Incident at Glasgow airport?

[NMH]

That was a great read, but "societal"? What's wrong with "social"?

It's a word in the English language. I see little problem with using the English language, and not repeating the more obvious words which don't exactly say what I want to (when there is a better word available to me).

Are you American then? If so, I will use the same economical words all the time, it will be 'great'.

 

[NMH]

Much of the Arab world does NOT look like moving into a technologically and societal advance any time soon, ......

The word 'societal' is used here to describe a whole society in movement (change) rather than any isolated or secular, intra-social progression.
It better describes the point of a whole society.
i.e. "you are looking for a change in social life"
vs; "you are looking for a societal change"

The former intimates your own personal social surroundings, vs the latter, the complete social structure you and those around you (aka your 'social group') live within.

 

[dougdeep]

It's a word in the English language. I see little problem with using the English language, and not repeating the more obvious words which don't exactly say what I want to (when there is a better word available to me).

Are you American then? If so, I will use the same economical words all the time, it will be 'great'.

Strange that your use of the English language, and punctuation, spelling etc, is so poor then.

 

[Beach Hut]

The word 'societal' is used here to describe a whole society in movement (change) rather than any isolated or secular, intra-social progression.
It better describes the point of a whole society.
i.e. "you are looking for a change in social life"
vs; "you are looking for a societal change"

The former intimates your own personal social surroundings, vs the latter, the complete social structure you and those around you (aka your 'social group') live within.

Someone who quotes themself must be totally anal or full of self-importance.

 

[NMH]

You mean the paper who say that there are too many immigrants, a real Muslim threat...etc...etc.....sounds about right to me....!!!!

Where as the liberal left have said for years there is not too many immigrants and not a Muslim threat....hmmmmmmmmmm

Think I am off to buy The Sun !!!

A confused or confusing post. "The Muslim threat" you mentioned twice there, seems a generalisation. If a Chinaman kicks you and calls you a roundeyed bastard, is this suddenly the Asian threat? Is it - assuming you the victim in such an attack, are Christian - a religious attack? If the perpetrator shouts "this one is for Buddha", is it a Buddhist threat?
I'd rather think it a nutcase who thinks he's got some deity on his side.
Most Muslims, I hope you will find, do not believe that terrorism is a devout act of faith.

I'll always be angry to recall George W Bush, leader of the most powerful Western country, claiming that the war on terror is "a CRUSADE" - thus sending a shiver up the collective spine of the Arab World, and pointing to his future actions and decisions being a repeat of those religious slaughters centuries ago. He galvanised so many Arabs against his and our troops, and for a cause they would NOT have taken up a sword for if that moron hadn't said it! He's such an under-educated prick, and not worthy to lead a donkey - let alone a nation of around 270 million people and the might of their military.

 

[NMH]

Someone who quotes themself must be totally anal or full of self-importance.

There, I have now redressed the balance and quoted an idiot.

 

[NMH]

Strange that your use of the English language, and punctuation, spelling etc, is so poor then.

Make that 2. "spelling, etc." There is a punctuation after "spelling", and this would be rather obvious, since you took the care to use one after the word "punctuation" there. That would only be correct if you were referring to the spelling of "etc." e.g. "In spelling etc., you should use an e, followed by a t, and finally a c."

Twat.

 

[Beach Hut]

There, I have now redressed the balance and quoted an idiot.

Your arrogance beggars belief at times

 

[cjd]

Make that 2.

Having a bad day....??

 

[NMH]

Having a bad day....??

Nope, quite enjoying it so far. They set 'em up, I knock 'em down.

 

[NMH]

Your arrogance beggars belief at times

Will you be appearing all week?

Please not to leave those rings on the grass when you leave, and clean up the remains of your balloons.

 

[Springal]

Last night in Central London i saw hundreds of cars being stopped around the city, all drivers appeared black and asian / muslim descent [yes i know can of worms on how you describe a muslim] and having their cars thoroughly searched.

Police definately taking a major pro-active approach to the new threats

 

[Beach Hut]

Will you be appearing all week?

Please not to leave those rings on the grass when you leave, and clean up the remains of your balloons.

And you have a go at others over poor writing as well

 

[algie]

NMH

 

[BigGully]

A confused or confusing post. "The Muslim threat" you mentioned twice there, seems a generalisation. If a Chinaman kicks you and calls you a roundeyed bastard, is this suddenly the Asian threat? Is it - assuming you the victim in such an attack, are Christian - a religious attack? If the perpetrator shouts "this one is for Buddha", is it a Buddhist threat?
I'd rather think it a nutcase who thinks he's got some deity on his side.
Most Muslims, I hope you will find, do not believe that terrorism is a devout act of faith.

I'll always be angry to recall George W Bush, leader of the most powerful Western country, claiming that the war on terror is "a CRUSADE" - thus sending a shiver up the collective spine of the Arab World, and pointing to his future actions and decisions being a repeat of those religious slaughters centuries ago. He galvanised so many Arabs against his and our troops, and for a cause they would NOT have taken up a sword for if that moron hadn't said it! He's such an under-educated prick, and not worthy to lead a donkey - let alone a nation of around 270 million people and the might of their military.

A generalisation....dont be silly

The threat is entirely from Muslims at the moment....of course not every Muslim...but I havent got the names of the ones wanting to blow us up....generalisation sometimes help discussion.

Otherwise no more discussion.

I think your Chinaman thingy etc...is stupid.

Out of all the people you are at ease to offend its President Bush, the president of the land of the free and our greatest ally.

You just cant bring yourself to offend the sexist, homophobic, barbaric dictatorships of the the Arab world ....why ?

Unfortunately Islam lends itself to these traits.............its a fact that a majority of Muslims DO have some empathy with these terrorists.

 

[north stand falmer]

99.99% of troubles around the world is because of Islam. But most say Islam is a faith of peace but if so why all the trouble, I know the Islamic bombings have only happened over here since Labour have been in power. That bloke who caught himself alight yesterday shouting Allah Allah, Allah is great, what's that all about? If that is in the name of Islam then the government should ban it.

Found this clip highly amusing

[yt]HhN6CG1zCRc[/yt]

 

[crodonilson]

Personally I think we should point a tank at every mosque and everytime there is a terrorist attack from islamists we should blow one of them up.

 

[dougdeep]

99.99% of troubles around the world is because of Islam.

...and 147% of facts are made up.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

99.99% of troubles around the world is because of Islam. But most say Islam is a faith of peace but if so why all the trouble, I know the Islamic bombings have only happened over here since Labour have been in power. That bloke who caught himself alight yesterday shouting Allah Allah, Allah is great, what's that all about? If that is in the name of Islam then the government should ban it.

Found this clip highly amusing

But Christanity is a religion of peace - and look at the abominations that have been carried out under the banner of "crusade". As NMH says, you simply can't blame this on "muslims" as a generalisation. Should we have banned Catholicism because of the IRA? (and nice to see Algie bowing down to NMH, although I think that he may have become excited because it was a row between NMH and Beach Hut rather than NMHs argument!)

Similarly, you can't blame this on Labour, as much as I would like to. The Islamic bombings have taken place because Labour took us into the Gulf Conflicts. If the Argentines in 82 had been similarly determined, would you have blamed the Conservatives? If we had been targetted during the Serbo-Croat conflicts, could you have banned other religions? This is a new war, against a new enemy, and I don't think we were ready for the consequences. The US believed that "bombing them back to the stone age" was a valid plan of action. At the moment, we are catching some flak, but we will not be the only country that stays in focus.

We are fighting an enemy that does not fight by normal rules, and we have to be willing to change how we attack it, and defend ourselves. If we decide to take it on, head to head, then we had better be prepared to wipe it out completely, and suffer the casualties that will accompany it. People need to stop viewing this in such simple contexts - we are taking on a way of life, an ethos, not just a religion. It's not just "turning up at church on Sunday" for them.

 

[north stand falmer]

Similarly, you can't blame this on Labour, as much as I would like to. The Islamic bombings have taken place because Labour took us into the Gulf Conflicts.

it's labour's fault

The Falklands war is totally different and the war with the IRA is so totally different. These Islamic terrorists want world domination. Islam for the whole world.