New York mosque

[jucyberry]

So you have by  that met only lads who have been born over here, who are western in deed and outlook...Seems to me they are dammed either way..Be western as kids born here undoubtedly are and they are wrong... keep all the beliefs and doctrines and then too they are wrong..  

What is then the right way?

How many here would say they were Cof E or Catholic.. And how many actually practice that faith?

[Barmby Rover]

MrFrost wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

You have to take into consideration of those involved in 9/11.

No you don't. That much was made perfectly clear when many of the families requested that the WTC site be turned into a park-cum-shrine, but they were ignored and a massive monument to American Capitalism was built instead.

Yes you do.
There is that much public pressure regarding this, that to build it would be a massive two's up to New Yorkers.

Would you have East Riding Sacks open up office in the Keepmoat Stadium?[/quote]

If Uncle Ken is not involved anymore (he isn't by the way, I live with some of the company's employees) bring it on so long as they pump a million into Rovers. It isn't the company that is bad, just the one person in it. Exactly the point that President Obama makes, don't blame a whole religion for the evil that a few do. I would hate to be condemned as a Rovers fan because we have some bigots amongst us.

[MrFrost]

jucyberry wrote:

So you have by  that met only lads who have been born over here, who are western in deed and outlook...Seems to me they are dammed either way..Be western as kids born here undoubtedly are and they are wrong... keep all the beliefs and doctrines and then too they are wrong..  

What is then the right way?

How many here would say they were Cof E or Catholic.. And how many actually practice that faith?

The right way would be to practice what you belief in or ditch it and live how the fcuk you want.

I'll give you an example. I worked with a muslim lad. He would drink, gamble, visit strip bars, yet when it came to work he would invent religious fistivals to get time off work. When the firm realised something wasn't right and questioned him about it, he played the race card, got the union involved etc etc.

I met another who would mock the terrorist attacks in New York and London.

It is the younger generation, i'll grant you that. Trying to live the western way, but still use their religion to benefit themselves.

[Barmby Rover]

MrFrost wrote:

jucyberry wrote:

So you have by  that met only lads who have been born over here, who are western in deed and outlook...Seems to me they are dammed either way..Be western as kids born here undoubtedly are and they are wrong... keep all the beliefs and doctrines and then too they are wrong..  

What is then the right way?

How many here would say they were Cof E or Catholic.. And how many actually practice that faith?

The right way would be to practice what you belief in or ditch it and live how the fcuk you want.

I'll give you an example. I worked with a muslim lad. He would drink, gamble, visit strip bars, yet when it came to work he would invent religious fistivals to get time off work. When the firm realised something wasn't right and questioned him about it, he played the race card, got the union involved etc etc.

I met another who would mock the terrorist attacks in New York and London.

It is the younger generation, i'll grant you that. Trying to live the western way, but still use their religion to benefit themselves.

....and of course they would use gross generalisations about millions of people from having met two people! Nasty folks those Muslims.

[Savvy]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Savvy wrote:

I couldn't draw any other conclusion from your comment that building the mosque there was \"insensitive\". The only possible conclusion was that you believe the whole muslim faith should be apologetic for 9/11.

By the way, on the logic that the mosque there would be \"insensitive\", what's your take on the presence of St Mary's Catholic Church just round the corner from the Arndale Centre in Manchester? Or the presence of an Anglican church in Dresden? Or the evangelical Amercian church in Hiroshima?

Surely you can't be that fcuking thick to reach the conclusion that by labelling the building of a mosque in such an area I am also blaming the whole muslim conclusion?

Sorry spadge. I clearly AM that thick. I tried and I tried and I tried, but I couldn't see any other explanation. Please do me a favour and explain to me what you meant, and I PROMISE I won't make the same mistake again.

And in all honesty, the analogies were there to clarify the issue, not to cloud it. Again, I've clearly fallen well short of the standards you set, so please explain to me why the examples I gave are not 100% exact analogies of the WTC Mosque.

Not really, just the usual diatribe that you manage to come up with full of gapping holes and sweeping generalisations, I'm surprised we haven't had the correlation co-efficient regarding terrorist bombings and the building of mosques by now. Notice you managed to dodge the last part of my post though eh?

[MrFrost]

Barmby Rover wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

jucyberry wrote:

So you have by  that met only lads who have been born over here, who are western in deed and outlook...Seems to me they are dammed either way..Be western as kids born here undoubtedly are and they are wrong... keep all the beliefs and doctrines and then too they are wrong..  

What is then the right way?

How many here would say they were Cof E or Catholic.. And how many actually practice that faith?

The right way would be to practice what you belief in or ditch it and live how the fcuk you want.

I'll give you an example. I worked with a muslim lad. He would drink, gamble, visit strip bars, yet when it came to work he would invent religious fistivals to get time off work. When the firm realised something wasn't right and questioned him about it, he played the race card, got the union involved etc etc.

I met another who would mock the terrorist attacks in New York and London.

It is the younger generation, i'll grant you that. Trying to live the western way, but still use their religion to benefit themselves.

....and of course they would use gross generalisations about millions of people from having met two people! Nasty folks those Muslims.

If you actually read what I put, i've based my opinions on my own experiences. I also stated that i'm sure there are many decent muslim's out there, i've just yet to encounter one that respects the value's that they are meant to live by, which they seem intent on bringing to the western world.

At the end of the day, there has never been a peace with the east, and we've been at war with other religions for centuries. There will never be a peace, ever. To think we can all co exist in some kind of pacifistic ecstacy is just naive.

[Snods Shinpad 2]

MrFrost wrote:

There will never be a peace, ever. To think we can all co exist in some kind of pacifistic ecstacy is just naive.

So, let's cut to the chase then Frosty.

What do you propose?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Savvy wrote:

I couldn't draw any other conclusion from your comment that building the mosque there was \"insensitive\". The only possible conclusion was that you believe the whole muslim faith should be apologetic for 9/11.

By the way, on the logic that the mosque there would be \"insensitive\", what's your take on the presence of St Mary's Catholic Church just round the corner from the Arndale Centre in Manchester? Or the presence of an Anglican church in Dresden? Or the evangelical Amercian church in Hiroshima?

Surely you can't be that fcuking thick to reach the conclusion that by labelling the building of a mosque in such an area I am also blaming the whole muslim conclusion?

Sorry spadge. I clearly AM that thick. I tried and I tried and I tried, but I couldn't see any other explanation. Please do me a favour and explain to me what you meant, and I PROMISE I won't make the same mistake again.

And in all honesty, the analogies were there to clarify the issue, not to cloud it. Again, I've clearly fallen well short of the standards you set, so please explain to me why the examples I gave are not 100% exact analogies of the WTC Mosque.

Not really, just the usual diatribe that you manage to come up with full of gapping holes and sweeping generalisations, I'm surprised we haven't had the correlation co-efficient regarding terrorist bombings and the building of mosques by now.

Well, as explantaions go, that has left me stumped. I guess I'll have to stick by my original guess that you think Islam as a whole is responsible for 9/11, whilst for some unfathomable reason, Roman Catholicism as a whole was not responsible for the Manchester bombing, the Anglican Church wasn't responsible for Dresden and American Christianity was not responsible for Hiroshima.

Notice you managed to dodge the last part of my post though eh?

Ahh...the debating tactic of choice of those who are incapable of conceiving that someone can suffer and not automatically lash out indiscriminately.

Of course I can't say what I would do because I haven't been in that situation. Which automatically makes that a f**king stupid question.

However, there are manifold examples of people who have been grievously wronged and have looked for reconcilliation rather than vendetta. Go and read about Colin Parry and Jim Swire. I'd like to think I might be as strong as they were in similar circumstances. They are the true heroes, not the ones who look for reasons to continue the vendetta.

[MrFrost]

Snods Shinpad 2 wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

There will never be a peace, ever. To think we can all co exist in some kind of pacifistic ecstacy is just naive.

So, let's cut to the chase then Frosty.

What do you propose?

Press the button.

[BillyStubbsTears]

MrFrost wrote:

Snods Shinpad 2 wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

There will never be a peace, ever. To think we can all co exist in some kind of pacifistic ecstacy is just naive.

So, let's cut to the chase then Frosty.

What do you propose?

Press the button.

Hey. I saw you on Satdi at the Keepmoat.

[BobG]

Gosh....... Sometimes I have a huge amount of trouble in understanding just how some people - I don't mean just on here - can reach the conclusions they do. But I suppose generalising from the particular and a lack of depth can lead just about anywhere. Occasionally, wars do bring benefits. There was an obvious example 70 years ago. But even that war, a righteous war if ever there was one, brought Britain, and its allies several steps closer to that which they were trying to expunge. It wasn't just Dresden - a really hideous crime. There's plenty of other examples of how conflict corrupts those with even the best of motives. I'll give just one example: the wilful ignoring of conclusive evidence of the existance of Treblinka, Maidenek, Dachau and so on. I've been to Dachau. There's not that much there really: but the place kills you even now. And we ignored it. Actually, I'll give you another example: Winston Churchill personally arranged for the Lusitania to be in a position to be torpedoed in 1915. That wasn't a 'righteous' war. It was simply a war. Yet to win it, Churchill resorted to sacrificing several hundred American and other lives, ruined the reputation of the Captain and lied, consistently, about it for 50 years. Conflict almost never solves anything. How was Northern Ireland 'solved'? By fighting? Was it f**k! Although I am not a Christian, christian values are those which win the peace.

Build the bloody mosque. And be glad about it. But the Yanks will be Yanks won't they? Intolerant, short sighted, vicious and vacuous. Bush could have changed the world for the better for ever in the weeks after 9/11. But then, he was an American.

BobG

[Sandy Lane]

BobG wrote:

Gosh....... Sometimes I have a huge amount of trouble in understanding just how some people - I don't mean just on here - can reach the conclusions they do. But I suppose generalising from the particular and a lack of depth can lead just about anywhere. Occasionally, wars do bring benefits. There was an obvious example 70 years ago. But even that war, a righteous war if ever there was one, brought Britain, and its allies several steps closer to that which they were trying to expunge. It wasn't just Dresden - a really hideous crime. There's plenty of other examples of how conflict corrupts those with even the best of motives. I'll give just one example: the wilful ignoring of conclusive evidence of the existance of Treblinka, Maidenek, Dachau and so on. I've been to Dachau. There's not that much there really: but the place kills you even now. And we ignored it. Actually, I'll give you another example: Winston Churchill personally arranged for the Lusitania to be in a position to be torpedoed in 1915. That wasn't a 'righteous' war. It was simply a war. Yet to win it, Churchill resorted to sacrificing several hundred American and other lives, ruined the reputation of the Captain and lied, consistently, about it for 50 years. Conflict almost never solves anything. How was Northern Ireland 'solved'? By fighting? Was it fcuk! Although I am not a Christian, christian values are those which win the peace.

Build the bloody mosque. And be glad about it. But the Yanks will be Yanks won't they? Intolerant, short sighted, vicious and vacuous. Bush could have changed the world for the better for ever in the weeks after 9/11. But then, he was an American.

BobG

Nice generalization there Bob.  Perhaps you're being as ignorant, viscous, and vacuous as others who think that all Muslims are terrorists!   Happily most Americans I know are thoughtful, intelligent people who know that Bush was fighting the wars of his father and family.  He lied and led us into a state where he manged to confuse Bin Laden with Saddam's involvement with 9\\11. The Bin Ladens involvement with Bush's family's oil company was to be protected for his gain.  Most people I know despise him for this.  If you want to qualify your remarks above to Bush, be my guest.

[donnyjay]

How dare they want to build a mosque and cultural centre on the hallowed premises of the Burlington coat factory.

Whatever next? A synagogue at the headquarters of Abercrombie & Finch?

There's only one way to defeat the intolerance and bigotry of the terrorists and that's with intolerance and bigotry.

I think we should let em build it then fly a 747 into the fecker.

I work with a couple of Muslims and they come across as polite and courteous which is obviously what they want me to think of them. The sneaky bas**rds.

[Nudga]

Muslims eh, the only race that can get away with wearing shitty pyjamas out doors any time of day.

[donnyjay]

Nudga wrote:

Muslims eh, the only race that can get away with wearing shitty pyjamas out doors any time of day.

In Barnsley it's socially acceptable for folk to do a big Saturday shop in their slippers. Does that count?  

[Savvy]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Savvy wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Savvy wrote:

I couldn't draw any other conclusion from your comment that building the mosque there was \"insensitive\". The only possible conclusion was that you believe the whole muslim faith should be apologetic for 9/11.

By the way, on the logic that the mosque there would be \"insensitive\", what's your take on the presence of St Mary's Catholic Church just round the corner from the Arndale Centre in Manchester? Or the presence of an Anglican church in Dresden? Or the evangelical Amercian church in Hiroshima?

Surely you can't be that fcuking thick to reach the conclusion that by labelling the building of a mosque in such an area I am also blaming the whole muslim conclusion?

Sorry spadge. I clearly AM that thick. I tried and I tried and I tried, but I couldn't see any other explanation. Please do me a favour and explain to me what you meant, and I PROMISE I won't make the same mistake again.

And in all honesty, the analogies were there to clarify the issue, not to cloud it. Again, I've clearly fallen well short of the standards you set, so please explain to me why the examples I gave are not 100% exact analogies of the WTC Mosque.

Not really, just the usual diatribe that you manage to come up with full of gapping holes and sweeping generalisations, I'm surprised we haven't had the correlation co-efficient regarding terrorist bombings and the building of mosques by now.

Well, as explantaions go, that has left me stumped. I guess I'll have to stick by my original guess that you think Islam as a whole is responsible for 9/11, whilst for some unfathomable reason, Roman Catholicism as a whole was not responsible for the Manchester bombing, the Anglican Church wasn't responsible for Dresden and American Christianity was not responsible for Hiroshima.

Notice you managed to dodge the last part of my post though eh?

Ahh...the debating tactic of choice of those who are incapable of conceiving that someone can suffer and not automatically lash out indiscriminately.

Of course I can't say what I would do because I haven't been in that situation. Which automatically makes that a fcuking stupid question.

However, there are manifold examples of people who have been grievously wronged and have looked for reconcilliation rather than vendetta. Go and read about Colin Parry and Jim Swire. I'd like to think I might be as strong as they were in similar circumstances. They are the true heroes, not the ones who look for reasons to continue the vendetta.

Very disappointing considering your the resident \"statto\", never normally shine in exploring the \"null hypothesis\". I dont think you've been a football manager but managed to wax lyrically about how managers are missing out with Heffernan. I dont think you've ever been chancellor of the exchequer but you had plenty to say about how these economists had made a b*llocks of things, or is it that it doesn't suit your arguement on this occasion?

As for reading about Colin Parry and Jim Swire, I've walked a mile in their shoes so I don't need to draw anything from their own experiences Spadge!

The only conclusion I can come to is that you don't believe that the perpetrators of this atrocity should be brought to book for their actions? Lets just turn the other cheek and pretend it didnt happen eh?

Easy for you to say Cocker, but I bet you would have a different opinion had you have had someone close to you involved in the tragedy that was 9/11.

What was the Muslim response to Rushdie eh? Death threats, thats the type of people your dealing with.  Not all Muslims are the same, it would be plain stupid to think so but  you don't try and rationalise with people who aren't reasonable. The reasonable ones should take steps to distance themselves from the fanatics and dilute their power if they aren't representative of their views. I was never a Thatcher fan, but her response to the IRA was spot on...stop the Terrorist acts, and then we'll talk.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Savvy wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Savvy wrote:

I couldn't draw any other conclusion from your comment that building the mosque there was \"insensitive\". The only possible conclusion was that you believe the whole muslim faith should be apologetic for 9/11.

By the way, on the logic that the mosque there would be \"insensitive\", what's your take on the presence of St Mary's Catholic Church just round the corner from the Arndale Centre in Manchester? Or the presence of an Anglican church in Dresden? Or the evangelical Amercian church in Hiroshima?

Surely you can't be that fcuking thick to reach the conclusion that by labelling the building of a mosque in such an area I am also blaming the whole muslim conclusion?

Sorry spadge. I clearly AM that thick. I tried and I tried and I tried, but I couldn't see any other explanation. Please do me a favour and explain to me what you meant, and I PROMISE I won't make the same mistake again.

And in all honesty, the analogies were there to clarify the issue, not to cloud it. Again, I've clearly fallen well short of the standards you set, so please explain to me why the examples I gave are not 100% exact analogies of the WTC Mosque.

Not really, just the usual diatribe that you manage to come up with full of gapping holes and sweeping generalisations, I'm surprised we haven't had the correlation co-efficient regarding terrorist bombings and the building of mosques by now.

Well, as explantaions go, that has left me stumped. I guess I'll have to stick by my original guess that you think Islam as a whole is responsible for 9/11, whilst for some unfathomable reason, Roman Catholicism as a whole was not responsible for the Manchester bombing, the Anglican Church wasn't responsible for Dresden and American Christianity was not responsible for Hiroshima.

Notice you managed to dodge the last part of my post though eh?

Ahh...the debating tactic of choice of those who are incapable of conceiving that someone can suffer and not automatically lash out indiscriminately.

Of course I can't say what I would do because I haven't been in that situation. Which automatically makes that a fcuking stupid question.

However, there are manifold examples of people who have been grievously wronged and have looked for reconcilliation rather than vendetta. Go and read about Colin Parry and Jim Swire. I'd like to think I might be as strong as they were in similar circumstances. They are the true heroes, not the ones who look for reasons to continue the vendetta.

Very disappointing considering your the resident \"statto\", never normally shine in exploring the \"null hypothesis\". I dont think you've been a football manager but managed to wax lyrically about how managers are missing out with Heffernan. I dont think you've ever been chancellor of the exchequer but you had plenty to say about how these economists had made a b*llocks of things, or is it that it doesn't suit your arguement on this occasion?

As for reading about Colin Parry and Jim Swire, I've walked a mile in their shoes so I don't need to draw anything from their own experiences Spadge!

The only conclusion I can come to is that you don't believe that the perpetrators of this atrocity should be brought to book for their actions? Lets just turn the other cheek and pretend it didnt happen eh?

Easy for you to say Cocker, but I bet you would have a different opinion had you have had someone close to you involved in the tragedy that was 9/11.

What was the Muslim response to Rushdie eh? Death threats, thats the type of people your dealing with.  Not all Muslims are the same, it would be plain stupid to think so but  you don't try and rationalise with people who aren't reasonable. The reasonable ones should take steps to distance themselves from the fanatics and dilute their power if they aren't representative of their views. I was never a Thatcher fan, but her response to the IRA was spot on...stop the Terrorist acts, and then we'll talk.

I'm not really sure I could possibly know where to begin with that lot. Other than to say that my heartfelt sympathy goes out to you if you've walked a mile anywhere remotely close to Colin Parry. And I mean that.

The rest of the post I'm afraid is devoid of anything remotely resembling a cogent argument. I do NOT believe that we should turn the other cheek to the perpetrators of 9/11. I do NOT believe that they should not be brought to justice. What I passionately DO believe is that lashing out at Islam in general is both morally wrong and pragmatically counter-productive.

In the long run, the ONLY way that the West will win is by moral example. We have to show that we are a superior and more attractive culture to the one that the Moslem fundamentalists would foist on people. If the West villifies the whole of Islam, it will act only as a recruiting seargant for Al Qaeda. In which case, you'd better be prepared for permanent guerilla war and the erosion of the freedoms that we hold so dear.

As I said in a previous post, simply taking self-interest into account it'f f**king crazt to simply lash out at a convenient victim. America's mad dash into Iraq (which had precisely f**k-all to do qith 9/11, but was conflated with the WTC atrocity in Bush's America at the time) and has led to the deaths of far more innocent Americans than died on 9/11.

As for Thatcher, you are so far off the mark it beggars belief. Go back and look at the timelines. The talking started in earnest when the IRA got clever in their attacks. While they were just murdering working class lads and lasses in Antrim, noi-one in this country gave a flying f**k. It was when they got clever and started hitting the economy in London that the talks started seriously. After the Bishopsgate bomb, the Brent fly-over bomb, the Hammersmith Bridge bomb, the countless hoaxes and alerts shutting down big London stations and the Underground network.

You think the talks started because the IRA put their hands up and surrendered? How quaint an impression. The talks started because the IRA demonstarted that they could drive into the City of london and do £2billion worth of damage to the London economy. The Bishopsgate bombing happened in April 1993. By December 1993, after holding secret talks with the IRA, the British Government announced that it had \"no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland\"  - i.e. they admitted FOR THE FIRST TIME that Northern Ireland was not seen as a remnant of Empire to be clung onto. By April 1994, in response to this, the IRA called a ceasefire.

What that ACTUALLY was, was a sensible, realistic and pragmatic approach on both sides. The British knew that they couldn't defeat the IRA militarily without full scale invasion and horrific casulaties. They also knew that the country could be badly damaged economically by a continuation of the London bombings. And they knew that the IRA couldn't be seen to back down without some give on the British attitude towards Ireland. The IRA, for its part knew that the British Govt couldn't possibly start open negotiations without a cessation of hostilities. Both sides gave a little and serious negotiations began.

It's a messy old world int it? Much nicer if it were simply split up into the bad guys who always lose and the good guys who always win.

[Savvy]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Savvy wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Savvy wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Savvy wrote:

I couldn't draw any other conclusion from your comment that building the mosque there was \"insensitive\". The only possible conclusion was that you believe the whole muslim faith should be apologetic for 9/11.

By the way, on the logic that the mosque there would be \"insensitive\", what's your take on the presence of St Mary's Catholic Church just round the corner from the Arndale Centre in Manchester? Or the presence of an Anglican church in Dresden? Or the evangelical Amercian church in Hiroshima?

Surely you can't be that fcuking thick to reach the conclusion that by labelling the building of a mosque in such an area I am also blaming the whole muslim conclusion?

Sorry spadge. I clearly AM that thick. I tried and I tried and I tried, but I couldn't see any other explanation. Please do me a favour and explain to me what you meant, and I PROMISE I won't make the same mistake again.

And in all honesty, the analogies were there to clarify the issue, not to cloud it. Again, I've clearly fallen well short of the standards you set, so please explain to me why the examples I gave are not 100% exact analogies of the WTC Mosque.

Not really, just the usual diatribe that you manage to come up with full of gapping holes and sweeping generalisations, I'm surprised we haven't had the correlation co-efficient regarding terrorist bombings and the building of mosques by now.

Well, as explantaions go, that has left me stumped. I guess I'll have to stick by my original guess that you think Islam as a whole is responsible for 9/11, whilst for some unfathomable reason, Roman Catholicism as a whole was not responsible for the Manchester bombing, the Anglican Church wasn't responsible for Dresden and American Christianity was not responsible for Hiroshima.

Notice you managed to dodge the last part of my post though eh?

Ahh...the debating tactic of choice of those who are incapable of conceiving that someone can suffer and not automatically lash out indiscriminately.

Of course I can't say what I would do because I haven't been in that situation. Which automatically makes that a fcuking stupid question.

However, there are manifold examples of people who have been grievously wronged and have looked for reconcilliation rather than vendetta. Go and read about Colin Parry and Jim Swire. I'd like to think I might be as strong as they were in similar circumstances. They are the true heroes, not the ones who look for reasons to continue the vendetta.

Very disappointing considering your the resident \"statto\", never normally shine in exploring the \"null hypothesis\". I dont think you've been a football manager but managed to wax lyrically about how managers are missing out with Heffernan. I dont think you've ever been chancellor of the exchequer but you had plenty to say about how these economists had made a b*llocks of things, or is it that it doesn't suit your arguement on this occasion?

As for reading about Colin Parry and Jim Swire, I've walked a mile in their shoes so I don't need to draw anything from their own experiences Spadge!

The only conclusion I can come to is that you don't believe that the perpetrators of this atrocity should be brought to book for their actions? Lets just turn the other cheek and pretend it didnt happen eh?

Easy for you to say Cocker, but I bet you would have a different opinion had you have had someone close to you involved in the tragedy that was 9/11.

What was the Muslim response to Rushdie eh? Death threats, thats the type of people your dealing with.  Not all Muslims are the same, it would be plain stupid to think so but  you don't try and rationalise with people who aren't reasonable. The reasonable ones should take steps to distance themselves from the fanatics and dilute their power if they aren't representative of their views. I was never a Thatcher fan, but her response to the IRA was spot on...stop the Terrorist acts, and then we'll talk.

I'm not really sure I could possibly know where to begin with that lot. Other than to say that my heartfelt sympathy goes out to you if you've walked a mile anywhere remotely close to Colin Parry. And I mean that.

The rest of the post I'm afraid is devoid of anything remotely resembling a cogent argument. I do NOT believe that we should turn the other cheek to the perpetrators of 9/11. I do NOT believe that they should not be brought to justice. What I passionately DO believe is that lashing out at Islam in general is both morally wrong and pragmatically counter-productive.

In the long run, the ONLY way that the West will win is by moral example. We have to show that we are a superior and more attractive culture to the one that the Moslem fundamentalists would foist on people. If the West villifies the whole of Islam, it will act only as a recruiting seargant for Al Qaeda. In which case, you'd better be prepared for permanent guerilla war and the erosion of the freedoms that we hold so dear.

As I said in a previous post, simply taking self-interest into account it'f fcuking crazt to simply lash out at a convenient victim. America's mad dash into Iraq (which had precisely fcuk-all to do qith 9/11, but was conflated with the WTC atrocity in Bush's America at the time) and has led to the deaths of far more innocent Americans than died on 9/11.

As for Thatcher, you are so far off the mark it beggars belief. Go back and look at the timelines. The talking started in earnest when the IRA got clever in their attacks. While they were just murdering working class lads and lasses in Antrim, noi-one in this country gave a flying fcuk. It was when they got clever and started hitting the economy in London that the talks started seriously. After the Bishopsgate bomb, the Brent fly-over bomb, the Hammersmith Bridge bomb, the countless hoaxes and alerts shutting down big London stations and the Underground network.

You think the talks started because the IRA put their hands up and surrendered? How quaint an impression. The talks started because the IRA demonstarted that they could drive into the City of london and do £2billion worth of damage to the London economy. The Bishopsgate bombing happened in April 1993. By December 1993, after holding secret talks with the IRA, the British Government announced that it had \"no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland\"  - i.e. they admitted FOR THE FIRST TIME that Northern Ireland was not seen as a remnant of Empire to be clung onto. By April 1994, in response to this, the IRA called a ceasefire.

What that ACTUALLY was, was a sensible, realistic and pragmatic approach on both sides. The British knew that they couldn't defeat the IRA militarily without full scale invasion and horrific casulaties. They also knew that the country could be badly damaged economically by a continuation of the London bombings. And they knew that the IRA couldn't be seen to back down without some give on the British attitude towards Ireland. The IRA, for its part knew that the British Govt couldn't possibly start open negotiations without a cessation of hostilities. Both sides gave a little and serious negotiations began.

It's a messy old world int it? Much nicer if it were simply split up into the bad guys who always lose and the good guys who always win.

Thanks for the condolences (google Hansard and type Peter Savage on the search function for the details) but I have to take issue with the rest of your post.

Perhaps you could elaborate as to why it is morally wrong and counter-productive as you suggest, to \"lash out at Islam\". Rather than lash out, I thought that the Americans, quite rightly in my book, were seeking to apprehend the perpetrators of a crime not only against a religion but against mankind in general. Surely you don't dis-agree with this course of action?

As for being the more attractive culture, why is it that the West has to be seen to be the one to hold out the olive branch, especially after a crime of such magnitude. Like I said in a previous post, they issue death threats at the slightest criticism of their own ethos, and we're supposed to think \"ee, them Muslims what they like eh\"?

As for your comments about Thatcher, yes there had to be compromises on both sides, but as I said in my post, the only time they agreed to talk was after the announcement by Mcgunness and Adams of a ceasation of hostilites.

As far as I'm concerned, the pursuit of Bin Laden in order to bring him to account for his actions is a cause well worth fighting and perhaps then these f**kwits that follow him might realise that those 70 virgins come at a high price!

As for the all too simplistic good guys and bad guys scenario I'm reminded that doesn't work everytime I see Adams and his sidekick on the telly!

[Standanista]

If the ones planning the mosque were sensitive to the (majority and non-Muslim) rank and file, they wouldn't put it there out of common sense.  So why are they?

[The Red Baron]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

As for Thatcher, you are so far off the mark it beggars belief. Go back and look at the timelines. The talking started in earnest when the IRA got clever in their attacks. While they were just murdering working class lads and lasses in Antrim, noi-one in this country gave a flying fcuk. It was when they got clever and started hitting the economy in London that the talks started seriously. After the Bishopsgate bomb, the Brent fly-over bomb, the Hammersmith Bridge bomb, the countless hoaxes and alerts shutting down big London stations and the Underground network.

You think the talks started because the IRA put their hands up and surrendered? How quaint an impression. The talks started because the IRA demonstarted that they could drive into the City of london and do £2billion worth of damage to the London economy. The Bishopsgate bombing happened in April 1993. By December 1993, after holding secret talks with the IRA, the British Government announced that it had \"no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland\"  - i.e. they admitted FOR THE FIRST TIME that Northern Ireland was not seen as a remnant of Empire to be clung onto. By April 1994, in response to this, the IRA called a ceasefire.

A rather simplistic analysis of the Northern Ireland situation and the start of the peace process, I'm afraid. The IRA did not just kill \"working class lads from Armagh.\" They murdered Earl Mountbatten, Airey Neave, Ian Gow and the victims of the Brighton bombing as well as plenty of civilians on the mainland (think Warrington and the Birmingham pub bombings.) Had they stuck to the targets you suggest they did it is far more likely that the UK Government would have been willing to talk with them, as they did in 1973 (before the mainland bombing campaign started.) Each act on the mainland strengthened the Government's resolve not to give in, and even had the Government wanted to make concessions, they would have faced hostile public opinion.

As for the peace process, it was not initiated due to a brilliant change in IRA military tactics, more because of a growing realisation on both sides that neither could win the war. Former IRA operational commanders like Adams and McGuinness came to realise that they could perhaps win more by a dual-track strategy and promoting a political approach at the ultimate expense of a military one. The UK Government, too, recognised that it was committed to a long and expensive war which tied up military resources and was receptive to the approaches. It helped that Mrs Thatcher was replaced by John Major, who was by nature less hawkish and who had less personal animosity to the IRA (Neave and Gow were close personal friends of Thatcher.) There was also the political zeitgeist: we are talking of a time when the Berlin Wall had come down, the old communist regimes in Eastern Europe had collapsed and Mandela had been freed in South Africa. There was a spirit of reconciliation in the air. That helped to usher in the peace process.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Red Baron wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

As for Thatcher, you are so far off the mark it beggars belief. Go back and look at the timelines. The talking started in earnest when the IRA got clever in their attacks. While they were just murdering working class lads and lasses in Antrim, noi-one in this country gave a flying fcuk. It was when they got clever and started hitting the economy in London that the talks started seriously. After the Bishopsgate bomb, the Brent fly-over bomb, the Hammersmith Bridge bomb, the countless hoaxes and alerts shutting down big London stations and the Underground network.

You think the talks started because the IRA put their hands up and surrendered? How quaint an impression. The talks started because the IRA demonstarted that they could drive into the City of london and do £2billion worth of damage to the London economy. The Bishopsgate bombing happened in April 1993. By December 1993, after holding secret talks with the IRA, the British Government announced that it had \"no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland\"  - i.e. they admitted FOR THE FIRST TIME that Northern Ireland was not seen as a remnant of Empire to be clung onto. By April 1994, in response to this, the IRA called a ceasefire.

A rather simplistic analysis of the Northern Ireland situation and the start of the peace process, I'm afraid. The IRA did not just kill \"working class lads from Armagh.\" They murdered Earl Mountbatten, Airey Neave, Ian Gow and the victims of the Brighton bombing as well as plenty of civilians on the mainland (think Warrington and the Birmingham pub bombings.) Had they stuck to the targets you suggest they did it is far more likely that the UK Government would have been willing to talk with them, as they did in 1973 (before the mainland bombing campaign started.) Each act on the mainland strengthened the Government's resolve not to give in, and even had the Government wanted to make concessions, they would have faced hostile public opinion.

As for the peace process, it was not initiated due to a brilliant change in IRA military tactics, more because of a growing realisation on both sides that neither could win the war. Former IRA operational commanders like Adams and McGuinness came to realise that they could perhaps win more by a dual-track strategy and promoting a political approach at the ultimate expense of a military one. The UK Government, too, recognised that it was committed to a long and expensive war which tied up military resources and was receptive to the approaches. It helped that Mrs Thatcher was replaced by John Major, who was by nature less hawkish and who had less personal animosity to the IRA (Neave and Gow were close personal friends of Thatcher.) There was also the political zeitgeist: we are talking of a time when the Berlin Wall had come down, the old communist regimes in Eastern Europe had collapsed and Mandela had been freed in South Africa. There was a spirit of reconciliation in the air. That helped to usher in the peace process.

Now THAT is an excellent summary, which I agree wholeheartedly with. The core of what you are saying ties in with what I was (in a far more simplistic way) trying to say.

While the IRA were murdering civillians in NI, the problem could be contained. When they were murdering civllians and high profile establishment figures on the mainland, culminating in trying to assassinate the entire Cabinet, the problem was spiralling out of control - the UK Govt could not possibly be seen to talk openly with the IRA, let alone give concessions in such an atmosphere. At that stage, in the late 70s and early 80s, the problem was immense. Neither side could openly back down and neither side could militarily defeat the other.

At that stage, the IRA was still in the game of provocation. They were trying to stoke the flames. They wanted to provoke an authoritarian reaction. That's why key right-wing establishment figures like Neave and Mountbatten were such symbolic targets. They knew that these attacks wouldn't defeat the British - they could only enrage and inflame them. They knew that there would be an escalation of the conflict as a result, and a radicalisation of their community.

The analogies with Al Qaeda are obvious. That was precisely the aim behind 9/11 - they wanted a vicious backlash which would act to divide communities and radicalise young Moslems. And boy has it worked! This is precisely why it is so vital that the mosque in New York be allowed. If it is banned, the Islamists will have another wonderful propaganda tool to show to their community to demonstrate how oppressed they are. And the spiral will move on again.

Back to Northern Ireland, I agree that Major coming to power was a key issue, but even then it was several years before open negotiations started. And the issue of the IRA's change of strategy was crucial. They (generally) stopped trying to kill large numbers of people and instead hit economic targets. You're bang on in saying that the cost of the \"war\" was debilitating to the UK. That much was put into sharp focus by the cost of Bishopsgate. The damage from that one bomb and knock-on effect on economic activity in the financial sector cost more than the entire annual cost of the NI military operations. And the drip-drip effects of chaos on the day-to-day running of London by the M1 bomb, the Hammersmith Bridge bomb and the constant alerts and station closures added more cost again. Think back to 1992-3 - there was barely a week went by without some major event or alert in London. The effect of that was potentially catastrophic to the fragile UK economy coming out of recession.

I fully agree that Adams and McGuinness wanted to move towards a political strategy, but as part of that move, but they absolutely did not simply drop the military approach. Bishopsgate was the biggest single bombing in the entire campaign, and that happened as late as Easter 1993. I still contend that the IRA's move to waging economic war WAS a very clever and arguably decisive military tactic. It forced the UK Govt to take the peace process seriously. Whilst in the back channels, they were saying that they wanted negotiations, they were also, by the military actions, showing what the consequences would be if the UK Govt didn't take these overtures seriously.

At ther end of the day, as you say, the fighting stopped because it was in both sides' interests to stop fighting. Which is pretty much what I was trying to say in the first place, to counter Savvy's suggestion that the process was the UK Govt saying, \"You stop and we'll talk.\" It WAS never and it CAN never be as simple as that.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Savvy wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Savvy wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Savvy wrote:

I couldn't draw any other conclusion from your comment that building the mosque there was \"insensitive\". The only possible conclusion was that you believe the whole muslim faith should be apologetic for 9/11.

By the way, on the logic that the mosque there would be \"insensitive\", what's your take on the presence of St Mary's Catholic Church just round the corner from the Arndale Centre in Manchester? Or the presence of an Anglican church in Dresden? Or the evangelical Amercian church in Hiroshima?

Surely you can't be that fcuking thick to reach the conclusion that by labelling the building of a mosque in such an area I am also blaming the whole muslim conclusion?

Sorry spadge. I clearly AM that thick. I tried and I tried and I tried, but I couldn't see any other explanation. Please do me a favour and explain to me what you meant, and I PROMISE I won't make the same mistake again.

And in all honesty, the analogies were there to clarify the issue, not to cloud it. Again, I've clearly fallen well short of the standards you set, so please explain to me why the examples I gave are not 100% exact analogies of the WTC Mosque.

Not really, just the usual diatribe that you manage to come up with full of gapping holes and sweeping generalisations, I'm surprised we haven't had the correlation co-efficient regarding terrorist bombings and the building of mosques by now.

Well, as explantaions go, that has left me stumped. I guess I'll have to stick by my original guess that you think Islam as a whole is responsible for 9/11, whilst for some unfathomable reason, Roman Catholicism as a whole was not responsible for the Manchester bombing, the Anglican Church wasn't responsible for Dresden and American Christianity was not responsible for Hiroshima.

Notice you managed to dodge the last part of my post though eh?

Ahh...the debating tactic of choice of those who are incapable of conceiving that someone can suffer and not automatically lash out indiscriminately.

Of course I can't say what I would do because I haven't been in that situation. Which automatically makes that a fcuking stupid question.

However, there are manifold examples of people who have been grievously wronged and have looked for reconcilliation rather than vendetta. Go and read about Colin Parry and Jim Swire. I'd like to think I might be as strong as they were in similar circumstances. They are the true heroes, not the ones who look for reasons to continue the vendetta.

Very disappointing considering your the resident \"statto\", never normally shine in exploring the \"null hypothesis\". I dont think you've been a football manager but managed to wax lyrically about how managers are missing out with Heffernan. I dont think you've ever been chancellor of the exchequer but you had plenty to say about how these economists had made a b*llocks of things, or is it that it doesn't suit your arguement on this occasion?

As for reading about Colin Parry and Jim Swire, I've walked a mile in their shoes so I don't need to draw anything from their own experiences Spadge!

The only conclusion I can come to is that you don't believe that the perpetrators of this atrocity should be brought to book for their actions? Lets just turn the other cheek and pretend it didnt happen eh?

Easy for you to say Cocker, but I bet you would have a different opinion had you have had someone close to you involved in the tragedy that was 9/11.

What was the Muslim response to Rushdie eh? Death threats, thats the type of people your dealing with.  Not all Muslims are the same, it would be plain stupid to think so but  you don't try and rationalise with people who aren't reasonable. The reasonable ones should take steps to distance themselves from the fanatics and dilute their power if they aren't representative of their views. I was never a Thatcher fan, but her response to the IRA was spot on...stop the Terrorist acts, and then we'll talk.

I'm not really sure I could possibly know where to begin with that lot. Other than to say that my heartfelt sympathy goes out to you if you've walked a mile anywhere remotely close to Colin Parry. And I mean that.

The rest of the post I'm afraid is devoid of anything remotely resembling a cogent argument. I do NOT believe that we should turn the other cheek to the perpetrators of 9/11. I do NOT believe that they should not be brought to justice. What I passionately DO believe is that lashing out at Islam in general is both morally wrong and pragmatically counter-productive.

In the long run, the ONLY way that the West will win is by moral example. We have to show that we are a superior and more attractive culture to the one that the Moslem fundamentalists would foist on people. If the West villifies the whole of Islam, it will act only as a recruiting seargant for Al Qaeda. In which case, you'd better be prepared for permanent guerilla war and the erosion of the freedoms that we hold so dear.

As I said in a previous post, simply taking self-interest into account it'f fcuking crazt to simply lash out at a convenient victim. America's mad dash into Iraq (which had precisely fcuk-all to do qith 9/11, but was conflated with the WTC atrocity in Bush's America at the time) and has led to the deaths of far more innocent Americans than died on 9/11.

As for Thatcher, you are so far off the mark it beggars belief. Go back and look at the timelines. The talking started in earnest when the IRA got clever in their attacks. While they were just murdering working class lads and lasses in Antrim, noi-one in this country gave a flying fcuk. It was when they got clever and started hitting the economy in London that the talks started seriously. After the Bishopsgate bomb, the Brent fly-over bomb, the Hammersmith Bridge bomb, the countless hoaxes and alerts shutting down big London stations and the Underground network.

You think the talks started because the IRA put their hands up and surrendered? How quaint an impression. The talks started because the IRA demonstarted that they could drive into the City of london and do £2billion worth of damage to the London economy. The Bishopsgate bombing happened in April 1993. By December 1993, after holding secret talks with the IRA, the British Government announced that it had \"no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland\"  - i.e. they admitted FOR THE FIRST TIME that Northern Ireland was not seen as a remnant of Empire to be clung onto. By April 1994, in response to this, the IRA called a ceasefire.

What that ACTUALLY was, was a sensible, realistic and pragmatic approach on both sides. The British knew that they couldn't defeat the IRA militarily without full scale invasion and horrific casulaties. They also knew that the country could be badly damaged economically by a continuation of the London bombings. And they knew that the IRA couldn't be seen to back down without some give on the British attitude towards Ireland. The IRA, for its part knew that the British Govt couldn't possibly start open negotiations without a cessation of hostilities. Both sides gave a little and serious negotiations began.

It's a messy old world int it? Much nicer if it were simply split up into the bad guys who always lose and the good guys who always win.

Thanks for the condolences (google Hansard and type Peter Savage on the search function for the details) but I have to take issue with the rest of your post.

Perhaps you could elaborate as to why it is morally wrong and counter-productive as you suggest, to \"lash out at Islam\". Rather than lash out, I thought that the Americans, quite rightly in my book, were seeking to apprehend the perpetrators of a crime not only against a religion but against mankind in general. Surely you don't dis-agree with this course of action?

As for being the more attractive culture, why is it that the West has to be seen to be the one to hold out the olive branch, especially after a crime of such magnitude. Like I said in a previous post, they issue death threats at the slightest criticism of their own ethos, and we're supposed to think \"ee, them Muslims what they like eh\"?

As for your comments about Thatcher, yes there had to be compromises on both sides, but as I said in my post, the only time they agreed to talk was after the announcement by Mcgunness and Adams of a ceasation of hostilites.

As far as I'm concerned, the pursuit of Bin Laden in order to bring him to account for his actions is a cause well worth fighting and perhaps then these fcukwits that follow him might realise that those 70 virgins come at a high price!

As for the all too simplistic good guys and bad guys scenario I'm reminded that doesn't work everytime I see Adams and his sidekick on the telly!

If my reading of what's written in hansard is correct, then you have my sympathy in spades. I cannot begin to imagine what that must be like and I apologise sincerely if anything I've said has opened up wounds. That was not the intention of course.

I fully agree by the way that justice is important and that bin Laden should be caught and prosecuted if it is at all possible.

AND if the price of doing so is worth it in the big scheme of things.

If that price involves wrecking another country, causing the deaths of thousands of your own soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians and entrenching the feelings of resentment and hatred for another century, then I'd argue that it's too high a price.

As for why the West is the one to hold out the olive branch, it is precisely because it is in our interests to do so. It's because we are a superior culture to the viciousness of the people who committed 9/11 WITH THE INTENTION of driving wedges between peoples. The alternative, of fostering suspicion of and hatred for Islam as a whole is not in our interests. The true war is (to use a trite phrase) one for hearts and minds. It's about demonstrating to this generation and the next 3,4 or 5 that our culture is to be preferred over theirs.

[Savvy]

Billy Stubbs wrote:

If my reading of what's written in hansard is correct, then you have my sympathy in spades. I cannot begin to imagine what that must be like and I apologise sincerely if anything I've said has opened up wounds. That was not the intention of course.

I fully agree by the way that justice is important and that bin Laden should be caught and prosecuted if it is at all possible.

AND if the price of doing so is worth it in the big scheme of things.

If that price involves wrecking another country, causing the deaths of thousands of your own soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians and entrenching the feelings of resentment and hatred for another century, then I'd argue that it's too high a price.

As for why the West is the one to hold out the olive branch, it is precisely because it is in our interests to do so. It's because we are a superior culture to the viciousness of the people who committed 9/11 WITH THE INTENTION of driving wedges between peoples. The alternative, of fostering suspicion of and hatred for Islam as a whole is not in our interests. The true war is (to use a trite phrase) one for hearts and minds. It's about demonstrating to this generation and the next 3,4 or 5 that our culture is to be preferred over theirs.

Thanks for those kind words, and I can assure you that nothing you have wrote on this thread has caused any offence whatsoever time and all that probably being a moot point in this instance!

the thread appears to be developing into a circular arguement so my final question on the matter is this, what do you believe are the motives behind this request, especially if as I'm lead to believe, its being made by rank and file Muslims?