Religions of peace? A thread for sober discussion.

[Soulman]

My post was about why Sharia Law will never happen in the UK, and that there is a modern side to Islam. Your link to photos was depicting the mistreatment of women in Afghanistan, that has been in many conflicts over the last 40 years, and it implied that we should all fear that this and Sharia Law will happen over here.

My only angle is a positive one, but your link has no direct point and is open to guess work, which I haven’t got time to indulge in and respond to.

Fair enough. In other words you have your opinion and really do not want to hear or bother about a different opinion.

 

[Hastings gull]

I didn't launch into any diatribe, I only responded to your post. There is nothing that I have said that you should be offended by. We were talking about the Sharia Law in Britain and the extremist problem we have on our doorstep.

With your comment, to go through it all, would take hours to respond to all your points because each individual conflict is complex. It is impossible on a forum to go around the world comparing distant wars that we are not directly involved in unless you want a 100 page essay.

I appreciate that you responded but it was the manner of your response, which indicated that you had not read what I wrote and put all sorts of spin on it, when in fact I had to an extent agreed with you with regard to the after-effects of the ill-fated Iraq war. I am fully aware of what we are talking about. Looking also at your responses to other posts, you invariably seem to claim that it would take too much time to reply to others' views. Perhaps you should not enter into debate, if, when faced with other posts' responses, you claim that it is impossible to reply succinctly -afterall others can do to you. I think that what you are really saying is that lesser mortals need a far longer explanation to put them straight by a sage such as yourself, or is it simply that you do not have an answer, when the going gets tough?

 

[symyjym]

I appreciate that you responded but it was the manner of your response, which indicated that you had not read what I wrote and put all sorts of spin on it, when in fact I had to an extent agreed with you with regard to the after-effects of the ill-fated Iraq war. I am fully aware of what we are talking about. Looking also at your responses to other posts, you invariably seem to claim that it would take too much time to reply to others' views. Perhaps you should not enter into debate, if, when faced with other posts' responses, you claim that it is impossible to reply succinctly -afterall others can do to you. I think that what you are really saying is that lesser mortals need a far longer explanation to put them straight by a sage such as yourself, or is it simply that you do not have an answer, when the going gets tough?

Ok I will answer all the points your previous post;

I think most would accept what you say and certainly that we cannot again afford to undertake something illegal-to an extent! It has handed them an excuse but we cannot keep blaming ourselves.

It is not about blaming ourselves, it’s about being seen to serve equal justice and accountability on all sides. That is why we have got the Chilcot Enquiry. The sooner the findings are made public and a conclusion is drawn the better. We have to be seen as fair to hold the moral highground.

It was not our fault that they were then determined to kill each other or that, contrary to American advice, the Shiite government decided not to involve the sunnis.

When you bear in mind the 30 year Northern Ireland problem, taking advice and not killing each other is easier said than done. The power vacuum we left in Iraq, without any post war plan was in part our fault.

Nor is it our fault that atrocities are committed in Nigeria etc or that there has been religious strife in parts of Indonesia.

Of course Nigeria and Indonesia is not our fault.

Nor is it our fault that in Syria they cannot find a compromise.The extreme element like to portray the West as evil, as it suits them. I do recall that the outgunned Bosnian muslims had much sympathy in the West, so it is not totally one-sided.

We encouraged the uprising and rebels in Syria to weaken and topple Assad, just like we did with Gaddafi. Bosnia had a clear objective and was a justified war.

All you have said is it's not our fault, it's not our fault, it's not our fault, where as I am talking about taking responsibility in cause and effect of the domino scenarios that follow. Denial is not the way forward, and it is not me you need to convince, I am just trying to give a rational balance to the debate.

Don't forget that I had two posters responding to my post. One of them just posted a link about the treament of women in Afghanistan without a view to accompany it.

 

[symyjym]

Fair enough. In other words you have your opinion and really do not want to hear or bother about a different opinion.

I know what your opinion is; "You think we should all worry that Sharia Law will happen over here." Though that is still just a guess because your response was just a link to some images.

My opinion is; "I don't think Sharia Law will come to the UK"

 

[Soulman]

I know what your opinion is; "You think we should all worry that Sharia Law will happen over here." Though that is still just a guess because your response was just a link to some images.

My opinion is; "I don't think Sharia Law will come to the UK"

Of course it is a guess and an opinion. Your guess and opinion differ.

 

[symyjym]

Of course it is a guess and an opinion. Your guess and opinion differ.

http://theweek.com/articles/541384/jeb-bush-amazing-neverending-war-machine

 

[Soulman]

http://theweek.com/articles/541384/jeb-bush-amazing-neverending-war-machine

Jeez, how many times, most agree it was wrong to go to war, how many times do you want people to agree. Meanwhile some muslims are causing troubles in mamy countries NOT involved.

 

[symyjym]

Jeez, how many times, most agree it was wrong to go to war, how many times do you want people to agree. Meanwhile some muslims are causing troubles in mamy countries NOT involved.

Good guess, but the point was about Jeb Bush, who is running for the next president of the US.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...sh-wouldn-t-hesitate-to-start-third-bush-war-

 

[Hastings gull]

Ok I will answer all the points your previous post;



It is not about blaming ourselves, it’s about being seen to serve equal justice and accountability on all sides. That is why we have got the Chilcot Enquiry. The sooner the findings are made public and a conclusion is drawn the better. We have to be seen as fair to hold the moral highground.

Yes, fully agree -if we can do this, and admit that errors were made, then we will be going a long way to accepting that, at the very least, we have not been helpful in the Middle East. This has never been an issue between us.


When you bear in mind the 30 year Northern Ireland problem, taking advice and not killing each other is easier said than done. The power vacuum we left in Iraq, without any post war plan was in part our fault.

Again agree in that it is easier said than done, but NI does show that, however uneasy the situation there now is, it IS possible to disengage, where there is a will. Yes, you are right in that there was in all probability not enough planning into what would happen once Sadam was toppled, but that is nonetheless not a reason as to why age-old enmities between differing sects of Islam need be continued with the usual outrages. No one is forced to bomb the other side.


Of course Nigeria and Indonesia is not our fault.
Thank you.



We encouraged the uprising and rebels in Syria to weaken and topple Assad, just like we did with Gaddafi. Bosnia had a clear objective and was a justified war.

Yes, we did encourage the rebels in Syria as we were aghast at Assad's brutality towards his own people, and assumed that his dictatorship would be overthrown, as were others in the Arab Spring. These motives were at the time quite honourable, I feel. What we had not realised, is that Assad clearly has considerable support within Syria, and has fought the rebels to a standstill. I think you are rather muddled with regard to Bosnia, and with your assertion that "it was a just war" are confusing it with the later conflict in Kosovo, when Serbian nationalism again reared its ugly head. The West was not actively involved in Bosnia, but many folk in Western Europe had sympathies with the outgunned muslims there, which was my point to demonstrate that the west is not necessarily anti-muslim per se.

All you have said is it's not our fault, it's not our fault, it's not our fault, where as I am talking about taking responsibility in cause and effect of the domino scenarios that follow. Denial is not the way forward, and it is not me you need to convince, I am just trying to give a rational balance to the debate.

No, that is NOT all that I have said, as you well know. My point to you, repeated herewith yet again, is that whilst grave errors were made in Iraq, the West cannot be totally blamed for the alarming rise in muslim extremism - there are other factors involved. This was your original point which you decided to dwell on, and my aim is to demonstrate that this is far too simplistic, hence mention of others wars. You then wrote that I was comparing wars in an attempt to condone what had happened in Iraq which is untrue, unfair and nonsensical. It is only latterly that you are introducing some balance to the debate.


Don't forget that I had two posters responding to my post. One of them just posted a link about the treament of women in Afghanistan without a view to accompany it.[/QUOTE]

I am not sure what this refers to -presumably it is an attempt to justify your use of questionable language?

 

[symyjym]

>>>>>>>>>

Yes, fully agree -if we can do this, and admit that errors were made, then we will be going a long way to accepting that, at the very least, we have not been helpful in the Middle East. This has never been an issue between us.

Yes we agree

Again agree in that it is easier said than done, but NI does show that, however uneasy the situation there now is, it IS possible to disengage, where there is a will. Yes, you are right in that there was in all probability not enough planning into what would happen once Sadam was toppled, but that is nonetheless not a reason as to why age-old enmities between differing sects of Islam need be continued with the usual outrages. No one is forced to bomb the other side.

Yes I agree that no one is forced to bomb each other.

Thank you.

Yes we agree.

Yes, we did encourage the rebels in Syria as we were aghast at Assad's brutality towards his own people, and assumed that his dictatorship would be overthrown, as were others in the Arab Spring. These motives were at the time quite honourable, I feel. What we had not realised, is that Assad clearly has considerable support within Syria, and has fought the rebels to a standstill. I think you are rather muddled with regard to Bosnia, and with your assertion that "it was a just war" are confusing it with the later conflict in Kosovo, when Serbian nationalism again reared its ugly head. The West was not actively involved in Bosnia, but many folk in Western Europe had sympathies with the outgunned muslims there, which was my point to demonstrate that the west is not necessarily anti-muslim per se.

I feel the motives in Syria were misguided, the same as in Libya. We shouldn't forget that Blair had just secured military contracts with Gaddafi a few years prior, and now the country is another disaster and battle front.

Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo are connected but my mistake, you are right the west did have sympathy with the Muslim population.

No, that is NOT all that I have said, as you well know. My point to you, repeated herewith yet again, is that whilst grave errors were made in Iraq, the West cannot be totally blamed for the alarming rise in muslim extremism - there are other factors involved. This was your original point which you decided to dwell on, and my aim is to demonstrate that this is far too simplistic, hence mention of others wars. You then wrote that I was comparing wars in an attempt to condone what had happened in Iraq which is untrue, unfair and nonsensical. It is only latterly that you are introducing some balance to the debate.

Sometimes the written word can open to different interpretations, that is what happens on forums

I am not sure what this refers to -presumably it is an attempt to justify your use of questionable language?

Not at all, what questionable language? My comment was to explain my frustration at not having the time to go through all the points of other conflicts, and then another poster jumping into our discussion, and expecting me to guess his added point with just a hyperlink and saying "Look".

If one hasn't got time to discuss all the points raised, it can sometimes be too much for too little time available, especially if someone else interjects in and expects me to be able to read their thoughts telepathically.

 

[Hastings gull]

Yes, fully agree -if we can do this, and admit that errors were made, then we will be going a long way to accepting that, at the very least, we have not been helpful in the Middle East. This has never been an issue between us.

Yes we agree

Again agree in that it is easier said than done, but NI does show that, however uneasy the situation there now is, it IS possible to disengage, where there is a will. Yes, you are right in that there was in all probability not enough planning into what would happen once Sadam was toppled, but that is nonetheless not a reason as to why age-old enmities between differing sects of Islam need be continued with the usual outrages. No one is forced to bomb the other side.

Yes I agree that no one is forced to bomb each other.

Thank you.

Yes we agree.

Yes, we did encourage the rebels in Syria as we were aghast at Assad's brutality towards his own people, and assumed that his dictatorship would be overthrown, as were others in the Arab Spring. These motives were at the time quite honourable, I feel. What we had not realised, is that Assad clearly has considerable support within Syria, and has fought the rebels to a standstill. I think you are rather muddled with regard to Bosnia, and with your assertion that "it was a just war" are confusing it with the later conflict in Kosovo, when Serbian nationalism again reared its ugly head. The West was not actively involved in Bosnia, but many folk in Western Europe had sympathies with the outgunned muslims there, which was my point to demonstrate that the west is not necessarily anti-muslim per se.

I feel the motives in Syria were misguided, the same as in Libya. We shouldn't forget that Blair had just secured military contracts with Gaddafi a few years prior, and now the country is another disaster and battle front.

Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo are connected but my mistake, you are right the west did have sympathy with the Muslim population.

No, that is NOT all that I have said, as you well know. My point to you, repeated herewith yet again, is that whilst grave errors were made in Iraq, the West cannot be totally blamed for the alarming rise in muslim extremism - there are other factors involved. This was your original point which you decided to dwell on, and my aim is to demonstrate that this is far too simplistic, hence mention of others wars. You then wrote that I was comparing wars in an attempt to condone what had happened in Iraq which is untrue, unfair and nonsensical. It is only latterly that you are introducing some balance to the debate.

Sometimes the written word can open to different interpretations, that is what happens on forums

I am not sure what this refers to -presumably it is an attempt to justify your use of questionable language?

Not at all, what questionable language? My comment was to explain my frustration at not having the time to go through all the points of other conflicts, and then another poster jumping into our discussion, and expecting me to guess his added point with just a hyperlink and saying "Look".

If one hasn't got time to discuss all the points raised, it can sometimes be too much for too little time available, especially if someone else interjects in and expects me to be able to read their thoughts telepathically.

Thanks for your reply. as stated, I was not sure of your reply, but the questionable language to which I referred was on post 316 and I thought that this was what you were referring to. Wow -a large measure of agreement; We have done it!
I was intrigued with your comment about us being misguided about our original limited involvement in Syria. Did we not send arms to the rebels, as we thought that Assad was the cruel baddie. Yes, Libya has got worse and if IS ever get control there, with its border to the Med, matters will soon affect Europe. With the benefit of hindsight, on balance, and it pains me to write this, perhaps the dictators should not have been toppled, as daily life for millions has undoubtedly got much worse in Syria, certainly. But to be fair we did not appreciate this at the time. And of course those persecuted by the dictators would doubtless not be too pleased with my statement, sitting here in the comfort of my western home miles away from the action.

 

[symyjym]

Thanks for your reply. as stated, I was not sure of your reply, but the questionable language to which I referred was on post 316 and I thought that this was what you were referring to. Wow -a large measure of agreement; We have done it!
I was intrigued with your comment about us being misguided about our original limited involvement in Syria. Did we not send arms to the rebels, as we thought that Assad was the cruel baddie. Yes, Libya has got worse and if IS ever get control there, with its border to the Med, matters will soon affect Europe. With the benefit of hindsight, on balance, and it pains me to write this, perhaps the dictators should not have been toppled, as daily life for millions has undoubtedly got much worse in Syria, certainly. But to be fair we did not appreciate this at the time. And of course those persecuted by the dictators would doubtless not be too pleased with my statement, sitting here in the comfort of my western home miles away from the action.

We got there in the end, and it is hard to imagine how bad it is for the innocent, on both sides, who have got to live in the hell hole of the Middle East, whilst sitting in comfort on the south coast of the UK. The news today, filmed on a mobile, with the Shi'ite militia executing a handcuffed innocent Sunni boy in revenge for Shia killed by IS just continues the cycle.

 

[spence]

Documentary on western Jihadis including a guy from Brighton

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes...03/western-jihadis-syria-150304102807466.html

 

[Soulman]

I will repeat myself from well over 18months ago. There were then 54 cases of grooming being investigated, only about a quarter have come to light, a few like Peterborough last week have had little coverage. I expect the coverage to diminish so as not to "stir" up trouble.
So yes, it may not be daily, but many more will hit the press, or not in some cases.

Another one just come in. Banbury.
Five men from Banbury were found guilty on Thursday of a string of sexual offences against the girls which took place over five years.
Six schoolgirls were subjected to 'horrific' sexual abuse and gang rape
Girls, aged 13 to 16
The alleged leader of the group Ahmed Hassan-Sule, 20, known as 'Fiddy' was found guilty of 13 counts of sexual activity with a child one count of assault by penetration.

Prosecution barrister Stuart Trimmer QC said the defendants identified their targets by organising parties – called 'Fiddy Events' – for under 18s.

Jon Brown from the children's charity told The Times: 'They show a total lack of understanding of how children are groomed. Any suggestion that they may be to blame for the horrendous things that happened are totally wrong.'

Jim Leivers, Oxfordshire County Council's Director for Children, Education and Families, said: 'This case embodies all of the lessons learned from Operation Bullfinch and is a very different case as a result.

'The social workers and police officers have worked in close co-operation on a day to day basis devoting a large amount of time to building high levels of trust between themselves and the victims over a long period.'
http://www.heraldseries.co.uk/news/11839512.Six_convicted_in_Banbury_sex_abuse_case/?ref=rss

 

[Soulman]

It's time to stop using the word 'Asians'
In the wake of the Rochdale grooming convictions, it's time to stop lumping Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus together as 'Asians', argues Hardeep Singh.
Obviously Sikhs and Hindus and other "Asian" non-Muslims, including Jains, Zoroastrians, Christians and Buddhists, don’t want to be associated with sexual grooming of vulnerable white girls. The vast majority of Muslims don’t want to either. The girls targeted in Rochdale, Derby and now in Luton are all non-Muslim. This is nothing new for British Hindus and Sikhs, who have complained about targeting of their girls for decades; Indians refer to the practice as "love-jihad".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9314448/Its-time-to-stop-using-the-word-Asians.html

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

It's time to stop using the word 'Asians'
In the wake of the Rochdale grooming convictions, it's time to stop lumping Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus together as 'Asians', argues Hardeep Singh.
Obviously Sikhs and Hindus and other "Asian" non-Muslims, including Jains, Zoroastrians, Christians and Buddhists, don’t want to be associated with sexual grooming of vulnerable white girls. The vast majority of Muslims don’t want to either. The girls targeted in Rochdale, Derby and now in Luton are all non-Muslim. This is nothing new for British Hindus and Sikhs, who have complained about targeting of their girls for decades; Indians refer to the practice as "love-jihad".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9314448/Its-time-to-stop-using-the-word-Asians.html

just what the do gooders on here want to hear , gut wrenching
regards
DR

 

[Goldstone1976]

just what the do gooders on here want to hear , gut wrenching
regards
DR

I'm almost certainly someone you'd call a do-gooder on this topic, but I do agree that attaching the word "Asian" to the current spate of sex offences is wrong. It smears entire swathes of other, blameless, communities and doesn't encourage the Muslim community in the UK to target a problem that is very largely theirs. The downside risk of Muslims feeling further targeted and isolated is outweighed by the two factors I've mentioned, imo.

 

[hitony]

just what the do gooders on here want to hear , gut wrenching
regards
DR

To be honest, the only thing that is "Gut Wrenching" is the bile you spew out on here on a post by post basis.

Knowing what I know about you, I actually think I could probably get on fine with you in the real world, like, have a pint etc.

But as a member on here and a totally (bad) wind up merchant on the keyboard, your not the best (I'm being polite) but do carry on, you will always reel a few in

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

To be honest, the only thing that is "Gut Wrenching" is the bile you spew out on here on a post by post basis.

Knowing what I know about you, I actually think I could probably get on fine with you in the real world, like, have a pint etc.

But as a member on here and a totally (bad) wind up merchant on the keyboard, your not the best (I'm being polite) but do carry on, you will always reel a few in

no wind up , what's funny about raping young girls
regards
DR

 

[carlzeiss]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/11/images-syrian-torture-shock-new-yorkers-united-nations