Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

If you have a life outside of BWFC, then this is the place to tell us all about your toilet habits, and those bizarre fetishes.......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply
User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Prufrock » Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:06 am

1) the lazy comparison to Islam is dully predictable and I'm surprised it's taken you this long. They're not the same though. Islam is a religion and as such encompasses, necessarily, a broad church of writings, teachings, beliefs, interpretations, art, culture and history. Secularism is a single issue principle that you can give a one-line definition for. The difference can be fairly easily shown by giving an example of something I, as a secularist, can do, that a Muslim couldn't: if you insist (wrongly, but ok) that the the definition of secularism includes telling people what they can and can't wear on a beach, I can simply say "ok, I'm not a secularist, then. We'll have to come up with a new word for what I am, a diseatablishmentarian possibly - though that isn't quite wide enough, separatist - taken, a privateer - a bit camp, but we can come back to it". A Muslim can't do that. They can't say "if you insist ISIS are Muslims, then I'm not".

2) your quote in the French mentions nothing about secularism. It says it's about inappropriate religious clothing, but no-one disputes that. I'm not arguing they aren't banning religious clothing because it's religious. I'm saying that isn't secularism.

3) I don't think almost everyone you know does meet my definition of secularist. If be surprised if everyone you knew was, for example, against church schools.

4) to be consistent, you must then condemn the banning of the headscarf as a crime of liberalism? The French government, which has the word "liberty" in its motto, banned the headscarf in the name of liberty saying it oppressed women. They *said* it was in the name of liberalism, so it must *be* liberalism, right? That's your argument. So do you condemn liberalism for banning the headscarf?
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37589
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by thebish » Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:42 am

Prufrock wrote:1) the lazy comparison to Islam is dully predictable and I'm surprised it's taken you this long. They're not the same though. Islam is a religion and as such encompasses, necessarily, a broad church of writings, teachings, beliefs, interpretations, art, culture and history. Secularism is a single issue principle that you can give a one-line definition for. The difference can be fairly easily shown by giving an example of something I, as a secularist, can do, that a Muslim couldn't: if you insist (wrongly, but ok) that the the definition of secularism includes telling people what they can and can't wear on a beach, I can simply say "ok, I'm not a secularist, then. We'll have to come up with a new word for what I am, a diseatablishmentarian possibly - though that isn't quite wide enough, separatist - taken, a privateer - a bit camp, but we can come back to it". A Muslim can't do that. They can't say "if you insist ISIS are Muslims, then I'm not".

2) your quote in the French mentions nothing about secularism. It says it's about inappropriate religious clothing, but no-one disputes that. I'm not arguing they aren't banning religious clothing because it's religious. I'm saying that isn't secularism.

3) I don't think almost everyone you know does meet my definition of secularist. If be surprised if everyone you knew was, for example, against church schools.

4) to be consistent, you must then condemn the banning of the headscarf as a crime of liberalism? The French government, which has the word "liberty" in its motto, banned the headscarf in the name of liberty saying it oppressed women. They *said* it was in the name of liberalism, so it must *be* liberalism, right? That's your argument. So do you condemn liberalism for banning the headscarf?
1) I am not saying they are the same... I am saying that actions justified by appeal to an ideology - be it Islam or Secularism should not tar everyone who also holds that ideology. You allow this for secularism (saying that what the french are doing is NOT secularism - despite the pretty clear fact that it IS their interpretation of what a secular state IS. They are secularists that you disagree with - that's all.

2) yes - they are banning the clothing because they interpret the separation of religion and state (secularism) as meaning that it is offensive to wear obvious religious clothing in public. again - a position you disagree with - but their position IS an interpretation of secularism - it's the reason they are doing it.

3) go ahead and be surprised...

4) It is your argument that if someone quotes an ideology as the reason for their action then we have to take it at face value - not mine. well, you argued this long and hard when Tango mildly proposed that ISIS are not real/proper/ordinary muslims. You seem to give leeway to an ideology you are passionate about whilst not being prepared to give that same leeway to others.

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Worthy4England » Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:09 am

I'm gonna believe in a God. It seems much easier.

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Prufrock » Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:55 am

thebish wrote:
1) I am not saying they are the same... I am saying that actions justified by appeal to an ideology - be it Islam or Secularism should not tar everyone who also holds that ideology. You allow this for secularism (saying that what the french are doing is NOT secularism - despite the pretty clear fact that it IS their interpretation of what a secular state IS. They are secularists that you disagree with - that's all.

2) yes - they are banning the clothing because they interpret the separation of religion and state (secularism) as meaning that it is offensive to wear obvious religious clothing in public. again - a position you disagree with - but their position IS an interpretation of secularism - it's the reason they are doing it.

3) go ahead and be surprised...

4) It is your argument that if someone quotes an ideology as the reason for their action then we have to take it at face value - not mine. well, you argued this long and hard when Tango mildly proposed that ISIS are not real/proper/ordinary muslims. You seem to give leeway to an ideology you are passionate about whilst not being prepared to give that same leeway to others.
1) no it isn't. It, by definition, isn't secularism. It isn't separating religion from the state. You can't say that about ISIS. You can't say what they preach, by definition, isn't Islam. That's because despite your attempts to equate the two concepts, a religion is far more wide-ranging and open to interpretation than a simple one line principle.

2) again, no it isn't. There is a word for secularism in French. They haven't used it in this context and wouldn't use it. *Even if they did* it wouldn't be secularism, because it doesn't meet the definition. See 4) for more on why you're wrong on that point. Just because someone says their actions are "secular" doesn't mean they are. I'll ask you, again, do you think banning the headscarf was "liberalism"? They said it was.

3) you have more enlightened friends than most. There are plenty who would disagree.

4) no, it isn't my argument, you're conflating two arguments. One is whether ISIS are Muslims/ their creed Islamic? I think the answer to that question is yes, but i don't think that because they say so. The Westboro Baptist Church could declare themselves Muslims but I wouldn't think they were. I think ISIS are an extreme, fringe, almost entirely unrepresentative set of Muslims mind, but they still meet any rational definition of Muslim I can imagine.

The second argument is that , if someone says their motive for doing something is "x" then there should be some compelling evidence before we decide that is not in fact their motive. I'm saying that when ISIS say that they have done x in accordance with their religions views, we should take them at face value that they did it because of their religious views, whether or not we think those views meet a definition of "Islamic". If you happen to believe that what they call Islam is a gross perversion that is so distorted it can no longer be even called Islam, fine, but we should start with a strong presumption that that non-Islamic perversion is their motive, because they said it is.

So no, it isn't my argument, that it must be Islam (or secularism) because they say it is. They called it liberalism when they banned the headscarf. It wasn't.

5) while we're on that point. This ban doesn't meet any definition of secularism I recognise. They haven't even claimed it is secularism. What I certainly don't dispute is that they have said their motive is to get rid of "ostentatious religious clothing" (that's not secularism, but it is what they say their motive is). I think there's compelling evidence that it isn't actually their motive. If it were, it would apply to nuns wearing their habits on beaches, and not only Muslims. Their actual motive is pandering to the far right. This is an occasion where we shouldn't take at face value what they say, but it's based on evidence, not wishful thinking.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Prufrock » Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:59 am

Worthy4England wrote:I'm gonna believe in a God. It seems much easier.
Believing in God because the arguments are too difficult? Wouldn't be the first :mrgreen:
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37589
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by thebish » Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:16 am

Prufrock wrote:
thebish wrote:
1) I am not saying they are the same... I am saying that actions justified by appeal to an ideology - be it Islam or Secularism should not tar everyone who also holds that ideology. You allow this for secularism (saying that what the french are doing is NOT secularism - despite the pretty clear fact that it IS their interpretation of what a secular state IS. They are secularists that you disagree with - that's all.

2) yes - they are banning the clothing because they interpret the separation of religion and state (secularism) as meaning that it is offensive to wear obvious religious clothing in public. again - a position you disagree with - but their position IS an interpretation of secularism - it's the reason they are doing it.

3) go ahead and be surprised...

4) It is your argument that if someone quotes an ideology as the reason for their action then we have to take it at face value - not mine. well, you argued this long and hard when Tango mildly proposed that ISIS are not real/proper/ordinary muslims. You seem to give leeway to an ideology you are passionate about whilst not being prepared to give that same leeway to others.
1) no it isn't. It, by definition, isn't secularism. It isn't separating religion from the state. You can't say that about ISIS. You can't say what they preach, by definition, isn't Islam. That's because despite your attempts to equate the two concepts, a religion is far more wide-ranging and open to interpretation than a simple one line principle.

2) again, no it isn't. There is a word for secularism in French. They haven't used it in this context and wouldn't use it. *Even if they did* it wouldn't be secularism, because it doesn't meet the definition. See 4) for more on why you're wrong on that point. Just because someone says their actions are "secular" doesn't mean they are. I'll ask you, again, do you think banning the headscarf was "liberalism"? They said it was.

3) you have more enlightened friends than most. There are plenty who would disagree.

4) no, it isn't my argument, you're conflating two arguments. One is whether ISIS are Muslims/ their creed Islamic? I think the answer to that question is yes, but i don't think that because they say so. The Westboro Baptist Church could declare themselves Muslims but I wouldn't think they were. I think they're an extreme, fringe, almost entirely unrepresentative set of Muslims mind, but they still meet any rational definition of Muslim I can imagine.

The second argument is that , if someone says their motive for doing something is "x" then there should be some compelling evidence before we decide that is not in fact their motive. I'm saying that when ISIS say that they have done x in accordance with their religions views, we should take them at face value that they did it because of their religious views, even if we don't think those views meet a definition of "Islamic". If you happen to believe that what they call Islam is a gross perversion that is so distorted it can no longer be even called Islam, fine, but we should start with a strong presumption that that non-Islamic perversion is their motive, because they said it is.

So no, it isn't my argument, that it must be Islam (or secularism) because they say it is. They called it liberalism when they banned the headscarf. It wasn't.

5) while we're on that point. This ban doesn't meet any definition of secularism I recognise. They haven't even claimed it is secularism. What I certainly don't dispute is that they have said their motive is to get rid of "ostentatious religious clothing" (that's not secularism, but it is what they say their motive is). I think there's compelling evidence that it isn't actually their motive. If it were, it would apply to nuns wearing their habits on beaches, and not only Muslims. Their actual motive is pandering to the far right. This is an occasion where we shouldn't take at face value what they say, but it's based on evidence, not wishful thinking.
1) I know you don't WANT the french state to be justifying this action by an appeal to secularism - but, inconveniently, they are... They are appealing to an idea that a secular state has no public "show" of religious belief and deliberately (it seems to me) - confusing the idea of a public space with the more formal idea of "public life". This is very clear - otherwise why would wearing a burkah be described as ostentatious? They are interpreting "secular state" to mean that religion should be HIDDEN - not on view... they see that separation of religion and state as a separation of religion and anything publically visible - that's why they say that in dong this they are protecting french secular values. they are wrong - but it is what they are doing.

now - this is not YOUR interpretation, but it is the interpretation they are using. They are appealing to secularism to ban burkinis. (of course there are other - real - motives - but whilst you can keep SAYING it isn't - it IS the case that the french state is using secularism as a (not "the") justification for this ban. you see secularism as a simple one-line principle - they are peddling the idea that this "one-line principle" has far-reaching consequences for french society, one of which, is this ban. arguing over what are and are not legitimate consequences to secularism - even if you do call it a "one-line principle" is not as simple or clear-cut as you present it - not in the french govt's view, anyway...

2) I agree that ascribing a motive to an action does not mean that motive is the real reason or a legitimate reason - see 4. it was you who was arguing that.

3) condescending (and prejudiced) fecker! :wink:

4) I disagree - and (much more importantly) I think you should afford the same grace for other actual muslims to disagree that you afford yourself over interpretations of the consequences of secularism. I'm not sure why I should give more weight to your definition of their religion that I would give to their definition of their religion...

5) the ban is not a definition of secularism - it is being presented as a defense of france's secular values. see above - the idea being promulgated is that the separation of state and religion leads directly to a concern over people being obviously religious in a public space. It may be a twisted and errant version of where secularism leads - but that is what is being presented. it's just as wrong when twisted versions of secularism are used to justify bollox as it is wrong when twisted versions of religion are used to justify bollox.

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Worthy4England » Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:25 am

Prufrock wrote:
Worthy4England wrote:I'm gonna believe in a God. It seems much easier.
Believing in God because the arguments are too difficult? Wouldn't be the first :mrgreen:
People's Front of Judea.

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37589
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by thebish » Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:27 am

Worthy4England wrote:
Prufrock wrote:
Worthy4England wrote:I'm gonna believe in a God. It seems much easier.
Believing in God because the arguments are too difficult? Wouldn't be the first :mrgreen:
People's Front of Judea.
atheists have all the best words...

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Worthy4England » Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:43 am

thebish wrote:
Worthy4England wrote:
Prufrock wrote:
Worthy4England wrote:I'm gonna believe in a God. It seems much easier.
Believing in God because the arguments are too difficult? Wouldn't be the first :mrgreen:
People's Front of Judea.
atheists have all the best words...
We only need one. Crusade. ;-)

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 43133
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by TANGODANCER » Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:02 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
thebish wrote:
Worthy4England wrote:
Prufrock wrote:
Worthy4England wrote:I'm gonna believe in a God. It seems much easier.
Believing in God because the arguments are too difficult? Wouldn't be the first :mrgreen:
People's Front of Judea.
atheists have all the best words...
We only need one. Crusade. ;-)
Which is about as anti-secular as it gets.....
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

User avatar
Abdoulaye's Twin
Legend
Legend
Posts: 9167
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:27 pm
Location: Skye high

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Abdoulaye's Twin » Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:03 pm

Hoboh wrote:
Apaches and warthogs are designed to specifically hunt and kill individual targets, which btw ISIS were not they rode into towns in convoys of 4x4's.

As soon as the US started bombing columns of pickups...guess what? They stopped going around in columns. Anyway, how many warthogs and apaches do we have?

So despite the fact the security services have lists of who has been and returned, a good number of them under surveillance, you think we have no idea of what they've been up to?

I don't know if we know what they've been up to. Apparently there is a lack of info that comes out of IS held areas. Presumably if a law has been broken we prosecute. Of course, we could just lock everyone up irrespective and live out one of those futuristic police state films.
The thing is Hoboh, we can't and shouldn't just go around killing/bombing/locking up people. We prosecute where we have evidence, otherwise we're no better than IS themselves, just with a very slightly different ideology.

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Worthy4England » Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:45 pm

TANGODANCER wrote:
Worthy4England wrote:
thebish wrote:
Worthy4England wrote: People's Front of Judea.
atheists have all the best words...
We only need one. Crusade. ;-)
Which is about as anti-secular as it gets.....
Saves all this fcking about with definitions.

I have a huge bastard sword. You can call it what you wan but make it quick, you Godless infidel.

seanworth
Icon
Icon
Posts: 4049
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:07 pm
Location: thailand/canada

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by seanworth » Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:15 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:
Worthy4England wrote:
thebish wrote:
Worthy4England wrote: People's Front of Judea.
atheists have all the best words...
We only need one. Crusade. ;-)
Which is about as anti-secular as it gets.....
Saves all this fcking about with definitions.

I have a huge bastard sword. You can call it what you wan but make it quick, you Godless infidel.
How does that pick up line work for you?

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Prufrock » Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:24 pm

thebish wrote:
Prufrock wrote:
thebish wrote:
1) I am not saying they are the same... I am saying that actions justified by appeal to an ideology - be it Islam or Secularism should not tar everyone who also holds that ideology. You allow this for secularism (saying that what the french are doing is NOT secularism - despite the pretty clear fact that it IS their interpretation of what a secular state IS. They are secularists that you disagree with - that's all.

2) yes - they are banning the clothing because they interpret the separation of religion and state (secularism) as meaning that it is offensive to wear obvious religious clothing in public. again - a position you disagree with - but their position IS an interpretation of secularism - it's the reason they are doing it.

3) go ahead and be surprised...

4) It is your argument that if someone quotes an ideology as the reason for their action then we have to take it at face value - not mine. well, you argued this long and hard when Tango mildly proposed that ISIS are not real/proper/ordinary muslims. You seem to give leeway to an ideology you are passionate about whilst not being prepared to give that same leeway to others.
1) no it isn't. It, by definition, isn't secularism. It isn't separating religion from the state. You can't say that about ISIS. You can't say what they preach, by definition, isn't Islam. That's because despite your attempts to equate the two concepts, a religion is far more wide-ranging and open to interpretation than a simple one line principle.

2) again, no it isn't. There is a word for secularism in French. They haven't used it in this context and wouldn't use it. *Even if they did* it wouldn't be secularism, because it doesn't meet the definition. See 4) for more on why you're wrong on that point. Just because someone says their actions are "secular" doesn't mean they are. I'll ask you, again, do you think banning the headscarf was "liberalism"? They said it was.

3) you have more enlightened friends than most. There are plenty who would disagree.

4) no, it isn't my argument, you're conflating two arguments. One is whether ISIS are Muslims/ their creed Islamic? I think the answer to that question is yes, but i don't think that because they say so. The Westboro Baptist Church could declare themselves Muslims but I wouldn't think they were. I think they're an extreme, fringe, almost entirely unrepresentative set of Muslims mind, but they still meet any rational definition of Muslim I can imagine.

The second argument is that , if someone says their motive for doing something is "x" then there should be some compelling evidence before we decide that is not in fact their motive. I'm saying that when ISIS say that they have done x in accordance with their religions views, we should take them at face value that they did it because of their religious views, even if we don't think those views meet a definition of "Islamic". If you happen to believe that what they call Islam is a gross perversion that is so distorted it can no longer be even called Islam, fine, but we should start with a strong presumption that that non-Islamic perversion is their motive, because they said it is.

So no, it isn't my argument, that it must be Islam (or secularism) because they say it is. They called it liberalism when they banned the headscarf. It wasn't.

5) while we're on that point. This ban doesn't meet any definition of secularism I recognise. They haven't even claimed it is secularism. What I certainly don't dispute is that they have said their motive is to get rid of "ostentatious religious clothing" (that's not secularism, but it is what they say their motive is). I think there's compelling evidence that it isn't actually their motive. If it were, it would apply to nuns wearing their habits on beaches, and not only Muslims. Their actual motive is pandering to the far right. This is an occasion where we shouldn't take at face value what they say, but it's based on evidence, not wishful thinking.
1) I know you don't WANT the french state to be justifying this action by an appeal to secularism - but, inconveniently, they are... They are appealing to an idea that a secular state has no public "show" of religious belief and deliberately (it seems to me) - confusing the idea of a public space with the more formal idea of "public life". This is very clear - otherwise why would wearing a burkah be described as ostentatious? They are interpreting "secular state" to mean that religion should be HIDDEN - not on view... they see that separation of religion and state as a separation of religion and anything publically visible - that's why they say that in dong this they are protecting french secular values. they are wrong - but it is what they are doing.

now - this is not YOUR interpretation, but it is the interpretation they are using. They are appealing to secularism to ban burkinis. (of course there are other - real - motives - but whilst you can keep SAYING it isn't - it IS the case that the french state is using secularism as a (not "the") justification for this ban. you see secularism as a simple one-line principle - they are peddling the idea that this "one-line principle" has far-reaching consequences for french society, one of which, is this ban. arguing over what are and are not legitimate consequences to secularism - even if you do call it a "one-line principle" is not as simple or clear-cut as you present it - not in the french govt's view, anyway...

2) I agree that ascribing a motive to an action does not mean that motive is the real reason or a legitimate reason - see 4. it was you who was arguing that.

3) condescending (and prejudiced) fecker! :wink:

4) I disagree - and (much more importantly) I think you should afford the same grace for other actual muslims to disagree that you afford yourself over interpretations of the consequences of secularism. I'm not sure why I should give more weight to your definition of their religion that I would give to their definition of their religion...

5) the ban is not a definition of secularism - it is being presented as a defense of france's secular values. see above - the idea being promulgated is that the separation of state and religion leads directly to a concern over people being obviously religious in a public space. It may be a twisted and errant version of where secularism leads - but that is what is being presented. it's just as wrong when twisted versions of secularism are used to justify bollox as it is wrong when twisted versions of religion are used to justify bollox.
I was going to write a long response about how you still fail to understand that laicite is not secularism, and how you're still conflating two ideas later on but then I saw that the French courts have overturned the ban as being "seriously and clearly illegal".

Hooray for (not-really-actually) secularism after all.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Prufrock » Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:25 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:
Worthy4England wrote:
thebish wrote:
Worthy4England wrote: People's Front of Judea.
atheists have all the best words...
We only need one. Crusade. ;-)
Which is about as anti-secular as it gets.....
Saves all this fcking about with definitions.

I have a huge bastard sword. You can call it what you wan but make it quick, you Godless infidel.

I call it feeble, sitting in my post-enlightenment, post scientific revolution, Apache attack helicopter.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37589
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by thebish » Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:55 pm

Prufrock wrote: I was going to write a long response ... but then...
thank God for that!

boltonboris
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 13989
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by boltonboris » Fri Aug 26, 2016 4:50 pm

tedious
ˈtiːdɪəs/Submit
adjective
too long, slow, or dull; tiresome or monotonous.
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37589
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by thebish » Fri Aug 26, 2016 5:45 pm

boltonboris wrote:tedious
ˈtiːdɪəs/Submit
adjective
too long, slow, or dull; tiresome or monotonous.
Image

User avatar
Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 13303
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Hoboh » Sat Aug 27, 2016 1:26 pm

Abdoulaye's Twin wrote:
Hoboh wrote:
Apaches and warthogs are designed to specifically hunt and kill individual targets, which btw ISIS were not they rode into towns in convoys of 4x4's.

As soon as the US started bombing columns of pickups...guess what? They stopped going around in columns. Anyway, how many warthogs and apaches do we have?

So one pickup drifting into a town with a few armed men was enough to overwhelm the Iraqi security forces who merely legged it?

So despite the fact the security services have lists of who has been and returned, a good number of them under surveillance, you think we have no idea of what they've been up to?

I don't know if we know what they've been up to. Apparently there is a lack of info that comes out of IS held areas. Presumably if a law has been broken we prosecute. Of course, we could just lock everyone up irrespective and live out one of those futuristic police state films.

Simple thing to do would be to make any travel to Syria, illegal, with long jail sentences except if on a mission from HMG security services.
The thing is Hoboh, we can't and shouldn't just go around killing/bombing/locking up people. We prosecute where we have evidence, otherwise we're no better than IS themselves, just with a very slightly different ideology.

User avatar
Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 13303
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

Post by Hoboh » Sat Aug 27, 2016 1:33 pm

As it happens, I don't mind what people wear anywhere.

On a beach I'd prefer now't :mrgreen:

I do think however that anyone forced to wear something they are not happy about should be backed up by the full force of law, we seem to dishing out directives left, right and centre for anything now, and lawyers are having a field day with new interpretations on law in general, smarmy barstewards!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests