncoln

United we stand divided we fall ..

A similar phrase also appears in the biblical New Testament – translated into English from the historic Greek in Mark 3:25 as "And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand". Similar verses of the New Testament include Matthew 12:25 ("And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand") and Luke 11:17 ("But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.").
Divided against whom? My complaint is that the Muslim Community is seen as the enemy when it is clearly not such.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 13 2015, 10:32 AM
Affa
Jan 13 2015, 09:19 AM
RJD
Jan 13 2015, 08:13 AM
The mistake in thinking here is the assumption that fanatics will stop their fanaticism when faced with such overwhelming resistance. I see no evidence from history that such is a likely response. These people really do believe that their cause is just and that they are applying the will of their God here and now on this Earth. What is it that suddenly will change their views? Me thinks this problem will be with us for a very long time, decades.

Now here's the thing ......... like you, like most people that give it some thought, there doesn't seem to be an easy answer, an easy solution. How can the radical element ever be beaten when even their children are indoctrinated to continue the struggle, on and on? Until you realise that these terrorists are State funded, State operatives, and serve the State purpose. So the problem isn't exactly how to convert radicals into moderates, it is about preventing rulers from fascism
Quote:
 
The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.
1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.
2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens. ...... and more

Thought provoking posts both /8/

IMHO the only way you defeat extremism is to isolate the extremists from the much larger group of those they most adhere to to seek support. The very last thing you do is to push them together.

No one should pretend it's an easy or short road to follow. There never are easy solutions but there are always quick ways to make problems worse.
If there are solutions they need to be implemented now We could start with banning the full face covering ad in France, enforcing the use of English, and educating the young, especially young girls that they have equal rights. not indoctrinating them with political correctness or religious bigotry If there are problems and they are growing, not receding, then we need to face them head on and in spite of the difficulties and short term disruptions or disorder. As in France, opinions are becoming polarised, along with the people that hold them and there will be unwelcomed consequences IMO
I do not think this is the end of the matter, just the beginning.

A book of fiction has been printed in France where it depicts the demographic changes being brought about by immigration, and the higher birth rates amongst those immigrants has led to a Islamic state, and the imposition of the religious will and Sharia law on the country.
Some years ago on the old AOL politics board I suggested that the same thing would happen here, with some o0f our towns or cities being turned into places where the majority will be the followers of Islam, drawing more in and voting for their own kind, first creating Muslim run councils and then members of Parliament, as of course we see happening now, There are already towns where the majority of pupils overall are Muslim
The trending IMO is certainly in that direction.
Of course it is just fanciful as in the book, and will not happen, but could it , and is our democratic process and open borders, our fixation on multiculturalism and maintaining open borders being used by the ill intended or the fanatics for their own ends.?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Think twice act once. Not the other way round
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 13 2015, 11:00 AM
To be clear you have to get the bulk of muslims to eschew contact and support for the extremists

Anyone that thinks through why we get so many foiled terrorist plots knows that this already happens. Those that post idiocy condemning all muslims and even worse those bigots who call for Islam to be banned do the very opposite, They are the terrorists' best recruiting sergeants
Steve; I'm not ardent on this, but I do consider that we are told precisely what the authorities want us to believe .... and so remain sceptical of these reports of foiled terror attacks. Very few end up in court it seems.
imo the main reason we have not had a repeat of 9/11 is that there is no need for one - 9/11 did what was wanted, it polarised Muslim attitudes to the West, and provoked Western retaliations.
If ever it would appear that the Moderate Muslim sentiment was turning towards the rejection of radicals ......... watch out. Then there would be a need once more to polarise attitudes.
It is Them v US ......... something Tories know all about. They use these exact same tactics, the same methods of causing divisions.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Jan 13 2015, 12:35 PM
Steve K
Jan 13 2015, 11:00 AM
To be clear you have to get the bulk of muslims to eschew contact and support for the extremists

Anyone that thinks through why we get so many foiled terrorist plots knows that this already happens. Those that post idiocy condemning all muslims and even worse those bigots who call for Islam to be banned do the very opposite, They are the terrorists' best recruiting sergeants
Steve; I'm not ardent on this, but I do consider that we are told precisely what the authorities want us to believe .... and so remain sceptical of these reports of foiled terror attacks. Very few end up in court it seems.
imo the main reason we have not had a repeat of 9/11 is that there is no need for one - 9/11 did what was wanted, it polarised Muslim attitudes to the West, and provoked Western retaliations.
If ever it would appear that the Moderate Muslim sentiment was turning towards the rejection of radicals ......... watch out. Then there would be a need once more to polarise attitudes.
It is Them v US ......... something Tories know all about. They use these exact same tactics, the same methods of causing divisions.


Were the Tories in Gov. at the time of 9/11? Was it a Tory Gov. that instructed our armed forces to attack Moslem States? Affa I do not see the evidence on which you base your claims.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Jan 13 2015, 10:32 AM
Affa
Jan 13 2015, 09:19 AM
RJD
Jan 13 2015, 08:13 AM
The mistake in thinking here is the assumption that fanatics will stop their fanaticism when faced with such overwhelming resistance. I see no evidence from history that such is a likely response. These people really do believe that their cause is just and that they are applying the will of their God here and now on this Earth. What is it that suddenly will change their views? Me thinks this problem will be with us for a very long time, decades.

Now here's the thing ......... like you, like most people that give it some thought, there doesn't seem to be an easy answer, an easy solution. How can the radical element ever be beaten when even their children are indoctrinated to continue the struggle, on and on? Until you realise that these terrorists are State funded, State operatives, and serve the State purpose. So the problem isn't exactly how to convert radicals into moderates, it is about preventing rulers from fascism
Quote:
 
The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.
1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.
2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens. ...... and more

Thought provoking posts both /8/

IMHO the only way you defeat extremism is to isolate the extremists from the much larger group of those they most adhere to to seek support. The very last thing you do is to push them together.

No one should pretend it's an easy or short road to follow. There never are easy solutions but there are always quick ways to make problems worse.
That might be a problem, one French pundit on the box the other night made a rather damning assessment, he said a radical Muslin would happily lop off your head for fun, while a moderate Muslim would hold you feet while he did it......
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Jan 13 2015, 12:40 PM
Affa
Jan 13 2015, 12:35 PM
Steve K
Jan 13 2015, 11:00 AM
To be clear you have to get the bulk of muslims to eschew contact and support for the extremists

Anyone that thinks through why we get so many foiled terrorist plots knows that this already happens. Those that post idiocy condemning all muslims and even worse those bigots who call for Islam to be banned do the very opposite, They are the terrorists' best recruiting sergeants
Steve; I'm not ardent on this, but I do consider that we are told precisely what the authorities want us to believe .... and so remain sceptical of these reports of foiled terror attacks. Very few end up in court it seems.
imo the main reason we have not had a repeat of 9/11 is that there is no need for one - 9/11 did what was wanted, it polarised Muslim attitudes to the West, and provoked Western retaliations.
If ever it would appear that the Moderate Muslim sentiment was turning towards the rejection of radicals ......... watch out. Then there would be a need once more to polarise attitudes.
It is Them v US ......... something Tories know all about. They use these exact same tactics, the same methods of causing divisions.


Were the Tories in Gov. at the time of 9/11? Was it a Tory Gov. that instructed our armed forces to attack Moslem States? Affa I do not see the evidence on which you base your claims.
A rather bizarre statement seemingly with the intent of absolving the Tories of any complicity in what has been going on.

The Tories in opposition backed military action and virtually all the other policies that we may yet live to regret.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply