Paris shooting and casualties ?
Discussion
The company in question, if their statement is true, simply doesn't want to show political or religious adverts of any kind.
They aren't showing this CoE advert, they aren't showing one suggesting people convert to Islam, they aren't showing a Labour or Conservative party broadcast, they simply choose not to get involved.
What is wrong with that?
They aren't showing this CoE advert, they aren't showing one suggesting people convert to Islam, they aren't showing a Labour or Conservative party broadcast, they simply choose not to get involved.
What is wrong with that?
So, if not Assad - then is the choice of preference Sunni or Shia?
By not going with Assad the 'Alawite' option is off the table, and the concept of 'democratic secularism' is so fanciful and far from reality as to not be in the running.
I do smile at CMD saying that he needs to make the case for bombing ISIL in Syria 'more passionately'. All the doofus needs to do is nail the logic, not the passion.
BTW the 2013 vote which he lost was about bombing Assad's governmental forces in Syria, not ISIL, due to the government using chemical weapons in Damacus. I am sure that if the vote had been different, the Khalifa would be even larger now.
By not going with Assad the 'Alawite' option is off the table, and the concept of 'democratic secularism' is so fanciful and far from reality as to not be in the running.
I do smile at CMD saying that he needs to make the case for bombing ISIL in Syria 'more passionately'. All the doofus needs to do is nail the logic, not the passion.
BTW the 2013 vote which he lost was about bombing Assad's governmental forces in Syria, not ISIL, due to the government using chemical weapons in Damacus. I am sure that if the vote had been different, the Khalifa would be even larger now.
V6Pushfit said:
RYH64E said:
Additionally, name an example where the use of overwhelming force has actually worked, the Russians tried it in Afghanistan, the US tried it in Iraq and Afghanistan, it hasn't worked before so why should it work this time? As someone once said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing year after year and expecting different results.
For starters:Italy 1943
Germany 1944
Japan 1945
The only one that bears any resemblance is Japan, but that was restricted to one country by definition. A massive (nuclear) show of force, rewriting the constitution and occupying the country was no small undertaking.
We simply don't have the resources to occupy and democratise the Arab world, even if we had 1% of the will. The Arab world for it's part appears to have only a very limited desire to change itself.
And we still have a huge fifth column of radical Islamists in every western city.
RYH is exactly right. We are repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.
Troubleatmill said:
dandarez said:
Breadvan72 said:
My favourite non PC joke is -
Q: "Why are there no Muslims in Star Trek?"
A: "Because it's set in the future."
No religion at all, really. In Star Wars, meanwhile, the sensible and pragmatic Empire has to contend with a bunch of religious nutters who do magic, are very violent, and think it's OK to have slaves and so on.
I see the CoE 'The Lord's Prayer' advert to be played before Star Wars in cinemas has been banned. It, however, passed the board of censorship. It is the cinemas that have banned it. Now, tell me what company turns down a bag full of cash simply because they (cinemas) say it 'might offend some cinema goers'. Q: "Why are there no Muslims in Star Trek?"
A: "Because it's set in the future."
No religion at all, really. In Star Wars, meanwhile, the sensible and pragmatic Empire has to contend with a bunch of religious nutters who do magic, are very violent, and think it's OK to have slaves and so on.
Just watched the advert. Offensive? OFFS!
What a ridiculous PC country we now live in.
They turned down a bag full of money because of one word that engulfs the pc world and its idiots.
FEAR
Kept to yourself and not rammed down someone else's throat.
If that advert is shown....
The next week the Scientolosts will be running adverts
And the week after - the remaining fruit loop religions of the world...
Sod the cash for the adverts.... punters just won't go.
And cinema chains expose themselves to lawsuits because they decline to run an advert for a particular brand of sky fairy.
Breadvan72 said:
davepoth said:
...
The problems we have within the west can't be easily fixed without repealing human rights legislation, which is problematic for all kinds of reasons.
Er, whut? We should give up the right to a fair trial and a free press and so on just because of some beardy nutters? The problems we have within the west can't be easily fixed without repealing human rights legislation, which is problematic for all kinds of reasons.
dandarez said:
Missing the point.
Partly and not partly. I appreciate that people are religious and I suggest they go to the places where such people can knock their socks off with the stuff. I am offended that the BBC are using a picture of kids in this story, indoctrination basically. Does not matter what version of god botherer you are, there are places you can go and get your fill. Personally I do not want it at the start of some showing of a film that is fiction. Though there is a bit of irony there.davepoth said:
No, we shouldn't. That's my point. But because of those laws (I'm thinking of the issues we had getting rid of Abu Hamza) it really isn't feasible for us to fix the issue here while Daesh is still active in their "Caliphate".
This seems back to front. Surely it's impossible (and nonsensical) for us to go running around the desert fix the Caliphate while nurturing our very own Islamist insurgents at home.AJS- said:
davepoth said:
No, we shouldn't. That's my point. But because of those laws (I'm thinking of the issues we had getting rid of Abu Hamza) it really isn't feasible for us to fix the issue here while Daesh is still active in their "Caliphate".
This seems back to front. Surely it's impossible (and nonsensical) for us to go running around the desert fix the Caliphate while nurturing our very own Islamist insurgents at home.AJS- said:
davepoth said:
No, we shouldn't. That's my point. But because of those laws (I'm thinking of the issues we had getting rid of Abu Hamza) it really isn't feasible for us to fix the issue here while Daesh is still active in their "Caliphate".
This seems back to front. Surely it's impossible (and nonsensical) for us to go running around the desert fix the Caliphate while nurturing our very own Islamist insurgents at home.This lofty equating of Islam with 'all religions' is a big mistake. It's not Christians or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus slaughtering innocent civilians in the name of their creed, it's overwhelmingly Islamists.
Not all false beliefs are created equal. A false belief that the moon is made of cheese is likely to be more benign than a false belief that you are under a divine obligation to cleanse the world of non-believers. Yes you can spend ages arguing with the moon made of cheese guy and win the argument, but it's all for nought of the angel of death gets there in the interim.
If when confronted with it, you dismiss anything and everything that doesn't conform with your own outlook as being false and contemptible then you're well on the way to your own brand of intolerant zealotry. And perhaps worse you're blindsiding yourself to the very specific dangers which that threat poses. I don't know of anyone who was killed for not accepting that the moon was made of cheese.
The notion that everyone will ultimately yield to your superior ideas when they have enough rational argument and consumer goods is a foolish conceit. It's the notion summed up so well by the line in Full Metal Jacket 'Inside every gook there's an American waiting to get out.' It's false. Blind belief can be a hugely powerful motivator for people who aren't rational to start with.
This is why religion is largely accorded some respect which is greater than the merits of it's arguments alone. It's not just some theory people have dreamed up in a vacuum. It's deeply ingrained over generations of their family and their community, and it deals with profound questions of life and death, existence and morality.
If large numbers of people are prepared to kill and be killed for the same cause, it lends it no legitimacy to examine that cause more closely. When you do that with Islam a quiet different picture emerges from the one we as a society seem to be casually assuming.
Not all false beliefs are created equal. A false belief that the moon is made of cheese is likely to be more benign than a false belief that you are under a divine obligation to cleanse the world of non-believers. Yes you can spend ages arguing with the moon made of cheese guy and win the argument, but it's all for nought of the angel of death gets there in the interim.
If when confronted with it, you dismiss anything and everything that doesn't conform with your own outlook as being false and contemptible then you're well on the way to your own brand of intolerant zealotry. And perhaps worse you're blindsiding yourself to the very specific dangers which that threat poses. I don't know of anyone who was killed for not accepting that the moon was made of cheese.
The notion that everyone will ultimately yield to your superior ideas when they have enough rational argument and consumer goods is a foolish conceit. It's the notion summed up so well by the line in Full Metal Jacket 'Inside every gook there's an American waiting to get out.' It's false. Blind belief can be a hugely powerful motivator for people who aren't rational to start with.
This is why religion is largely accorded some respect which is greater than the merits of it's arguments alone. It's not just some theory people have dreamed up in a vacuum. It's deeply ingrained over generations of their family and their community, and it deals with profound questions of life and death, existence and morality.
If large numbers of people are prepared to kill and be killed for the same cause, it lends it no legitimacy to examine that cause more closely. When you do that with Islam a quiet different picture emerges from the one we as a society seem to be casually assuming.
. Give them a medal. If not, give them one of these...
AJS- said:
This lofty equating of Islam with 'all religions' is a big mistake. It's not Christians or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus slaughtering innocent civilians in the name of their creed, it's overwhelmingly Islamists.
And there's the central dilemma. The universal declaration of human rights provides for freedom of religion, and unless you are willing to remove the UK from that treaty (and the UN as a result) then there's not a whole lot that can be done about dealing with Islam within the UK. Dave
It's not necessarily about handling Islam "more harshly" and I would hate to see a special set of laws that apply only to Muslims, or otherwise create a second tier of citizenship.
I know it will never appeal to anyone looking for a 'practical answer' about who to bomb and kill and what new powers to give special forces, but I think what we need to do first and foremost is define what we are as a civilisation. What do we stand for?
If that's peaceful coexistence on an equal basis, permanently. Free speech and no resorting to violence, however offensive that speech may be, and the rejection of sharia law as something desirable for this country, then fine. You have a basis on which to deal with extremists.
It's not necessarily about handling Islam "more harshly" and I would hate to see a special set of laws that apply only to Muslims, or otherwise create a second tier of citizenship.
I know it will never appeal to anyone looking for a 'practical answer' about who to bomb and kill and what new powers to give special forces, but I think what we need to do first and foremost is define what we are as a civilisation. What do we stand for?
If that's peaceful coexistence on an equal basis, permanently. Free speech and no resorting to violence, however offensive that speech may be, and the rejection of sharia law as something desirable for this country, then fine. You have a basis on which to deal with extremists.
AJS- said:
Dave
It's not necessarily about handling Islam "more harshly" and I would hate to see a special set of laws that apply only to Muslims or otherwise create a second tier of citizenship.
I know it will never appeal to anyone looking for a 'practical answer' about who to bomb and kill and what new powers to give special forces, but I think what we need to do first and foremost is define what we are as a civilisation. What do we stand for?
If that's peaceful coexistence on an equal basis, permanently. Free speech and no resorting to violence, however offensive that speech may be, and the rejection of sharia law as something desirable for this country, then fine. You have a basis on which to deal with extremists.
Surely rejection of Sharia Law involves "handling" a particular religion "more harshly"? Do we really need to reject Halakhah, Nishkam Sewa and the Ten Commandments (by way of examples) to be seen to be equal?It's not necessarily about handling Islam "more harshly" and I would hate to see a special set of laws that apply only to Muslims or otherwise create a second tier of citizenship.
I know it will never appeal to anyone looking for a 'practical answer' about who to bomb and kill and what new powers to give special forces, but I think what we need to do first and foremost is define what we are as a civilisation. What do we stand for?
If that's peaceful coexistence on an equal basis, permanently. Free speech and no resorting to violence, however offensive that speech may be, and the rejection of sharia law as something desirable for this country, then fine. You have a basis on which to deal with extremists.
ETA unless you meant something different?
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 22 November 18:28
AJS- said:
Dave
I think what we need to do first and foremost is define what we are as a civilisation. What do we stand for?
We did that in 1948.I think what we need to do first and foremost is define what we are as a civilisation. What do we stand for?
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-r...
Changing that is a very big step.
davepoth said:
AJS- said:
Dave
I think what we need to do first and foremost is define what we are as a civilisation. What do we stand for?
We did that in 1948.I think what we need to do first and foremost is define what we are as a civilisation. What do we stand for?
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-r...
Changing that is a very big step.
turbobloke said:
AJS- said:
Dave
It's not necessarily about handling Islam "more harshly" and I would hate to see a special set of laws that apply only to Muslims or otherwise create a second tier of citizenship.
I know it will never appeal to anyone looking for a 'practical answer' about who to bomb and kill and what new powers to give special forces, but I think what we need to do first and foremost is define what we are as a civilisation. What do we stand for?
If that's peaceful coexistence on an equal basis, permanently. Free speech and no resorting to violence, however offensive that speech may be, and the rejection of sharia law as something desirable for this country, then fine. You have a basis on which to deal with extremists.
Surely rejection of Sharia Law involves "handling" a particular religion "more harshly"? Do we really need to reject Halakhah, Nishkam Sewa and the Ten Commandments (by way of examples) to be seen to be equal?It's not necessarily about handling Islam "more harshly" and I would hate to see a special set of laws that apply only to Muslims or otherwise create a second tier of citizenship.
I know it will never appeal to anyone looking for a 'practical answer' about who to bomb and kill and what new powers to give special forces, but I think what we need to do first and foremost is define what we are as a civilisation. What do we stand for?
If that's peaceful coexistence on an equal basis, permanently. Free speech and no resorting to violence, however offensive that speech may be, and the rejection of sharia law as something desirable for this country, then fine. You have a basis on which to deal with extremists.
ETA unless you meant something different?
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 22 November 18:28
A better way to word it would be accepting that the democratic secular law of the land takes precedence over any religious law.
I guess my 'Islamophobia' got ahead of me. For some reason Jews, Sikhs and Calvinists slipped my mind.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff