"England's Green and Prejudiced Land" - S. Times Mag, p16

[DonkeyApple]

fido said:

heebeegeetee said:

I think plenty of people are. Some time ago someone obtained a car reg no that spelled out the word 'jihad' and it made national news and indeed there was a thread about it here on PH. People seemed very troubled by it.

I'm not sure if it made the national news, but yes i remember the car parked around the corner from my parents .. near Coombeside, so one assumes the owner lived somewhere nearby (but not Coombe obviously as it was a new Mercedes). But yes, i thought the chap had big balls. Actually, HB this is a terrible example because i saw someone with CRU 54DE it wouldn't mean jack, whereas when i saw J1HAD i just knew someone was going to key that muvver. Like with many things in life it comes down to context.

Edited by fido on Tuesday 10th August 14:56

Context indeed. How would you feel if that plate were on a TVR instead of a minicab?

I think I'd find one amusing and the other would make you think twice until you discovered the owner was just a normal bloke having a laugh.

The plate does conjure up images of Hamza cruising around recruiting simpletons.

[AJS-]

What a bizarre article.

[carmonk]

The Times January 2008 said:

Any drawbacks? It's very white here, a bit twee and dinky, and a little insular. But when it gets too much, there is always the fast train back to London

I went to Tower Hamlets not long since. It was very black there, run-down and miserable, and a bit backwards. But it was OK as if it got too much there was always the fast train back up north.

What? That's racist? How did that happen..?

[Lost_BMW]

heebeegeetee said:

Lost_BMW said:

Anyone who gets genuinely upset by a word relating to events millennia ago needs a reality check.

So why are we bothered by the word 'jihad' then?

I'm not.

Crusade was a term for a set of historical actions many moons ago - if it's used to represent what's happening in the middle east today then it's being taken on as a descriptive term but with a (deliberate) edge, as if the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are crusades and represent the west/whites' desire to eradicate Islam.

They aren't. They don't. They are not new crusades in that historical sense, the reasons are different - whether better or worse is not relevant to the misuse of the term/ taking on of it for political purposes, to exaggerate the reasoning and intent to stir up additional resentment, not that much more should be necessary FFS.

Jihad is a current term though as certain muslim leaders/activists do still declare it as a concept/tool against their supposed enemies, whether govt.s, armies or innocent nations/civilians alike. So the crusades in the true sense are over, jihads may still be current. Maybe that's why some are twitchy about it as it represents a current threat.

Which comes back to the point about the non use of the term(s) for politically correct purposes. Why prohibit words that have a real meaning/place or have become part of colloquial parlance in case someone takes it over to use fresh and exaggerated connotations that inflame => cause sensitivity/offence that shouldn't be. Should we prohibit terms like 'crusade against drugs' and similar? Should we not use words like invasion, occupation, bomb or kill etc. too?

All overly sensitive, non genuine whinging for political ends; it's bks and I've no time for you bleeding heart, 'wear my left wing and/or politically correct credentials on my sleeve' censor types. Worry about more important things for fks sake.


Edited to correct typos.

Edited by Lost_BMW on Wednesday 11th August 10:11

[turbobloke]

Can't remember swathes of complaints about the written word 'jihad' being offensive to pacifists.

Isn't it the act it describes that doesn't go down well at coffee mornings of the WI in Acacia Avenue?

[heebeegeetee]

Lost_BMW said:

heebeegeetee said:

Lost_BMW said:

Anyone who gets genuinely upset by a word relating to events millennia ago needs a reality check.

So why are we bothered by the word 'jihad' then?

I'm not.

Crusade was a term for a set of historical actions many moons ago - if it's used to represent what's happening in the middle east today then it's being taken on as a descriptive term but with a (deliberate) edge, as if the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are crusades and represent the west/whites desire to eradicate Islam.

They aren't. They don't. They are not new crusades in that historical sense, the reasons are different - whether better or worse is not relevant to the misuse of the term/ taking on for political purposes, to exaggerate the reasoning and intent to stir up additional resentment, not that much more should be necessary FFS.

Jihad is a current term though as certain muslim leaders/activists do still declare it as a concept/tool against their supposed enemies, whether govts, armies or innocent nations/civilains alike. So the crusades in the true sense are over, jihads may still be current. Maybe that's why some are twitchy about it as it represents a current threat.

Which comes back to the point about the non use of the term(s) for politically correct purposes. Why prohibit words that have a real meaning/place or have become part of colloquial parlance an in case someone takes it over to use fresh and exaggerated connotations that inflame => cause sensitivity/offence that shouldn't be. Should we prohibit terms like 'crusade against drugs' and similar? Should we not use words like invasion, occupation, bomb or kill etc. too?

All overly sensitive, non genuine whinging for political ends; it's bks and I've no time for you bleeding heart, 'wear my left wing and/or politically correct credentials on my sleeve' censor types. Worry about more important things for fks sake.

I think you just might find that in certain parts of the east, where invaders are still present, that the term 'crusader' is in use and might have a different context to that which you might prefer. lecturing me all about it is rather a waste of time and misses the point.

Prior to the current Iraqi conflict, i heard on R4 about a conversation an English woman had with an Iraqi friend, and the english woman expressed her fears for iraq. "Let them come, let them come", said her friend, "we've been repelling invaders for centuries."

And i think that is how we are seen today, invader, crusader (and yes, that term is still used in the east just as we might use the word jihadi).

I just think that if there's ever gonna be any peace in the world etc etc, we might best start by dropping the attitude that everything we do is right and that we can no wrong. And it might be wise to drop from our everyday language a name used to describe an invader, not least 'cos we're still invading and occupying right up to this very day.

(To save them from themselves etc, yeah i know.)

[DonkeyApple]

Lost_BMW said:

heebeegeetee said:

Lost_BMW said:

Anyone who gets genuinely upset by a word relating to events millennia ago needs a reality check.

So why are we bothered by the word 'jihad' then?

I'm not.

Crusade was a term for a set of historical actions many moons ago - if it's used to represent what's happening in the middle east today then it's being taken on as a descriptive term but with a (deliberate) edge, as if the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are crusades and represent the west/whites desire to eradicate Islam.

They aren't. They don't. They are not new crusades in that historical sense, the reasons are different - whether better or worse is not relevant to the misuse of the term/ taking on for political purposes, to exaggerate the reasoning and intent to stir up additional resentment, not that much more should be necessary FFS.

Jihad is a current term though as certain muslim leaders/activists do still declare it as a concept/tool against their supposed enemies, whether govts, armies or innocent nations/civilains alike. So the crusades in the true sense are over, jihads may still be current. Maybe that's why some are twitchy about it as it represents a current threat.

Which comes back to the point about the non use of the term(s) for politically correct purposes. Why prohibit words that have a real meaning/place or have become part of colloquial parlance an in case someone takes it over to use fresh and exaggerated connotations that inflame => cause sensitivity/offence that shouldn't be. Should we prohibit terms like 'crusade against drugs' and similar? Should we not use words like invasion, occupation, bomb or kill etc. too?

All overly sensitive, non genuine whinging for political ends; it's bks and I've no time for you bleeding heart, 'wear my left wing and/or politically correct credentials on my sleeve' censor types. Worry about more important things for fks sake.

Unfortunately the Crusades are not over. The Crusades were, as always, about land, trade and money. They weren't about the Islamic hoard.

The latter was simply rhetoric from the business controlled Church of Rome to get dumb, illiterate farmers to walk across Europe to help sieze trade routes and land.

Technically, seeing as today's actions are viewed by many to be a route to yet again controlling trade in the ME then it is clearly a Crusade in exactly the same way as the others. The West is less religious so instead of the Church whipping up the fear and hysteria it is the media and their terrorist tales. Same productn same actions, same people. Just 700 years later on.

Jihad, I believe is a term for a holy war. My less clear but elementary understanding of Islaam in the Middle Ages is that their expansion was very much about converting the heathen and this goal was believed from the top ranks down, unlike the Europeans whose top ranks knew it was about wealth.

The Holy Roman Empire and Normans had nothing to fear from muslims hoards in the Middle East as those in North Africa kept that route blocked and Byzantine in the north kept Europe closed. Constantinople was utterly impregnable and Byzantium still a major power.

So the Crusades continue, as does Jihad. It's really all very gay.

[Lost_BMW]

heebeegeetee said:

Lost_BMW said:

heebeegeetee said:

Lost_BMW said:

Protect our language stuff.

So why are we bothered by the word 'jihad' then?

More stuff, frustrated by now.

I think you just might find that in certain parts of the east, where invaders are still present, that the term 'crusader' is in use and might have a different context to that which you might prefer. lecturing me all about it is rather a waste of time and misses the point.


And i think that is how we are seen today, invader, crusader (and yes, that term is still used in the east just as we might use the word jihadi).

I just think that if there's ever gonna be any peace in the world etc etc, we might best start by dropping the attitude that everything we do is right and that we can no wrong. And it might be wise to drop from our everyday language a name used to describe an invader

But that is the point; the word is used, for effect, but the Crusades as such are over so why should we have to self censor our language to prevent the deliberate misuse of it/avoid the sheep becoming sensitive after their leaders' propaganda?

Invasion wasn't the word in question. Of course they've been invaded and occupied. But again, should we stop using the words. My point is that it is the deeds they should worry about not the word(s).

I am not in favour of the Bush Bliar wars whatever their stated or real aims, very far from it, I just resent being told which bits of our language are now OK to use to suit others' political/religious sensitivities.

Oh, and I wasn't lecturing you, I was arguing with you!

[Lost_BMW]

DonkeyApple said:

Unfortunately the Crusades are not over.

Oh yes they are!

The real, historical ones that is . . .

DonkeyApple said:

The Crusades were, as always, about land, trade and money. They weren't about the Islamic hoard.

Same reasons maybe, different official wording (if not for the badge use) so not genuinely a continuation of the 'real' Crusades => why drop the word (original point) etc.

DonkeyApple said:

Technically, seeing as today's actions are viewed by many to be a route to yet again controlling trade in the ME then it is clearly a Crusade in exactly the same way as the others. The West is less religious so instead of the Church whipping up the fear and hysteria it is the media and their terrorist tales. Same productn same actions, same people. Just 700 years later on.

Er, no. I wasn't actually around then so shouldn't be linked to or blamed for the Crusades (which some political leaders would like to do = hate the westerners as they are Crusaders.) I don't like what they did then, don't like or support what they are doing now so feel a bit miffed at being linked to and in some weird time travelling way blamed for Crusades past or present

DonkeyApple said:

So the Crusades continue, as does Jihad. It's really all very gay.

A bit homo-erotic, like they say in 'Generation Kill'?!

[heebeegeetee]

Lost_BMW said:

but the Crusades as such are over

I think you might find that there's a good number of people in that part of the world who think there's one going on right now.

[JagLover]

DonkeyApple said:

Unfortunately the Crusades are not over. The Crusades were, as always, about land, trade and money. They weren't about the Islamic hoard.

Some of the later ones perhaps (particularly the one diverted to sack Constatinople instead). But the first two crusades at the very least were motivated primarily by the wish to reconquer the holy land and were very much about religion. Those who settled there often became wealthy and powerful but that was not the original motivation. Some like Richard "The lionheart" often impoverished themselves or their countries in the process.

[DonkeyApple]

Lost_BMW said:

DonkeyApple said:

Unfortunately the Crusades are not over.

Oh yes they are!

The real, historical ones that is . . .

DonkeyApple said:

The Crusades were, as always, about land, trade and money. They weren't about the Islamic hoard.

Same reasons maybe, different official wording (if not for the badge use) so not genuinely a continuation of the 'real' Crusades => why drop the word (original point) etc.

DonkeyApple said:

Technically, seeing as today's actions are viewed by many to be a route to yet again controlling trade in the ME then it is clearly a Crusade in exactly the same way as the others. The West is less religious so instead of the Church whipping up the fear and hysteria it is the media and their terrorist tales. Same productn same actions, same people. Just 700 years later on.

Er, no. I wasn't actually around then so shouldn't be linked to or blamed for the Crusades (which some political leaders would like to do = hate the westerners as they are Crusaders.) I don't like what they did then, don't like or support what they are doing now so feel a bit miffed at being linked to and in some weird time travelling way blamed for Crusades past or present

DonkeyApple said:

So the Crusades continue, as does Jihad. It's really all very gay.

A bit homo-erotic, like they say in 'Generation Kill'?!

Historically the individual events are, like all singular historical events, over. But the overall action is very much alive and kicking, on both sides.

The singular difference is that the West no longer requires a Papal decree to create public support to achieve it's goal of trade control.

It doesn't matter whether you or I agree with what went on in the past and what is going on in the present. We are Westerners and so damned to eternal association regardless.

There is no way to escape the fkwitted masses. Just like the Prisoner, we are just a number.

[Lost_BMW]

DonkeyApple said:

It doesn't matter whether you or I agree with what went on in the past and what is going on in the present. We are Westerners and so damned to eternal association regardless.

There is no way to escape the fkwitted masses. Just like the Prisoner, we are just a number.

Apart from the politically correct culling of our language that's what worries me!

One of my possible ancestors was a Crusader 800 years ago. I must die!

[Lost_BMW]

heebeegeetee said:

Lost_BMW said:

but the Crusades as such are over

I think you might find that there's a good number of people in that part of the world who think there's one going on right now.

So, should we not use the word any longer?

[heebeegeetee]

Lost_BMW said:

heebeegeetee said:

Lost_BMW said:

but the Crusades as such are over

I think you might find that there's a good number of people in that part of the world who think there's one going on right now.

So, should we not use the word any longer?

Yep, I think it would be best if we didn't.

[Jimbeaux]

Lost_BMW said:

DonkeyApple said:

It doesn't matter whether you or I agree with what went on in the past and what is going on in the present. We are Westerners and so damned to eternal association regardless.

There is no way to escape the fkwitted masses. Just like the Prisoner, we are just a number.

Apart from the politically correct culling of our language that's what worries me!

One of my possible ancestors was a Crusader 800 years ago. I must die!

DOn't feel guilty, Muslims of conquest came West just as often.

[DonkeyApple]

Lost_BMW said:

DonkeyApple said:

It doesn't matter whether you or I agree with what went on in the past and what is going on in the present. We are Westerners and so damned to eternal association regardless.

There is no way to escape the fkwitted masses. Just like the Prisoner, we are just a number.

Apart from the politically correct culling of our language that's what worries me!

One of my possible ancestors was a Crusader 800 years ago. I must die!

Unlikely if you suspect your ancestors at that time were in Britain.

The fact that you must die is not linked to any historic event, let alone the Crusades.

The reason that you must die is because you are a non Believer.

If you are frightened about dying you can convert and become a Follower.

However, seeing as the view that you must die is only held by a tiny number of mentallists who you are never going to meet I shouldn't worry too much.

Best to leave the soiling of pants to the Daily Mail readers and save on laundry costs.

[DonkeyApple]

heebeegeetee said:

Lost_BMW said:

heebeegeetee said:

Lost_BMW said:

but the Crusades as such are over

I think you might find that there's a good number of people in that part of the world who think there's one going on right now.

So, should we not use the word any longer?

Yep, I think it would be best if we didn't.

The more it is used the less value it has.

Think of what the word 'executive' means nowadays

[Lost_BMW]

DonkeyApple said:

It doesn't matter whether you or I agree with what went on in the past and what is going on in the present. We are Westerners and so damned to eternal association regardless.

There is no way to escape the fkwitted masses. Just like the Prisoner, we are just a number.

Apart from the politically correct culling of our language that's what worries me!

One of my possible ancestors was a Crusader 800 years ago. I must die!

DonkeyApple said:

Unlikely if you suspect your ancestors at that time were in Britain.

No they'd moved over to Jerusalem for a while. Didn't stay too long but came back with lots of goodies.

What I really meant is that I must die as I am a westerner and westerners are crusaders, natch.

DonkeyApple said:

The fact that you must die is not linked to any historic event, let alone the Crusades.

The reason that you must die is because you are a non Believer.

If you are frightened about dying you can convert and become a Follower.

Do you think they'd let me, I don't have a beard. If I did join and died in the service of the beloved prophet would I, as a latecomer, still get to nail 21 virgins? Or would I need to do something bad good like shooting up an aid convoy or bombing a train, plane, market place or mosque (of the right flavour of course).

DonkeyApple said:

However, seeing as the view that you must die is only held by a tiny number of mentallists who you are never going to meet I shouldn't worry too much.

Now it might be relatively small in proportional terms but I doubt whether in real numbers it's all that small, fewer who'd be willing to do anything about it for sure but I'd guess there's a fair few who are being told to hate the kafir. Maybe my best bet is to avoid places where the type might predominate like Saudi Arabia or Somalia or Iraq or Oldham.

Edited by Lost_BMW on Wednesday 11th August 20:55

[DonkeyApple]

Lost_BMW said:

DonkeyApple said:

It doesn't matter whether you or I agree with what went on in the past and what is going on in the present. We are Westerners and so damned to eternal association regardless.

There is no way to escape the fkwitted masses. Just like the Prisoner, we are just a number.

Apart from the politically correct culling of our language that's what worries me!

One of my possible ancestors was a Crusader 800 years ago. I must die!

DonkeyApple said:

Unlikely if you suspect your ancestors at that time were in Britain.

No they'd moved over to Jerusalem for a while. Didn't stay too long but came back with lots of goodies.

What I really meant is that I must die as I am a westerner and westerners are crusaders, natch.

DonkeyApple said:

The fact that you must die is not linked to any historic event, let alone the Crusades.

The reason that you must die is because you are a non Believer.

If you are frightened about dying you can convert and become a Follower.

Do you think they'd let me, I don't have a beard. If I did join and died in the service of the beloved prophet would I, as a latecomer, still get to nail 21 virgins? Or would I need to do something bad good like shooting up an aid convoy or bombing a train, plane, market place or mosque (of the right flavour of course).

DonkeyApple said:

However, seeing as the view that you must die is only held by a tiny number of mentallists who you are never going to meet I shouldn't worry too much.

Now it might be relatively small in proportional terms but I doubt whether in real numbers it's all that small, fewer who'd be willing to do anything about it for sure but I'd guess there's a fair few who are being told to hate the kafir. Maybe my best bet is to avoid places where the type might predominate like Saudi Arabia or Somalia or Iraq or Oldham.

Edited by Lost_BMW on Wednesday 11th August 20:55

Every cloud has a silver lining. If you grew a beard you would be able to drive a Caterham.

Re the virgins, I'm not sure how many you would be allowed but the real problem will be finding them.