The Soldier's Murder in Woolwich/Racism debate

The Red Star wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

Tell me what were your views on Irish people living in England when soldiers, civilians and police were being shot and blown up on a regular basis? Did you want them all hung or just sent back where they feckin come from?

Calm down, you'll burst something! Given half my family hail from Sandy Row you can guess which side of the divide I will fall on. Never liked green me.

This isn't about Eire or Northern Ireland or indeed about immigration. I have not made any comments about immigration, you seem content on closing our borders to all and sundry, my gripe is with radical Islam in the UK, not hard to grasp is it. I support Great Britain, I do not condemn it.

Happy moderating, I am off to work

No it's not about Ireland now but 20 years ago the big threat was the IRA and then any Irishmen who happened to be in a pub or wandering around the day after a bomb had killed British soldiers or civilians were fair game for the hard men who decided that all Irish were terrorists and started handing out beatings left right and centre.

At the time my father worked with a gang of Irishmen laying kerb stones all over the country. It was bloody hard work and at the end of the hard days work they pissed it right up in whichever pub was closest. On several occasions there was trouble because English lads decided to lay the boot into anyone Irish and especially a gang of a dozen Irishmen drinking Guiness in a pub. How dare they when in London a bomb had exploded killing innocent people! One friend of my dads had a beer glass pushed in his face and he lost an eye.

Go back further still and it was the Russians everyone was afraid of, before that Germans and at random intervals in between the target of the young English youth has been anyone with allegiance to whichever country had knocked England out of the World Cup.

I'm done with this subject now. Gert Loinz and Penz have deleted their accounts for totally opposite viewpoints. Both of them a darn sight bigger loss than most people who have given their views on this thread. Agree to disagree if you like or go debate it on a site which is more sympathetic to ethnic cleansing, and take Cobi with you will you? Notice he hasn't bothered answering the point about him having BNP images on his Twitter account again? It's because he's just a little shit-stirring racist wanker who will be praying that some of his extreme views don't come back to bite him on the ass in years to come, probably when the Islamists have taken over the world.

There appears to be a degree of consensus.

Most muslims are 'normal' law-abiding citizens. Some muslims are not. (I'd apply that to Christians also.) That's fairly simple isn't it? Even obvious!

What is important to preserve in this country is "our way of life". I don't know what that means in the end (other than in its extreme expression of xenophobia) but lets leave that part of the discussion. Part of our way of life is a historical assimilation of different cultures. That has been the case throughout history. But if you go back to as recently as the 50s there were people who saw the collapse of our way of life when the Windrush brought its cargo of cheap labour. In my lifetime it was considered acceptable to talk of 'niggers' coming here and raping 'our' women and for "No dogs or blacks" being put up in the windows of lodging houses. Times have changed. We moved on to "p*ki" being an ignorant term of abuse but now that is focussed on "Muslims" or the weasel words of "fundamentalist Muslims". Ignorant or frightened people have always looked for someone else to blame for the ills of the world around them. My view is that some people on here are doing that. There have been frightening examples of that in the past.

Islam is not a religion of violence as some have claimed. But neither is it a religion of peace as others have claimed. For every quote that is offered in support of one view there are others that could be produced to promote the opposing view. Pokesdown and Czar above come to differing conclusions based on similar experiences. How do we resolve that conundrum? For every example of so-called Muslim atrocity there could be produced examples of Christian/Western avaricious aggression in Muslim countries. Read about Srebenica. Read about Sabra & Shatila. For every example of violence from state-sponsored radical groups on one side could be balanced by examples from opposing groups. Neither Holy Books nor religions kill. People do. There are criminals who kill and maim. There are criminals who stir up hatred. That applies on both sides.

But to reduce it to a war between the forces of the West against Muslims - fundamentalist or otherwise - is simply to start another crusade. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

To end on a more contentious note.... my view is that Britain has been central in the growth of violence in this whole situation. Our support for Zionism, the crucial writing of the Balfour Declaration, our support for the theft of a Muslim country after WW2, our desperate attempts to hold onto an Empire, our support for American aggression in the Middle East, our support of invasion of sovereign countries, etc have all given grounds for Muslim dissatisfaction and prepared the ground for extremists in their midst to gain credence and to use religion as a rallying point for their awful calls to violence. Nobody comes out of this with clean hands.

Mock, i've only posted facts on this thread nothing racist.Only the post were i said i was.Since when has a religion been a race ?

knecht wrote:

There appears to be a degree of consensus.

Most muslims are 'normal' law-abiding citizens. Some muslims are not. (I'd apply that to Christians also.) That's fairly simple isn't it? Even obvious!

What is important to preserve in this country is "our way of life". I don't know what that means in the end (other than in its extreme expression of xenophobia) but lets leave that part of the discussion. Part of our way of life is a historical assimilation of different cultures. That has been the case throughout history. But if you go back to as recently as the 50s there were people who saw the collapse of our way of life when the Windrush brought its cargo of cheap labour. In my lifetime it was considered acceptable to talk of 'niggers' coming here and raping 'our' women and for "No dogs or blacks" being put up in the windows of lodging houses. Times have changed. We moved on to "p*ki" being an ignorant term of abuse but now that is focussed on "Muslims" or the weasel words of "fundamentalist Muslims". Ignorant or frightened people have always looked for someone else to blame for the ills of the world around them. My view is that some people on here are doing that. There have been frightening examples of that in the past.

Islam is not a religion of violence as some have claimed. But neither is it a religion of peace as others have claimed. For every quote that is offered in support of one view there are others that could be produced to promote the opposing view. Pokesdown and Czar above come to differing conclusions based on similar experiences. How do we resolve that conundrum? For every example of so-called Muslim atrocity there could be produced examples of Christian/Western avaricious aggression in Muslim countries. Read about Srebenica. Read about Sabra & Shatila. For every example of violence from state-sponsored radical groups on one side could be balanced by examples from opposing groups. Neither Holy Books nor religions kill. People do. There are criminals who kill and maim. There are criminals who stir up hatred. That applies on both sides.

But to reduce it to a war between the forces of the West against Muslims - fundamentalist or otherwise - is simply to start another crusade. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

To end on a more contentious note.... my view is that Britain has been central in the growth of violence in this whole situation. Our support for Zionism, the crucial writing of the Balfour Declaration, our support for the theft of a Muslim country after WW2, our desperate attempts to hold onto an Empire, our support for American aggression in the Middle East, our support of invasion of sovereign countries, etc have all given grounds for Muslim dissatisfaction and prepared the ground for extremists in their midst to gain credence and to use religion as a rallying point for their awful calls to violence. Nobody comes out of this with clean hands.

This. Unless anyone else has anything new to add to the thread it's really just going round and round in circles.

Two posters who's input will be sorely missed have gone, isn't that enough?

Mock Cuncher wrote:

The German guy would be mildly interesting if he was comparing like-for-like. As it is, he's comparing religion to state (many of them supposedly Christian ffs), and his main gripes otherwise are something about prayers in schools and halal food. The majority of Muslims in the world live in Bangladesh, Indonesia and India - I don't think we've got many issues with those countries. Having read some of the previous propaganda Germans of his generation were spouting about Jews, the similarities aren't lost on me.

Having lived in both London and Sydney at different times over the past few years, there are rough areas. There are also rough areas in Redruth, with white locals refusing to integrate into the world of work or contribute to society...which tells anyone with half a brain that it's probably more of a class/opportunity thing. I do know that I'd rather live in multi-cultural London than white Plymouth...

Sorry, but just to say again..... the article provided is based on a fiction. It was not written by "a German guy". It was written by a first generation Canadian blogger, whose parents fled Nazi Czechoslovakia. Not surprisingly, his piece was taken up in Israel and also used by ant-Muslims.

knecht wrote:

But Gasser's quote is a fiction. Google the alleged author's name and you will find an explanation including the suggestions that even the original article has been further altered to fit a particular world view.

After only a cursory glance it seems it was written by an Israeli extremist. It may be argued that Israeli's have a right to be fearful and angry about their situation (not a view I hold) but that doesn't justify its use in a propaganda war on here or in the real world.

To be honest, it could have been written by Bugs Bunny, but it is still a viewpoint, regardless of author, that I'm sure many people will agree with. If, in reading it, anyone immediately sees that as an extremist view, then that is quite astonishing.

I'm not sure gasser was intent on contributing to an ATD propaganda war either knecht. Bit strong, that.

downthetrack wrote:

Mock, i've only posted facts on this thread nothing racist.Only the post were i said i was.Since when has a religion been a race ?

One person's "facts" is another's uninformed, unbalanced, dangerous and prejudiced opinion.

As for your second comment .... that's an interesting debate. In my understanding, the waters get muddied when Judaism is considered and there has been much discussion about that issue. A fundamental tenet of Islam is the concept of Ummah. I believe, without as far as I am aware scriptural basis, Christianity has a similar attitude - onward Christian Soldiers and all that. It is not unusual to elide "religion" & "race" in this discussion.

Czarcasm wrote:

......

To be honest, it could have been written by Bugs Bunny, but it is still a viewpoint, regardless of author, that I'm sure many people will agree with. If, in reading it, anyone immediately sees that as an extremist view, then that is quite astonishing.

I'm not sure gasser was intent on contributing to an ATD propaganda war either knecht. Bit strong, that.

I agree with your final sentence. I disagree with your first paragraph.

If an argument is based upon an a priori deception then surely it is a dodgy argument.

(I'm off to do some work)

Let's just all be nice to each other.

Iggy wrote:

Let's just all be nice to each other.

Fack Off Iggy ya cont!

Ifs and buts innit. As I say, for me it is the content of the text that I find myself in broad agreement with.

I've also not giving anyone abuse on this thread unlike some.who cant debate facts

Czarcasm wrote:

knecht wrote:

But Gasser's quote is a fiction. Google the alleged author's name and you will find an explanation including the suggestions that even the original article has been further altered to fit a particular world view.

After only a cursory glance it seems it was written by an Israeli extremist. It may be argued that Israeli's have a right to be fearful and angry about their situation (not a view I hold) but that doesn't justify its use in a propaganda war on here or in the real world.

To be honest, it could have been written by Bugs Bunny, but it is still a viewpoint, regardless of author, that I'm sure many people will agree with. If, in reading it, anyone immediately sees that as an extremist view, then that is quite astonishing.

I'm not sure gasser was intent on contributing to an ATD propaganda war either knecht. Bit strong, that.

I agree.

Two words "Foreign Policy".

Today we have dropped the arms embargo against Syria so that we can help the "rebels". In a few years time we won't be calling them rebels, we'll be calling them terrorist and we won't be arming them, we'll be fighting them.

In a nutshell, there's your problem!

Greenjock wrote:

Iggy wrote:

Let's just all be nice to each other.

Fack Off Iggy ya cont!

Oh, belated congrats on achieving Modism too, you pair.

GOB wrote:

Two words "Foreign Policy".

Today we have dropped the arms embargo against Syria so that we can help the "rebels". In a few years time we won't be calling them rebels, we'll be calling them terrorist and we won't be arming them, we'll be fighting them.

In a nutshell, there's your problem!

Great that,the Russian will arm Assad WW111 just around the corner

downthetrack wrote:

GOB wrote:

Two words "Foreign Policy".

Today we have dropped the arms embargo against Syria so that we can help the "rebels". In a few years time we won't be calling them rebels, we'll be calling them terrorist and we won't be arming them, we'll be fighting them.

In a nutshell, there's your problem!

Great that,the Russian will arm Assad WW111 just around the corner

Well yeah!

I am quite happy to suggest that if it wasn't for British, USA and European foreign policy over the past 25 years that the poor lad that was murdered so disgustingly may well not have been.

Blair promised the Iraqi people a safer and more prosperous society and took us to war on the basis of fictional chemical weapons. Today they are being blown apart by bombings on a daily basis.

Blair promised to destroy the fear of the Taliban and to rebuild Afghanistan. Today the Taliban remain and is ready to once again take over Afghanistan the minute we pull the troops out and the local police are more corrupt than Ali Baba and enjoy the freedoms of the uniform by indulging in pedophilia.

We helped the Libyan "freedom fighters" (very soon to be renamed "Terrorist", as they start to pick at Western values ;-) ) and when they decide to cut off the oil supply we'll probably help the next bunch of "freedom fighters" that will give us an oil contract to sign.

Non of the above is of course any justification for the taking of that young mans life, but if we want a different future for society then we have to address the greed that such a small minority of hand picked Western share holders are happy to control. If only it was as simple as Muslims v Christians, but it isn't.

Way back on this thread i said the seeds of radical Islam started when the CIA pulled the plug on the Mujahideen.

Re the situation is Syria - our useless 'government' must think like it was when the US were arming and providing CIA intelligence to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. A certain Osama Bin Laden was a high profile member of the Mujahadeen fighting the Soviets. But the difference then was the US had no choice but to provide assistance as Soviet expansionism during the Cold War was obviously unthinkable to the Western powers. Although the Americans knew they were helping pretty unsavoury people it was better than the alternative. Whether I agreed with them or not, I can at least see the the very strong reasons for helping the resistance against the Soviet invasion. But taking sides in civil wars in the Middle East like our useless government likes to do - Libya and now Syria I can see no reason for. Absolutely none. There is no strategic benefit to the UK or US that I can see. In fact to me an Assad regime is far more friendly to the US and UK than what will replace it.

Assads wifes English,good post that.

Fight them in Afghanistan,arm the same bunch in Syria.Unbelievable

downthetrack wrote:

I've also not giving anyone abuse on this thread unlike some.who cant debate facts

The trouble is that one mans facts are just another point of view. The abuse comes from a strength of feeling, abuse is wrong I think we can all agree on that. Foreign policy views seem to unite everybody on here pretty well and it seems we all share some common ground. The fact is is somebody perceives an argument as racist they will kick off, remember that airing some of these views in a pub would end in a fight, it's a very emotive subject, and I am proud to say that on ATD perceived racist views will get some stick as IMO they should do.
Opinions I can tolerate, EDL type hyperbole I have a massive problem with, I am more of a UKIP man really.
Peace.

Slightly off topic, but there have been complaints in the US about a bill board advertising a kettle that "looks like Hitler"-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

LINK

Czarcasm wrote:

knecht wrote:

But Gasser's quote is a fiction. Google the alleged author's name and you will find an explanation including the suggestions that even the original article has been further altered to fit a particular world view.

After only a cursory glance it seems it was written by an Israeli extremist. It may be argued that Israeli's have a right to be fearful and angry about their situation (not a view I hold) but that doesn't justify its use in a propaganda war on here or in the real world.

To be honest, it could have been written by Bugs Bunny, but it is still a viewpoint, regardless of author, that I'm sure many people will agree with. If, in reading it, anyone immediately sees that as an extremist view, then that is quite astonishing.

I'm not sure gasser was intent on contributing to an ATD propaganda war either knecht. Bit strong, that.

Thank you Cz I made my posting as an opposing view to Green Sams but like you I agree with the broad text and it was certainly not posted to start a propaganda war.