York Mosque shows the way for all of us

[Herr Tubthumper]

You're welcome to try and " shut my gobby mouth " any time you want , anywhere you want , it's got nothing to do with getting a criminal record , it's got everything to do with you having no ********.

Really, anywhere we want?

 

[Nibble]

You're welcome to try and " shut my gobby mouth " any time you want , anywhere you want , it's got nothing to do with getting a criminal record , it's got everything to do with you having no ********.

Whatever reason you choose to believe, it's not happening so I wouldn't waste too much more time on the subject if I were you.

 

[Nibble]

Quite. Out of interest what is his other subject? I've got immigration checked off, what's the other one?

Nope, you're quite right. Just the one.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Nope, you're quite right. Just the one.

Ha ha. I'm done for the day. Have fun, it's a lovely day and I'm off to the biergarten.

 

[Albumen]

I'm surprised the EDL knew what to do with a cuppa. They strike me as the kind of people that when offered a cup of tea would turn it upside down, emptying it of tea and then try and eat the cup.

hehe

 

[cunning fergus]

My only response to all that is that your general condescending tone does nothing to further what relevant arguments you make, it just makes you sound a bit of a dick. Feel free to carry on getting off on your own type though fella.

It sounds condescending to you because I don’t think you DO actually want to confront Islam where you disagree with it. In earlier posts you agreed that challenging radical Islam is important, but then that is easy to say. Considering the areas where we should start is much more difficult. You have no problem attacking the EDL’s approach to this issue, (which is fair enough) but what is your alternative strategy? Give a constructive example instead of just criticising, that is what rational debate is about.

I have used a couple of examples with the burka and Islamic marriage arrangements (mainly from south asian muslims) to provide a narrative on areas we could confront the cultural attitudes of muslims as both are inconsistent with British cultural values. Both are examples too where many British people feel that such cultural traditions are diametrically opposed to their own and representative of an unwillingness of muslims to actually integrate. They are also (more importantly) two examples where (in my view) moderate muslims could intervene so as to provide a tangible demonstration of their willingness to conform with the traditions of British society. This hasn’t happened, not that I can think of any examples where British muslims have sought to compromise their cultural traditions to help with integration. This approach would help demonstrate that integration is (as you put it) a two way street.

I don’t deny that British foreign policy is an element that has contributed to the rise of radical Islam in this country, but many other British people were angry about Iraq and Afghanistan it too, and that’s one of the reasons why Labour were voted out. Your sentiment that it hasn’t helped British muslims to integrate with British society conveys an impression that you accept that view as a justifiable position.............even though its indefensible. Unless I am wrong?

 

[cunning fergus]

I appreciate the point you are making but I don't really feel comfortable talking for radical Muslims but my guess is that the bit you have honed in on here would not be so much of an issue were it not for the (IMHO) more important issue of bombing, trampling over and sticking our noses into business of none of our concern in their holy lands.

I appreciate that the UK troops are out of Iraq but it cannot be said that The Wests influence is no longer in the middle east. We are sticing our noses into the situation in Syria, still willy waving with Iran and the situation in Israel/Palestine show no sign of improving anytime soon.

But do you?

You don’t want to speak on behalf of radical muslims, yet you consider that because of UK foreign policy some muslims are more angry about sexual immorality and alcohol in the UK than they would normally be..............what is the default level of muslim anger here? Would they be angry enough to burn flags but not so angry to plant bombs?

Of course the wider dynamic is that in order to make the streets and their citizens safe the UK (and other western Govts) will have to completely disengage itself with the Middle East and any issues connected with Muslim countries. If that was realistic do you think that should also extend to the provision of foreign aid to such countries and should we not take the same approach to African countries too? A kind of UKIP lite approach?

Whilst some of that (as a strategy) may be desirable do you think that it subverts western democracy if the demands of (say) 5% of the electorate is able to dictate to the rest..............sounds like extortion to me.

 

[User removed 4]

hehe

I was boping you'd have a comment on the evidence you asked for and I supplied .

 

[Deleted member 22389]

It sounds condescending to you because I don’t think you DO actually want to confront Islam where you disagree with it. In earlier posts you agreed that challenging radical Islam is important, but then that is easy to say. Considering the areas where we should start is much more difficult. You have no problem attacking the EDL’s approach to this issue, (which is fair enough) but what is your alternative strategy? Give a constructive example instead of just criticising, that is what rational debate is about.

I have used a couple of examples with the burka and Islamic marriage arrangements (mainly from south asian muslims) to provide a narrative on areas we could confront the cultural attitudes of muslims as both are inconsistent with British cultural values. Both are examples too where many British people feel that such cultural traditions are diametrically opposed to their own and representative of an unwillingness of muslims to actually integrate. They are also (more importantly) two examples where (in my view) moderate muslims could intervene so as to provide a tangible demonstration of their willingness to conform with the traditions of British society. This hasn’t happened, not that I can think of any examples where British muslims have sought to compromise their cultural traditions to help with integration. This approach would help demonstrate that integration is (as you put it) a two way street.

I don’t deny that British foreign policy is an element that has contributed to the rise of radical Islam in this country, but many other British people were angry about Iraq and Afghanistan it too, and that’s one of the reasons why Labour were voted out. Your sentiment that it hasn’t helped British muslims to integrate with British society conveys an impression that you accept that view as a justifiable position.............even though its indefensible. Unless I am wrong?

This was taken from the telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9831912/I-feel-like-a-stranger-where-I-live.html

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

This was taken from the telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9831912/I-feel-like-a-stranger-where-I-live.html

That is an incredibly sad story. I know many Londoners in Eastbourne who have moved in similar circumstances. Not racists, but rather people who no longer recognise their own area and feel their community is gone forever.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

That is an incredibly sad story. I know many Londoners in Eastbourne who have moved in similar circumstances. Not racists, but rather people who no longer recognise their own area and feel their community is gone forever.

And this is where people need to understand the difference.

 

[Chris001]

And this is where people need to understand the difference.

Too right

 

[BadFish]

but what about when they are screaming & asking for us to intervene ?

im not saying we should get involved but it does seem that no matter what we do we are angering 1 element or another

I am not really sure of the example you are referring to or who 'they' are.

 

[BadFish]

BadFish, I've read a lot of your posts on this thread but not all so forgive me if I am asking something you have already explained.
Why are you able to separate the two murderous *******s in Woolwhich, and Abu Hamza, Anjem Choudray and the like from most Muslims, but not able to separate some of the less than savoury characters supporting the EDL and accept that as a group they have some valid concerns?

Becasue Islam is a religion of millions of people worldwide. Millions of people worldwide who hold may different views on many different things united by their belief that Mohammed was the most important prophet. I am an atheist so who the most important prophet has little bearing on my life and it is this key principal that unites the millions of Muslims world wide.

The EDL are group of hundreds (maybe thousands I don't know) who appear to be united in the anger and fear of being taken over by other cultures and that the best way to deal with this is to get drunk, sing offensive songs and have a scrap. They are a small group united by far right views and hatred so yes I find it much easier to generalise about them that a group of millions united by their choice of prophet especially as the main activity of the EDL seems to be the getting drunk and marching as described above. It is also worth mentioning that most Muslims were born into their faith and had little choice about it EDL members have made a free choice to join a group with such beliefs.

They seem to be the only group actively protesting that wants the government to do more to halt the rise of Islamic Extremism in the UK, so if a person wants to make a protest, above sending a strong letter to their MP, who do they work with?

If you want to join a group who have concerns about government policy regarding radical Islam without the racist overtones I am sure there is one out there. If the EDL want to be taken seriously and attract people who dislike the racist overtones then they will have to tone down their racist overtones (probably a name change would be useful).

I find myself in agreement with a lot of what they stand for and I do not consider myself to be racist, Islamaphobic or drawn to violent action, I don't want rid of Muslims, I want rid of those sects that are intolerant, as I am sure you do, but sitting there saying the ***** in woolwhich are not representative of all Muslims misses the point that they are representative of an increasing number of muslims.

Do you think the the EDL are going to solve the problem of radical Islam? How do you think they are going to do this?

To me what they are managing to do is. 1 they are stifling the debate about radical Islam because people don't want to speak up about it for fear of being branded an EDL supporter. 2. They are further marginalizing moderate Muslims and assisting the recruitment to more radical groups by proving the idea that the West hates Muslims. 3. They polarise debate and hijack incidents like Woolwich and any other crime commmited by a Muslim to further their own ends.

I posted a link to a Youtube video on page 3 or 4 of this thread, I would like to hear your thoughts on the comments made in it by Tommy whatever he is called of the EDL.

[/QUOTE]

I was going to watch that video and still haven't got round to it but I will and give you my responses.

You realise this kind of polite debate is not on and we should be offering each other out and arranging to meet in a pub car park somewhere. 'You wear a St Georges cross and I'll wear a Burka' kind of thing.

 

[tezz79]

I am not really sure of the example you are referring to or who 'they' are.

wasn't really referring to a specific example i was just highlighting one of those difficult scenarios where (through some fault of our own) we are expected to be policing the world & anger is aimed at the uk when we sit by & do nothing.
seem to remember rebels getting angry that we were not enforcing the no fly zone in Libya.

again im not saying we should or shouldn't & can see in some cases why we are expected to intervene & yes I accept that these expectations have been brought about by some of our past policies but where would or should we draw the line ?

im not having a dig im just saying that in some cases we will be seen as being just as bad for doing nothing. its a pretty shit state of affairs & a lose lose situation all round & it will take a better person than me to come up with a solution

 

[BadFish]

But do you?

You don’t want to speak on behalf of radical muslims, yet you consider that because of UK foreign policy some muslims are more angry about sexual immorality and alcohol in the UK than they would normally be..............what is the default level of muslim anger here? Would they be angry enough to burn flags but not so angry to plant bombs?

I think the default level of anger for a Muslim is a ridiculous idea. We all have different levels of anger about different things. My point is that were it not for the other grievances against the West the Radical Muslims would probably not worry about this too much. Just like other people who disagree with sexual immorality and alcohol use. i suppose to try and answer you question: the default level of anger is the same as the rest of us.

Of course the wider dynamic is that in order to make the streets and their citizens safe the UK (and other western Govts) will have to completely disengage itself with the Middle East and any issues connected with Muslim countries. If that was realistic do you think that should also extend to the provision of foreign aid to such countries and should we not take the same approach to African countries too? A kind of UKIP lite approach?

In my opinion we should take a look at our foreign policies and ask the US to do the same (If they will not we should distance ourselves from them instead of following them into every war we can). I am not sure of the level of withdrawl from Muslim countries it would require (perhaps some dialogue with radical Islam would be useful here) although I would suggest that beginning with the activities which lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent Muslims, stolen resources and desicration of their holy lands would be a good start. I am not sure if Radical Islam is offended by the provision of aid to different countries but I suppose that would need to be discussed during the process of looking at our foreign policy.

Whilst some of that (as a strategy) may be desirable do you think that it subverts western democracy if the demands of (say) 5% of the electorate is able to dictate to the rest..............sounds like extortion to me.[/QUOTE]

I am glad you have had time to run a poll on the publics opinion on the idea but must say I am am little disappointed that only 5% are willing to give it a go. Out of interest how did the EDL's idea of getting drunk and marching about do?

 

[BadFish]

wasn't really referring to a specific example i was just highlighting one of those difficult scenarios where (through some fault of our own) we are expected to be policing the world & anger is aimed at the uk when we sit by & do nothing.
seem to remember rebels getting angry that we were not enforcing the no fly zone in Libya.

again im not saying we should or shouldn't & can see in some cases why we are expected to intervene & yes I accept that these expectations have been brought about by some of our past policies but where would or should we draw the line ?

im not having a dig im just saying that in some cases we will be seen as being just as bad for doing nothing. its a pretty shit state of affairs & a lose lose situation all round & it will take a better person than me to come up with a solution

I agree with you but as you say we do already draw the line. At present it seems to me we pick and choose the countries we 'help' and we make that choice based on our own personal gain (usually involving oil in the middle east). Maybe we should think about moving the line to somewhere else?

 

[Soulman]

I think it's great that a potentially violent demonstration was diffused in such a good natured and traditionally 'English' way. It only goes to prove that (a) Most Muslims are as disgusted by events in Woolwich as anyone else, and don't condone such violence in their name, and (b) Not all EDL supporters are rabid, racist thugs - some are angry but willing to enter a dialogue and come to an understanding.

It's also nice to see NSC has produced a thread on Islam that hasn't descended into a 24-page willy-waving and name-calling binfest (containing few facts and many exaggerated and parody-esque anecdotes), having been hijacked by furiously impotent close-minded bigots and over-sensitive self-righteous left-wing flag-wavers.

Oh, wait.

THis is not nice is it...from today.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d6a_1370366836

 

[Soulman]

This was stated by Call Me Dave in 2005 and surprisingly appeared on the BBC website........nothing been done since, just soundbites.
Tory likens extremists to Nazis.
"Conservative leadership hopeful David Cameron has likened Islamist extremists to Nazis and has warned that failing to confront them will be fatal.
The shadow education secretary says the rise of Hitler showed that a willingness to give ground and avoid confrontation was seen as weakness.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4179106.stm

 

[Soulman]

Not meant to be patronizing, may have come across like that, if it did i apologise.

I have to say though, I am confused about your feelings towards the EDL.

You want radical Islam stopped. You are not a member of the EDL but you do agree with some of their views.

You don't want to tell me so I guess we will leave it there.

Have a good day.

Hey Badfish, a clip from the country you live in. Now this is the best way to deal with the radicals...lol. Brilliant.