Stutopia Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 The only way extremist Muslims will be defeated is when the real, peaceful muslims learn that shopping the extremists isn't turning their back on their brother and they're actually helping Islam to survive. One day it'll come to us or them. Our values or theirs. If the extremists are left to be the global face and PR for Islam - which they are. They need to integrate with their host nations and cooperate. Infiltration is beating integration. Just so we know. What are our values? What are theirs? Our definition of extremism is “the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs Thanks Strudul, but that's not what it says. What it says is that "the real, peaceful muslims" need to choose between our values or theirs. If we say ours are "democracy, the rule of law etc" and then what does that leave for "the real, peaceful muslims" to choose? Or have they already chosen extremism by being Muslim? The reason I ask is because is blatantly obvious that, given there isn't all out war on the streets of the UK, that Muslims have already made that choice long ago and are in fact already living under "democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty..." Que? Islam is entirely compatible with British values and our national way of life, while Islamist extremism is not – and we must be uncompromising in our response to it. You're gonna have to post something other than links to have discussion. Assuming you're able to? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aashenfox Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Moderate muslims are just the same as any other moderate person, you expect when you go to live in another country, to have to live under their rules. If that is unacceptable to you, then you are the one with the 'problem', not the inhabitants and government of the country. But that isn't what the problem is, they aren't railing against our way of life here, they're railing against our (you have to admit stupid) foreign policy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 You're gonna have to post something other than links to have discussion. Assuming you're able to? You questioned TT's use of the word "values". I explained the reference, answering your questions on what "our" and "their" values are: Our definition of extremism is “the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs To which you responded by saying: Thanks Strudul, but that's not what it says. Even though that's exactly what it says, because it was a direct quote Anyway, you went on to say: What it says is that "the real, peaceful muslims" need to choose between our values or theirs. If we say ours are "democracy, the rule of law etc" and then what does that leave for "the real, peaceful muslims" to choose? But that's incorrect, hence my reply of: Islam is entirely compatible with British values and our national way of life, while Islamist extremism is not – and we must be uncompromising in our response to it. Which explains that the "real, peaceful Muslims" don't need to chose because "their" values are compatible with "ours". Assumed you'd be capable of joining the dots and I wouldn't have to spell it out for you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 You've done quite well, with many quotes and some rubbish you've pulled from a website. Instead of some insight. Sadly you missed the most important quote opportunity. No doubt getting worked up in a tizz trying to fire off something with a link and what passes for a smart response somewhere, though we can only guess where. So I'll put it in bold below, so you don't make the same mistake a further time. The reason I ask is because is blatantly obvious that, given there isn't all out war on the streets of the UK, that Muslims have already made that choice long ago and are in fact already living under "democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 some rubbish you've pulled from a website. Instead of some insight. Ah you know him so well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 There's 2 quotes, both from the same source, a government site with a speech from the Home Sec, which provide more than sufficient elaboration on the point TT was making and define the terms used (how the government defines them). Are you saying the government website is lying about what May said??? Just for once, can you grow up and try have a discussion without throwing your toys out of the pram and resorting to ad hominem, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TT350 Posted May 31, 2017 Author Share Posted May 31, 2017 The reason I ask is because is blatantly obvious that, given there isn't all out war on the streets of the UK, that Muslims have already made that choice long ago and are in fact already living under "democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty..." You may be right, for now. How long will it last though? it'll get to a point where more and more will be expressive about their radical views and words will become action as they meet decreasing resistance. The difference between "us" and "them" is never more apparent than in articles like this... http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/pakistan-village-court-sentences-woman-to-death-for-adultery-for-saying-she-was-raped/ar-BBBGcc1?li=AAnZ9Ug I don't want to live under that kind of rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Just going to throw this out there, as a debating point rather than any personal strongly held belief, but we are hardly ones to preach about peace loving? The west have actively illegally occupied a number of countries over the last couple of decades, they have (clearly without intent usually because the opposition deliberately place civilians in military target sites) killed civilians and children with military strikes etc. I wonder if the west could take a long hard look at what they do and how they are perceived before expecting 1/3rd of the populous of the planet to behave in a certain way? When will the west change tact and stop stamping their will on other countries? (note just putting this out there as a debating point I am not religious!) Forget decades, its been centuries. Eddie Izzard talks about our cunning strategy of conquering the world using flags: Rock up in the boat, feet on sand, flag in ground "I claim this land for King and Country", "oh look locals..No flag? No country! But you can become our slaves if you like".I agree with Codel that we should stop stamping our will, and in a reeaaallllyyy hippy kinda way, I'd like it if we could all just get along, and back tracking a couple of pages, I think ending religion and fair trade will help a little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 It is not just the west Isis are targeting though, they are targeting anyone and everyone who doesnt agree with their beliefs and i mean anyone of any religion, just look at Syria, but i absolutely agree, because we are able to act and stand up to them, we are obvious targets and probably the worst rendition of how they believe you should be, but there is no way you can lay the foot of blame at the west. However, we have opened our doors to pretty much anyone for the chance of a better life and not live in terror that you may be beheaded for not conforming, yet this small minority are happy to live in this awful western world and enjoy all the benefits of it, but yet they plot against us. I am not condoning our actions or the wars we have fought by the way, but Isis doesnt exist because the of the West. Correct, they descended on the philipines armed to to teeth this week. Pretty sure they didn't bomb them for oil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TT350 Posted May 31, 2017 Author Share Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) Jay, Death star canteen was the best lol. I can kill you WITHOUT a tray!! Edited May 31, 2017 by TT350 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 The reason I ask is because is blatantly obvious that, given there isn't all out war on the streets of the UK, that Muslims have already made that choice long ago and are in fact already living under "democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty..." You may be right, for now. How long will it last though? it'll get to a point where more and more will be expressive about their radical views and words will become action as they meet decreasing resistance. The difference between "us" and "them" is never more apparent than in articles like this... http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/pakistan-village-court-sentences-woman-to-death-for-adultery-for-saying-she-was-raped/ar-BBBGcc1?li=AAnZ9Ug I don't want to live under that kind of rule. But do you genuinely believe that after hundreds of years the U.K. is poised to abandon our legal framework and adopt an entirely new justice system? I mean, really genuinely believe that there is even a 1% chance of that happening in real life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 There's 2 quotes, both from the same source, a government site with a speech from the Home Sec, which provide more than sufficient elaboration on the point TT was making and define the terms used (how the government defines them). Are you saying the government website is lying about what May said??? Just for once, can you grow up and try have a discussion without throwing your toys out of the pram and resorting to ad hominem, Just for once, can you recognise that I regularly disagree with Ekona or Jetpilot and sometimes with TT350 and yet, we can all have a discussion, however you seem to find yourself entangled in these multi page tit for tats, with anyone from the opinionated to the most mild mannered members in the community. Who's always the common connection? Why do you think that is? I expect it's largely coincedence and possibly a conspiracy... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) Just for once, can you recognise that I (the and others) regularly disagree with Ekona or Jetpilot and sometimes with TT350 and yet, we can all have a discussion, however you seem to find yourself entangled in these multi page tit for tats, with anyone from the opinionated to the most mild mannered members in the community. Who's always the common connection? Why do you think that is? I expect it's largely coincedence and possibly a conspiracy... You asked for a definition. I gave you one and TT agreed that was his intended use of the term. If you had bothered to take the time to read and understand the source I provided, then that would have been the end of it. It wasn't an argument, it wasn't even a discussion, it was a clarification. Instead you chose to ignore and discredit it while being generally discourteous for no good reason. I don't know why i need to explain it further cos it's really not that hard to understand, but one last attempt... Extremism is defined as “the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs†That's not up for discussion, that's how the government defines it. Muslims don't need to choose between their values or ours - our values are compatible. However, if they choose to vocally or actively oppose our values, then, by definition, they are an extremist. Considering that blowing up a load of people is against the law, some Muslims blatantly haven't chosen to abide by our values, but instead have chosen to oppose them. Trying to generalise an entire religion is never going to work. Edited May 31, 2017 by Strudul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Definitely coincidence. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TT350 Posted May 31, 2017 Author Share Posted May 31, 2017 The reason I ask is because is blatantly obvious that, given there isn't all out war on the streets of the UK, that Muslims have already made that choice long ago and are in fact already living under "democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty..." You may be right, for now. How long will it last though? it'll get to a point where more and more will be expressive about their radical views and words will become action as they meet decreasing resistance. The difference between "us" and "them" is never more apparent than in articles like this... http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/pakistan-village-court-sentences-woman-to-death-for-adultery-for-saying-she-was-raped/ar-BBBGcc1?li=AAnZ9Ug I don't want to live under that kind of rule. But do you genuinely believe that after hundreds of years the U.K. is poised to abandon our legal framework and adopt an entirely new justice system? I mean, really genuinely believe that there is even a 1% chance of that happening in real life? I don't think we'll abandon it. But over time we'll give up liberties and allow ourselves to fall back time and again due to ever more PCness and tolerance as we try to set examples. It'll take many decades, perhaps. But one day we will be the minority and their law will be our law. We don't have children at anywhere near the same rate. We don't create enclaves in a host country and refuse to integrate and we don't have the "race" card on our sides. I worked with a guy who'd been here 25 years and he never spoke a word of English because he didn't need to. His community provided everything he needed. Shops. Mosque. Health care. And those communities grow and the boundaries spread out. He was a grandfather to 33 children. I'd love them to open up and invite us into their communities. I have quite a few Muslim friends but the friendship doesn't extend to going to their houses for dinner etc because they don't want to be seen having an "outsider" in their homes. And that's a shame. Like I've said before in this thread, I wish it wasn't "us" and "them". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 ^^ I am not sure we could get any more "pc", we only have to go back to near to the start of the thread where I was accused of pushing my anti muslim agenda for discussing how I believe we should treat these terrorists, if we can get more pc than that, I would be surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 I'm always curious about the specifics of complaints about considering other people when you speak (a.k.a PC). I can't recall much language I happily used, say 20 years ago, that I'm now not "allowed" to say (obviously you can still say anything you want despite the hype). The only real example I can think of is in the school yard we would call someone "gay" if they were a bit soft or crap at football, that's dropped off since then. The rest, I find, is much as it was. What are these phrases and words people can't say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aashenfox Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Any kind of judgment of another (unless you're a judge, and even then! ) is un-PC these days. For example, if someone really wanted to give me a problem, they could assert that my comments saying that we need more death in the human race are offensive, because when they were 5 their pet hamster died and I'm causing them undue grief. It only takes one nut-jb, and a few of their followers to agree, anbd you have mob hysteria. Recent example, the story about that Chinese student saying a bunch of truths about China, I reckon they'll execute her if she goes back. That's just mad, mad, MAD. The world is going mad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Basically referring to any people or culture by a nickname is considered bad, eg 'Chink' 'Yank' and the obvious for anyone from the Pakistani country. Apparently they don't like it. But, conversely, are more than happy to call us: Limey, Guailo (Chinese for white devil), Gajin (thank you Tokyo drift), Pomme, Brit etc etc. If it wasn't for gingers, we'd have no one to nickname in this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 I thought schools had to sing "baa baa rainbow sheep" these days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Basically referring to any people or culture by a nickname is considered bad, eg 'Chink' 'Yank' and the obvious for anyone from the Pakistani country. Apparently they don't like it. But, conversely, are more than happy to call us: Limey, Guailo (Chinese for white devil), Gajin (thank you Tokyo drift), Pomme, Brit etc etc. If it wasn't for gingers, we'd have no one to nickname in this way. They're exactly the sort of things which would be on the list, but who is it out there pining for the "good old days" when you called someone a chink or paki? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 An interesting point Stu. I'm not exactly pining for them, but do you feel any frustration that as a country we are openly ridiculed by other nationalities in the above mentioned ways, I'm sure (but can't prove it) even in mainstream media? Just because as a country we have a great sense of humour and can laugh at ourselves, its ok for others to laugh too, but we can't laugh at them? Kind of a tongue in cheek ending to this, because in all honesty, yes its annoying, but i don't loose sleep: look at how we're ridiculed at Eurovision. Are we really that sh*t? Hells Naw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Basically referring to any people or culture by a nickname is considered bad, eg 'Chink' 'Yank' and the obvious for anyone from the Pakistani country. Apparently they don't like it. But, conversely, are more than happy to call us: Limey, Guailo (Chinese for white devil), Gajin (thank you Tokyo drift), Pomme, Brit etc etc. If it wasn't for gingers, we'd have no one to nickname in this way. Calling someone from the west Gaijin in Japan is highly offensive, the Japanese know it and anyone that is resident there as a westerner knows it so there is no one rule for us and one for them I would contest. Unfortunately too many movies made in the west do not understand this and use it flippantly. But I think its not PC and in fact completely right that as an advanced society we should not be generalising an entire race/country of people with words which are highly offensive in origin. Sure, good friends will use these words to each other, but its fundamentally wrong to use as a generalisation - not PC, its common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 I'm always curious about the specifics of complaints about considering other people when you speak (a.k.a PC). I can't recall much language I happily used, say 20 years ago, that I'm now not "allowed" to say (obviously you can still say anything you want despite the hype). The only real example I can think of is in the school yard we would call someone "gay" if they were a bit soft or crap at football, that's dropped off since then. The rest, I find, is much as it was. What are these phrases and words people can't say? I am not talking about particular words or language, as you say, those words back then were just as derogatory, its the basis that you cannot speak out on subjects (this one included) surrounding minorities, race or religion without someone assuming you have an agenda, there is nothing wrong with being political correct, but there is plenty wrong with political correctness being used as a banner for people to hide behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Brexit was a classic example - many people used immigration as a reason to vote leave, but the argument was sound i.e. lack of housing, stress on the benefits system etc. However, some hid behind that where their view of it was much more based on some of the derogatory words used above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.