This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Horrific Scenes In Paris
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Mr Palaceman  19 Nov 15 8.40pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote -TUX- at 19 Nov 2015 8.04pm
Quote Mr Palaceman at 19 Nov 2015 7.45pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 19 Nov 2015 11.42am
Quote Mr Palaceman at 18 Nov 2015 5.10pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 18 Nov 2015 3.52pm
Quote Mr Palaceman at 18 Nov 2015 3.45pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Nov 2015 4.07pm
Quote nickgusset at 17 Nov 2015 4.00pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Nov 2015 3.35pm
Quote Southampton_Eagle at 17 Nov 2015 11.32am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 17 Nov 2015 9.11am
Quote Southampton_Eagle at 16 Nov 2015 11.25am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 16 Nov 2015 10.38am
Quote serial thriller at 14 Nov 2015 2.30pm
But I'll end this post with one final remark. The rules on this forum state that any racist ethnically objectionable material will be punished. It is my belief that racism, and indeed all forms of prejudice, stem from ignorance, and what I hope I have proved is that from the almost exclusive ignorance of Hoof's post, conclusions have been reached which at best are ethnically objectionable (Not just a few religious zealots or fundamentalists but with Islam itself... the whole ideology!) and at worst advocating genocide (we need to bring in the experts to destroy the nest!). I'd like to see the mods adhere to the rules of their own forum and warn Hoof that such views aren't welcome on here, yet particularly considering one mod has actively supported his beliefs, I'd be surprised if any of them had the guts to do so.
My reaction......... how childish and pathetic.... trying to get me banned because of my hard line views that oppose his liberal views and calling me racist AGAIN. Not content with that.... comparing my use of an analogy to that of the Nazi propaganda spokesman Goebbels speech on the final solution! Serial.... you and others on here need to stop playing the racist card and revert to trying to convince us your arguments are superior rather than underhand tactics to try and stifle our views.
Your opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else even though you seem to think it is. I avoided this thread all weekend because emotions were high. I'm not surprised to see the chest beating bravado of the usual suspects, those of, shall we say, an older generation with ingrained prejudices. Hol clusterf*ck thread at it's finest.
Get a life.
Anyways... from your tone it sounds like you should take a chill pill. Meanwhile, my offending post continues to get accolades from the free thinkers. Annoying isn't it? I still think your 'intern all muslims' remark is ridiculous. But you are entitled to that view, just as I am mine.
It would be impractical to intern them all anyway. My main thrust was to endorse the right of the government/MI6 to monitor all forms of communication to identify those who wish us harm. I have no problem with you airing your views nick...... none at all mate. Regards. That's not really a clarification, that is a move away from your original post but fair enough. The thing is the circumstances you describe in your clarification, you would not and don't need to "intern" people for. Preaching hate, plotting terrorist acts, inciting others to commit terrorist acts are all criminal offences and you wouldn't intern someone for that, you would jail them. The part of your post that stood out for me was that it was aimed at a particular religious group only. As I said in a previous post that you ignored/missed, discrimination on the basis of religion is a criminal offence in this country, as would be inciting others to discriminate on the basis of religious belief. How many people support your post or not and there are quite a few on both sides, matters not. What you were suggesting is against the law. In regards to your argument that government and security agencies should be allowed to invade whoever's personal freedom as a matter of course, is not a silly argument. Striking a balance between freedom and security is always difficult, especially in these times of extremism and technology. While I will always support any government that strives to keep the people safe, I don't not trust just any goverment not to use that power in order to control. For me that is just as great a threat to democracy and our general way of life as a potential attack. The ability for the people to engage in free speech and to vote privately, is a fundamental right and an essential corners stone of any true democracy.
However right now it only appears to be Islam that is killing people. If any other religion starts killing I will be on their case to. ...... oh and Atheists had better not start any terror campaigns!!! Fair enough, your not a fan of any religion, your not alone in that, I can respect that point of view. But you then say it ".. only appears to be Islam that is killing people". Islam can't kill anyone or anything, it's a notion, an idea, a religion or a way of life for some. What kills people is when someone takes an idea or a notion and uses it to kill or oppress someone else. Humans don't need the excuse of religion to kill for a notion. There are some extremely fanatical secularists, Christians, Buddhists (yes, them too), Nazis, Communists, Fascists I could go on. If you look at Nazis and Communists only, people that practised those two ideologies have killed people in the hundreds of millions, if you look at Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Nothing to do with religion. IMO humble opinion, I think that the main problem that those who oppose your posts have is that you show a level of discrimination that alarms people. They see echoes of what they believe is an extreme view, in order to combat what are without doubt the extreme views of those that attack our freedoms. Incidentally, this is the first post of mine that you have directly replied to, even though many others have replied on your behalf. Christians would say that Christmas must be coming. Don't expect a present...
However... right now... those people calling themselves ISIS, ISIL, Jihadists, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and any other similar group are all guided by Islamic teachings and purport to be acting in accordance with the Quaran's guidance to kill all infidels. (I know most muslims say this is not a literal instruction but many believe it to be true). I don't happen to agree that this situation will go away with a handshake and diplomacy when you have people prepared to blow themselves up for their mistaken beliefs. I respect your views, but I am not about to change mine because you or Jeremy Corbyn don't want conflict. But hey ho.... Lets agree to disagree on this matter.
When you say, you or Corbyn, don't want conflict, you are SERIOUSLY mistaken. I can't speak for Corbyn but I am no pacifist, I believe in a strong, state of the art military. I would get rid of Trident but only to replace it with a British system. There are technical issues with that, that's for another post. I am like Corbyn in one sense and that is I believe in peace but I also believe that you "walk in peace with a very big stick". Because not everyone else is peaceful. I don't get the Corbyn is the devil type rhetoric that some spout although I wouldn't vote for him, at the moment he seems to me to be wrong footed, although I like some things he has said, there are some things that I clearly do not agree with but I don't think a lot of what he has said has been reported, unless it's controversial. I guess I am like him in another aspect and that is that I don't deal in personal insults (most of the time), I seem them as a sign of immaturity. Some don't mind it and I suppose they add the the colour of life but they are not for me, usually. In regards to dealing with ISIS, in principle, I am not against sending in troops. I was against the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and what we did in Libya was nothing short of stupid. However, the war in Syria is a civil war, the involvement of so many foreign powers in the conflict has caused more problems for Syrians on all sides and has allowed ISIS to grow. Before and if any troops are sent in from this country, I believe there needs to be, among other things; 1. Cross party support.. 2. A proper coalition.. 3. Very clear achievable objectives.. 4. An exit strategy, with an achievable time scale.. 5. Global funding for Syria to rebuild.. I don't believe that any of the above conditions can be met currently. You don't fight a war unless you know you can achieve your goals and without all of the above, we would not achieve our goals. I travel a lot and have a very global outlook and some of my favourite subjects are, among others; Comparative religion, History, Politics and.... Military Strategy. That's probably why I like this thread, although it's been crazy and messed up at times. One of my all-time favourite books.. Sun Tsu - The Art of War. Very "un-Corbynesque".. I know I will not change your views with a few posts but I suspect that the reason we come on here is to see what other Palace fans are thinking about the general topics of the day. For all the long posts, opinion and counter opinion, there are some on here who have not once mentioned the victims or their families, I think for some, these are "sensational" times more than they are tragic. They are an excuse to spout whatever agenda they have. Just my opinion. That's not aimed at you personally, it's just a very general observation..(Honestly). Anyway, I've posted enough on this thread, I'll leave the rest to others..
Despite the rumours, British 'manufacturing' is alive and well.
Very good point.
"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead" Stan Laurel |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Nov 15 9.20am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 19 Nov 2015 4.44pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 19 Nov 2015 4.38pm
Quote Kermit8 at 19 Nov 2015 4.16pm
nato ground troops could wipe out the ragtag IS in Northern Syria in weeks and be home by Xmas. There just isn't the will or political opportunity to do it. I doubt it. Somehow I think it would turn out to be more akin to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan or Chechnya, a slogging drawn out guerrilla conflict in which the NATO forces would experience nightmarish logistical problems (given their only 'safe' borders would be through Kurdish occupied territory (via Turkey or through Iraq across what was once the Sunni Triangle). Plus there is the issue of what the other rebel groups and factions would do, and then what to do with the country afterwards (you can't just hand it back to Assad and neither the Kurds or the Rebel factions are going to accept each other being placed in control). Syria is a 'Vietnam' waiting to happen. It took NATO days to occupy Afghanistan and militarily defeat the Taliban, but fifteen years on, they don't seem to have been wiped out, in fact far from it. All of the factions involved are using guerrilla war strategies and have been for several years. Likely as not we'd easily take IS territory, and then they would happily just to just keep up hit and run and ambushes against NATO and US troops and launching strikes against International targets - something I doubt the UK has the political stomach for long term. A lot of people talk up 'sending troops in' but no one I know who has either been in the military or is still in seems to be keen on the idea of getting into the Syrian Civil War.
The Vietnam war terrain was perfectly suited to protection from air observation, but the reality of a Guerrilla army is its capacity to be able to obscure itself from the enemy. The terrain in Iraq didn't prevent a long insurgency with Sunni, and some Shia groups, plus the capacity for reliable human intelligence regarding who is IS will be very limited and unreliable - and many of those involved in IS have over a decade of experience in fighting an insurgency obtained from the Iraqi Sunni Insurgency. They'll fight militarily with forces they won't be able to maintain, and then strike with ambushes and low impact warfare in occupied areas, as well as hitting support and logistical targets. Likely as not they'll also divide into more independent groups, and move their 'command and communications' network out of Syria. Also you'd expect them to target targets across Europe as well as a response (as seen with Paris) and develop logistic support cells across Europe, planning attacks in different countries), notably through support from 'affiliated groups'. Israel has never managed to destroy Hezzbollah. Similar to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, they won't be destroyed militarily, only their capacity reduced significantly. Groups like this can only be destroyed if you can cut out the funding and support and appeal they hold.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Nov 15 9.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Lyons550 at 19 Nov 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 19 Nov 2015 4.45pm
Quote Lyons550 at 19 Nov 2015 4.33pm
Quote nickgusset at 19 Nov 2015 11.57am
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 19 Nov 2015 11.45am
Quote nickgusset at 18 Nov 2015 10.32pm
Quote Lyons550 at 17 Nov 2015 8.25am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Nov 2015 9.40pm
.
My point is therethere are plenty of Muslims opposing ISIS, something Lyons seems to say isn't happening. It doesn't suit (in my opinion) newspaper agenda to cover it.
So what about the Muslims in the Shia, and Iraqi forces fighting IS in Iraq, and those Muslims in Syria fighting IS, including the Kurds and the Syrian army - Not to mention people in Turkey, Jordon and Lebannon who are dealing with the humanitarian fall out from IS. Lebannon has around 1m Syrian refuges, a quarter of the population, we're getting s**ty about taking 20k over five years. Then there are those across the middle east who are funding those rebels and Kurds who are fighting against IS. All we're doing is dropping bombs and getting s**ty online. Out in the middle east there are tens of thousands of Muslims actually fighting against IS, putting their lives on the line. Our contribution, 900m in aid, over five years, 20k spaces for refugees, some 'military advisors' and some bombs dropped from 10,000ft on suspected targets and the occasional drone strike. But yeah, Muslims could do more.
The point I was trying to make was more to do with Muslims being more vocal in the media to help the reduce the generalisation that I've been seeing all over said media regarding the muslim population. As I stated earlier..I posted a video of a guy doing just what I was hoping some would do...and I've seen similar instances of others doing so as well. The more the better. I'm well aware of the examples you pompously cite...but you see the point is its not needed for MY benefit...its for the imbeciles that still lump the muslim community into the one generic term. That's all...i'm pleased to see the seeds of a growing trend #notinmyname etc....lets hope we hear and see more doing so. It'd go a long long way to fostering greater understanding and hopefully build new bridges across communities in the process. Which is EXACTLY what ISIS don't want! That is the responsibility of the media to then focus maybe more on those individuals than trotting out the traditional Choudary / Hamza types. The problem is that reasonable friendly Muslims don't 'sell copy' or airtime. The Media is a business, and it sells product to its audience, and packages to that market - Typically that means successes in 'the war on terror' are achievements become 'Western' successes, stripped of the fact that the successes in retaking parts of Iraq belong to Iraqi's (mostly Muslims). Certain popular media isn't in the business of information or news, its in the business of pandering to its market demographics. Fear, Hate and Anger sell far more than compassion, understanding and unity. We can't even objectively look at why these attack occurred in the media (France's bombing of IS for example) or issues that do affect the Muslim population without getting 'knicker wetting').
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Nov 15 9.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 19 Nov 2015 5.03pm
The next big genocide could well be visited on the minority Shia muslims the way things are panning out in the Middle East and perhaps North Africa. The IS Sunni lot and their ilk see them in such a way as to make them very vulnerable. Reported genocide, it seems that there has been a significant amount of 'revenge' in Sunni areas of Iraq liberated from IS. Civil war and genocide/mass murder are largely inseparable.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Nov 15 9.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 19 Nov 2015 4.32pm
Quote Cucking Funt at 19 Nov 2015 4.05pm
If Gusset had been PM in 1940, he wouldn't have declared war on the Germans until they were actually goose-stepping up Whitehall and even then he'd have apologised to them first for getting their feet wet when they landed.
Of course, he'd also have avoided the disaster of Dunkirk and the massive loss of equipment, men and arms of the BEF, which would probably have led to a shortening of the war (both in North Africa and Europe), and possibly have averted the blitz (we left and lost a lot of aircraft in retreat from France).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 20 Nov 15 10.20am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Nov 2015 9.30am
Quote Lyons550 at 19 Nov 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 19 Nov 2015 4.45pm
Quote Lyons550 at 19 Nov 2015 4.33pm
Quote nickgusset at 19 Nov 2015 11.57am
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 19 Nov 2015 11.45am
Quote nickgusset at 18 Nov 2015 10.32pm
Quote Lyons550 at 17 Nov 2015 8.25am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Nov 2015 9.40pm
.
My point is therethere are plenty of Muslims opposing ISIS, something Lyons seems to say isn't happening. It doesn't suit (in my opinion) newspaper agenda to cover it.
So what about the Muslims in the Shia, and Iraqi forces fighting IS in Iraq, and those Muslims in Syria fighting IS, including the Kurds and the Syrian army - Not to mention people in Turkey, Jordon and Lebannon who are dealing with the humanitarian fall out from IS. Lebannon has around 1m Syrian refuges, a quarter of the population, we're getting s**ty about taking 20k over five years. Then there are those across the middle east who are funding those rebels and Kurds who are fighting against IS. All we're doing is dropping bombs and getting s**ty online. Out in the middle east there are tens of thousands of Muslims actually fighting against IS, putting their lives on the line. Our contribution, 900m in aid, over five years, 20k spaces for refugees, some 'military advisors' and some bombs dropped from 10,000ft on suspected targets and the occasional drone strike. But yeah, Muslims could do more.
The point I was trying to make was more to do with Muslims being more vocal in the media to help the reduce the generalisation that I've been seeing all over said media regarding the muslim population. As I stated earlier..I posted a video of a guy doing just what I was hoping some would do...and I've seen similar instances of others doing so as well. The more the better. I'm well aware of the examples you pompously cite...but you see the point is its not needed for MY benefit...its for the imbeciles that still lump the muslim community into the one generic term. That's all...i'm pleased to see the seeds of a growing trend #notinmyname etc....lets hope we hear and see more doing so. It'd go a long long way to fostering greater understanding and hopefully build new bridges across communities in the process. Which is EXACTLY what ISIS don't want! That is the responsibility of the media to then focus maybe more on those individuals than trotting out the traditional Choudary / Hamza types. The problem is that reasonable friendly Muslims don't 'sell copy' or airtime. The Media is a business, and it sells product to its audience, and packages to that market - Typically that means successes in 'the war on terror' are achievements become 'Western' successes, stripped of the fact that the successes in retaking parts of Iraq belong to Iraqi's (mostly Muslims). Certain popular media isn't in the business of information or news, its in the business of pandering to its market demographics. Fear, Hate and Anger sell far more than compassion, understanding and unity. We can't even objectively look at why these attack occurred in the media (France's bombing of IS for example) or issues that do affect the Muslim population without getting 'knicker wetting').
That's the right-wing base media for you. Easier for control and more profitable.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 20 Nov 15 10.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 20 Nov 2015 10.20am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Nov 2015 9.30am
Quote Lyons550 at 19 Nov 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 19 Nov 2015 4.45pm
Quote Lyons550 at 19 Nov 2015 4.33pm
Quote nickgusset at 19 Nov 2015 11.57am
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 19 Nov 2015 11.45am
Quote nickgusset at 18 Nov 2015 10.32pm
Quote Lyons550 at 17 Nov 2015 8.25am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Nov 2015 9.40pm
.
My point is therethere are plenty of Muslims opposing ISIS, something Lyons seems to say isn't happening. It doesn't suit (in my opinion) newspaper agenda to cover it.
So what about the Muslims in the Shia, and Iraqi forces fighting IS in Iraq, and those Muslims in Syria fighting IS, including the Kurds and the Syrian army - Not to mention people in Turkey, Jordon and Lebannon who are dealing with the humanitarian fall out from IS. Lebannon has around 1m Syrian refuges, a quarter of the population, we're getting s**ty about taking 20k over five years. Then there are those across the middle east who are funding those rebels and Kurds who are fighting against IS. All we're doing is dropping bombs and getting s**ty online. Out in the middle east there are tens of thousands of Muslims actually fighting against IS, putting their lives on the line. Our contribution, 900m in aid, over five years, 20k spaces for refugees, some 'military advisors' and some bombs dropped from 10,000ft on suspected targets and the occasional drone strike. But yeah, Muslims could do more.
The point I was trying to make was more to do with Muslims being more vocal in the media to help the reduce the generalisation that I've been seeing all over said media regarding the muslim population. As I stated earlier..I posted a video of a guy doing just what I was hoping some would do...and I've seen similar instances of others doing so as well. The more the better. I'm well aware of the examples you pompously cite...but you see the point is its not needed for MY benefit...its for the imbeciles that still lump the muslim community into the one generic term. That's all...i'm pleased to see the seeds of a growing trend #notinmyname etc....lets hope we hear and see more doing so. It'd go a long long way to fostering greater understanding and hopefully build new bridges across communities in the process. Which is EXACTLY what ISIS don't want! That is the responsibility of the media to then focus maybe more on those individuals than trotting out the traditional Choudary / Hamza types. The problem is that reasonable friendly Muslims don't 'sell copy' or airtime. The Media is a business, and it sells product to its audience, and packages to that market - Typically that means successes in 'the war on terror' are achievements become 'Western' successes, stripped of the fact that the successes in retaking parts of Iraq belong to Iraqi's (mostly Muslims). Certain popular media isn't in the business of information or news, its in the business of pandering to its market demographics. Fear, Hate and Anger sell far more than compassion, understanding and unity. We can't even objectively look at why these attack occurred in the media (France's bombing of IS for example) or issues that do affect the Muslim population without getting 'knicker wetting').
That's the right-wing base media for you. Easier for control and more profitable.
Keep em baffled with bullsh1t tell lies and say everythings fine. Thats the Left wing base media for you. Easier to ignore problems than tackle them.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cornwalls palace Torpoint 20 Nov 15 11.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 19 Nov 2015 5.25pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 19 Nov 2015 4.38pm
Quote Kermit8 at 19 Nov 2015 4.16pm
nato ground troops could wipe out the ragtag IS in Northern Syria in weeks and be home by Xmas. There just isn't the will or political opportunity to do it. I doubt it. Somehow I think it would turn out to be more akin to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan or Chechnya, a slogging drawn out guerrilla conflict in which the NATO forces would experience nightmarish logistical problems (given their only 'safe' borders would be through Kurdish occupied territory (via Turkey or through Iraq across what was once the Sunni Triangle). Plus there is the issue of what the other rebel groups and factions would do, and then what to do with the country afterwards (you can't just hand it back to Assad and neither the Kurds or the Rebel factions are going to accept each other being placed in control). Syria is a 'Vietnam' waiting to happen. It took NATO days to occupy Afghanistan and militarily defeat the Taliban, but fifteen years on, they don't seem to have been wiped out, in fact far from it. All of the factions involved are using guerrilla war strategies and have been for several years. Likely as not we'd easily take IS territory, and then they would happily just to just keep up hit and run and ambushes against NATO and US troops and launching strikes against International targets - something I doubt the UK has the political stomach for long term. A lot of people talk up 'sending troops in' but no one I know who has either been in the military or is still in seems to be keen on the idea of getting into the Syrian Civil War.
I don't know for sure.
.......has our coach driver done a Poo'yet, without thinking about Gus! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cornwalls palace Torpoint 20 Nov 15 11.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 20 Nov 2015 10.39am
Quote Kermit8 at 20 Nov 2015 10.20am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Nov 2015 9.30am
Quote Lyons550 at 19 Nov 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 19 Nov 2015 4.45pm
Quote Lyons550 at 19 Nov 2015 4.33pm
Quote nickgusset at 19 Nov 2015 11.57am
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 19 Nov 2015 11.45am
Quote nickgusset at 18 Nov 2015 10.32pm
Quote Lyons550 at 17 Nov 2015 8.25am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Nov 2015 9.40pm
.
My point is therethere are plenty of Muslims opposing ISIS, something Lyons seems to say isn't happening. It doesn't suit (in my opinion) newspaper agenda to cover it.
So what about the Muslims in the Shia, and Iraqi forces fighting IS in Iraq, and those Muslims in Syria fighting IS, including the Kurds and the Syrian army - Not to mention people in Turkey, Jordon and Lebannon who are dealing with the humanitarian fall out from IS. Lebannon has around 1m Syrian refuges, a quarter of the population, we're getting s**ty about taking 20k over five years. Then there are those across the middle east who are funding those rebels and Kurds who are fighting against IS. All we're doing is dropping bombs and getting s**ty online. Out in the middle east there are tens of thousands of Muslims actually fighting against IS, putting their lives on the line. Our contribution, 900m in aid, over five years, 20k spaces for refugees, some 'military advisors' and some bombs dropped from 10,000ft on suspected targets and the occasional drone strike. But yeah, Muslims could do more.
The point I was trying to make was more to do with Muslims being more vocal in the media to help the reduce the generalisation that I've been seeing all over said media regarding the muslim population. As I stated earlier..I posted a video of a guy doing just what I was hoping some would do...and I've seen similar instances of others doing so as well. The more the better. I'm well aware of the examples you pompously cite...but you see the point is its not needed for MY benefit...its for the imbeciles that still lump the muslim community into the one generic term. That's all...i'm pleased to see the seeds of a growing trend #notinmyname etc....lets hope we hear and see more doing so. It'd go a long long way to fostering greater understanding and hopefully build new bridges across communities in the process. Which is EXACTLY what ISIS don't want! That is the responsibility of the media to then focus maybe more on those individuals than trotting out the traditional Choudary / Hamza types. The problem is that reasonable friendly Muslims don't 'sell copy' or airtime. The Media is a business, and it sells product to its audience, and packages to that market - Typically that means successes in 'the war on terror' are achievements become 'Western' successes, stripped of the fact that the successes in retaking parts of Iraq belong to Iraqi's (mostly Muslims). Certain popular media isn't in the business of information or news, its in the business of pandering to its market demographics. Fear, Hate and Anger sell far more than compassion, understanding and unity. We can't even objectively look at why these attack occurred in the media (France's bombing of IS for example) or issues that do affect the Muslim population without getting 'knicker wetting').
That's the right-wing base media for you. Easier for control and more profitable.
Keep em baffled with bullsh1t tell lies and say everythings fine. Thats the Left wing base media for you. Easier to ignore problems than tackle them.
.......has our coach driver done a Poo'yet, without thinking about Gus! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Nov 15 11.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 20 Nov 2015 10.39am
Quote Kermit8 at 20 Nov 2015 10.20am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Nov 2015 9.30am
Quote Lyons550 at 19 Nov 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 19 Nov 2015 4.45pm
Quote Lyons550 at 19 Nov 2015 4.33pm
Quote nickgusset at 19 Nov 2015 11.57am
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 19 Nov 2015 11.45am
Quote nickgusset at 18 Nov 2015 10.32pm
Quote Lyons550 at 17 Nov 2015 8.25am
Quote nickgusset at 16 Nov 2015 9.40pm
.
My point is therethere are plenty of Muslims opposing ISIS, something Lyons seems to say isn't happening. It doesn't suit (in my opinion) newspaper agenda to cover it.
So what about the Muslims in the Shia, and Iraqi forces fighting IS in Iraq, and those Muslims in Syria fighting IS, including the Kurds and the Syrian army - Not to mention people in Turkey, Jordon and Lebannon who are dealing with the humanitarian fall out from IS. Lebannon has around 1m Syrian refuges, a quarter of the population, we're getting s**ty about taking 20k over five years. Then there are those across the middle east who are funding those rebels and Kurds who are fighting against IS. All we're doing is dropping bombs and getting s**ty online. Out in the middle east there are tens of thousands of Muslims actually fighting against IS, putting their lives on the line. Our contribution, 900m in aid, over five years, 20k spaces for refugees, some 'military advisors' and some bombs dropped from 10,000ft on suspected targets and the occasional drone strike. But yeah, Muslims could do more.
The point I was trying to make was more to do with Muslims being more vocal in the media to help the reduce the generalisation that I've been seeing all over said media regarding the muslim population. As I stated earlier..I posted a video of a guy doing just what I was hoping some would do...and I've seen similar instances of others doing so as well. The more the better. I'm well aware of the examples you pompously cite...but you see the point is its not needed for MY benefit...its for the imbeciles that still lump the muslim community into the one generic term. That's all...i'm pleased to see the seeds of a growing trend #notinmyname etc....lets hope we hear and see more doing so. It'd go a long long way to fostering greater understanding and hopefully build new bridges across communities in the process. Which is EXACTLY what ISIS don't want! That is the responsibility of the media to then focus maybe more on those individuals than trotting out the traditional Choudary / Hamza types. The problem is that reasonable friendly Muslims don't 'sell copy' or airtime. The Media is a business, and it sells product to its audience, and packages to that market - Typically that means successes in 'the war on terror' are achievements become 'Western' successes, stripped of the fact that the successes in retaking parts of Iraq belong to Iraqi's (mostly Muslims). Certain popular media isn't in the business of information or news, its in the business of pandering to its market demographics. Fear, Hate and Anger sell far more than compassion, understanding and unity. We can't even objectively look at why these attack occurred in the media (France's bombing of IS for example) or issues that do affect the Muslim population without getting 'knicker wetting').
That's the right-wing base media for you. Easier for control and more profitable.
Keep em baffled with bullsh1t tell lies and say everythings fine. Thats the Left wing base media for you. Easier to ignore problems than tackle them. Well that's actually how all forms of media work, if you ask me. The Liberal to liberal left media tend towards a more abstracted view of reality, in which they tend to focus on diverting the problem away from the immediate causes towards institutions in society. Obviously there is a problem in the UK and world, with Some Muslims and versions of Islam, and media such as the Guardian (which I quite like) will tend to go out of its way to avoid mentioning that (or for more traditional leftist blaming capital or institutions of capital) and ignoring the fact that there is actually currently a problem. All of these media outlets are effectively biased towards appeal to their readers, and maybe feeding on their sense of moral superiority. What tends to then happen is the middle ground where most of the truth lies gets ignored. You'd think the only response to IS would be either 'kill them all' or 'change our international policy towards xx and xxx'. The problem this causes, is it tends to polarise political response, as Politicians respond to what the media says the public want, rather than necessarily dealing with the public, and engage with the public through the media as intermediatary. Obviously, to eliminate IS you have to deal with the problem you have (armed f**ktards) but long term you also have to deal with the issues, especially the legitimate issues, that leads to people being drawn into radical circles and ultimately into such groups. As well as dealing effectively with those who supply, support and fund such groups, even if they're 'your friends'. The Troubles in NI couldn't really ever be dealt with until the issues that fed into the radicalisation of Republicans and the concerns of Catholics were approached responsibly but also in the mean time, you also had to eliminate the INRA, PIRA, UVF etc capacity, will and assets. Otherwise you just end up with a new generation of utterly butterly f**ktards, because they are the 'only voice of dissent' that's being heard.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 20 Nov 15 12.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
After watching the very annoying Question Time last night I have concluded that many people seem to be focused on what ISIL want us to do and what will happen after any assault on them and the loss of lives etc. This is all the language of fear. We must not worry about what ISIL want and how they are playing us, we must destroy them in the territory they hold and we must round up and imprison or deport anyone involved with them. There is no negotiation to be had, there is no easy fix. There is no chance of coming out of this without innocent lives being lost, maybe even here in Britain.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| ghosteagle 20 Nov 15 1.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 20 Nov 2015 12.36pm
After watching the very annoying Question Time last night I have concluded that many people seem to be focused on what ISIL want us to do and what will happen after any assault on them and the loss of lives etc. This is all the language of fear. We must not worry about what ISIL want and how they are playing us, we must destroy them in the territory they hold and we must round up and imprison or deport anyone involved with them. There is no negotiation to be had, there is no easy fix. There is no chance of coming out of this without innocent lives being lost, maybe even here in Britain. The plot to Expendables 4???
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.