Your first premise is wrong - thats how all nutjob arguments start all over the world.
OK. So you are claiming the government can protect us, right?
The head of MI5 himself recently distanced himself from that proposition.
So I guess we just sit here and wait to be slaughtered.
1) Safety isn't binary. Nothing is going to protect everybody from everything.
2) Not all security measures make you safer. A lot of security measures make you less safe. One notoriously counter-productive security measure is keeping a gun in your house. In countries where it's allowed a lot of people continue to do this despite clear evidence that it increases the danger, because our monkey brains aren't good at thinking rationally about risk.
PS. A gun in your home is a good metaphor for some of the other security measures people want to take when threatened by terrorism, like giving a lot of unaccountable power to government agencies. The downside risk this poses are huge, because once someone evil or irresponsible gets control of them they can use them against entire populations. The upside benefits are tiny, because the number of people who would be killed by terrorism are tiny compared to the numbers historically killed by out-of-control governments, and the effect on preventing them small in any case. This is only even a conversation because we evolved for dealing with wild animals and our intuitions totally suck when it comes to even a slightly complicated security analysis.
Miss Vance, Red Ed wants the state to set energy prices, not merely freeze them [as denounced by Ammianus Marcellinus in the 4th century]?
Captain Communism strikes again.
More like Captain Cock up!
Prices aren't falling because the Energy Co's fear a Labour Gov in May introducing a price freeze....so Ed will legislate to i) Drive prices down and ii) Freeze them......
Just as well the consumer is not lumbered with a lot of Green Taxes foisted on them by a previous Environment secretary.....oh, wait....
What's your basis for saying they'd try and grab power if they had higher numbers?
Because that's how all religious problems start
They integrate well because there are less of them
My general point is humans are pretty much the same everywhere, it is the abstract concept of power that causes the problems between us, and civil strife requires an incumbent, a significant minority and a fast growth in numberof the latter... It doesn't matter who plays which role
1% of the general population is a psychopath (circa 30% in prisons) according to various studies.
0.6% of people in the UK score 13 or above on the PCL-R scale according to the 2009 study, that is substantially below the 30 you need on the scale to be diagnosed as a clinical psychopath. People in the teens on the scale are often unpleasant, prone to violence, but usually not criminal.
The real point is that psychopath is really just a lack of emotion and empathy, they often are not criminal and use their glibness and lack of moral concerns to get to the top in business, where their "straight talking" and single mindedness are seen as an asset. Of course many others that are more prone toward a life of violence often become soldiers.
@Indigo The figures depend on the level set, but there are only so many jobs that the true psychopath can do (feel free to guess which ones those are), and unfortunately, if they fail, they blame everyone else. It's a b*gger, but the human race has had to put up with it for millennia. #jesuispissedoff
I thought stats have been posted on PB in the past showing that turnout is not significantly different in the marginals than in other seats? In which case, how much difference does ground game actually make?
Ditto - what about the fact turnout is higher in safe Con seats - where again ground game doesn't matter / there won't be focus on ground game?
It's fine making assertions - what does the data actually show?
This is only even a conversation because we evolved for dealing with wild animals and our intuitions totally suck when it comes to even a slightly complicated security analysis.
"The mind evolved great breadth, but it is shallow, for it performs quick and dirty sketches of the world. This rough-and-ready perception of reality enabled our ancestors to survive better. The mind did not evolve to know the world or to know ourselves. Simply speaking, there has never been, nor will there ever be, enough time to be truly rational.
A mind built up with countless specific adaptations can never be rational. We piece together the results of a small set of probes to judge the world, picking up a few signals and making quick assessments of what is outside, in the case of marauders, and inside, in the case of memories and dreams. [p. 221]
Since the mind evolved to select a few signals and then dream up a semblance, whatever enters our consciousness is overemphasized. It does not matter how the information enters, whether via a television program, a newspaper story, a friend's conversation, a strong emotional reaction, a memory—all is overemphasized. We ignore other, more compelling evidence, overemphasizing and overgeneralizing from the information close at hand to produce a rough-and-ready reality. [p. 258]
The [mental] system we recruited had the primary aim of reacting quickly to immediate danger—those who did lived long enough to produce us. Those who acted more thoughtfully and with due deliberation of the proper course, who could avoid panic when confronted by mild threats—who acted rationally, that is—probably lived shorter, and thus less generative, lives. The survival argument against rationality in primeval conditions is that payoff is very lopsided: Fail to respond to a real danger, even if that danger would kill you only 1/10,000 as often, and you will be dead. A few years later, you will be deader in evolutionary terms, for fewer of your genes will be around. However, an overreaction to danger produces only a little hysteria, a little stress, and maybe a little embarrassment—probably little or no loss of reproductive ability.
Running from every snake or tiger or loud noise probably doesn't disrupt life too much. Not running, while it might kill you only slightly more often, can eventually produce major changes in the population... If panic in response to a threat in all cases improved survival by even 1/10,000, those who panicked would be 484 million times more populous than those who did not. And so it was good to respond emotionally and quickly to the average dangers threatening most of our ancestors. Rationality is a great idea and ideal, but we never had the time for it; we don't have time for it now, and thus we don't have the mind for it."
On topic, last time I checked Conservatives were following a 40:40 strategy for this election. Thus I suspect 80%+ of their effort to be focused in those 80 seats.
If we assume a full campaigning team of 20 in each seat (round about normal) with a coordinating agent, and national coordination at CCHQ, then if they fought all of these simultaneously then could cover the lot with c.1600 activists nationwide.
In reality, that doesn't happen of course. The bigger and stronger associations are in the safer seats where incumbent MPs have always been keen to maintain/increase their majority as a sign of their virility. However, a few activists(<10) from stronger constituents do tend to float across the border. CCHQ also maintains a campaign bus that busses in activists around the key marginals, particularly in the last few weeks. I'd expect it'd draw on a pool of between 300-500 of the most keen. So there should still be a good GOTV ground effort in most places during the official campaign itself.
Where Nick Palmer is right is on canvassing data. Building up good canvassing data of where your supporters are, and achieving good name recognition, requires months of consistent ground effort around the constituency. It's here that the Tories may suffer in some places, although offset to some degree by incumbency, and will have to rely on voter software assumptions instead.
That could be worth 500-1000 votes in a few key marginals, but not everywhere.
Mr. Isam, fewer, and you have no evidence at all to back up your claims that more Hindus would mean they would start creating problems.
and you have none to prove that they wouldn't
So we can take you think muslims are just generally nastier than other people? OK
EDIT
"Hindu fundamentalism, also called Hindutva, is driven by a trio of organisations in India called the Sangh Parivar – the family. The RSS is an ultra-conservative group that demands unflinching patriotism and preservation of Hindu culture; the VHP is their religious arm; the BJP is the political arm and India's main opposition party. There are smaller offshoots too including a violent paramilitary wing called the Bajrang Dal and the hardline Shiv Sena party in Mumbai whose founder adored Hitler.
"Hindu nationalism is built on the idea that India is a Hindu majoritarian nation, with Muslims and Christians cast as the minority, 'other'," Rahul Verma, a journalist and researcher on the subject, says. He says Hindu nationalism in recent years has fed off the Islamophobic, post-9/11 "Muslim terrorist" narrative.
Chetan Bhatt, the director at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the London School of Economics, has also spent years studying this movement. "Narendra Modi has been an activist for the Hindu far-right paramilitary RSS and its affiliates for the entirety of his political life. He remains committed to the supremacist ideology of Hindutva which says that India should be an exclusive Hindu nation state in which minorities are treated as second-class citizens or worse."
Mr. Isam, fewer, and you have no evidence at all to back up your claims that more Hindus would mean they would start creating problems.
Hindus can be terrorists too ! Look at the Gujarat riots. It can also mobilise majority opinion against minorities, shore up your own base. You could even end up as Prime Minister.
What's your basis for saying they'd try and grab power if they had higher numbers?
Because that's how all religious problems start
They integrate well because there are less of them
My general point is humans are pretty much the same everywhere, it is the abstract concept of power that causes the problems between us, and civil strife requires an incumbent, a significant minority and a fast growth in numberof the latter... It doesn't matter who plays which role
That is an assertion... leaving aside the Mormon's because their story is one of being harassed and eventually being expelled from their lands by the locals, failing to reclaim their land through the courts, and eventually getting fed up and going to get it back themselves... do you have any other examples to back the assertion ?
@RodCrosby The semi evolved ape? The circumstances that lead to a panicked response may have been a useful trait before the rise of global societies and weapons, but is now as useless as an appendix. (intestinal rather than literal )
What's your basis for saying they'd try and grab power if they had higher numbers?
Because that's how all religious problems start
They integrate well because there are less of them
My general point is humans are pretty much the same everywhere, it is the abstract concept of power that causes the problems between us, and civil strife requires an incumbent, a significant minority and a fast growth in numberof the latter... It doesn't matter who plays which role
That is an assertion... leaving aside the Mormon's because their story is one of being harassed and eventually being expelled from their lands by the locals, failing to reclaim their land through the courts, and eventually getting fed up and going to get it back themselves... do you have any other examples to back the assertion ?
Just look up any civil strife anywhere thoroughout history, and the same pattern is followed (often muslims aren't involved)
Cowboys vs Indians would be one
The rise of UKIP is another.. they are hated more than ever now by the other parties, despite being far more mainstream than before. Why? There are more of them and so they are a threat to power
Miss Vance, Red Ed wants the state to set energy prices, not merely freeze them [as denounced by Ammianus Marcellinus in the 4th century]?
Captain Communism strikes again.
More like Captain Cock up!
Prices aren't falling because the Energy Co's fear a Labour Gov in May introducing a price freeze....so Ed will legislate to i) Drive prices down and ii) Freeze them......
Just as well the consumer is not lumbered with a lot of Green Taxes foisted on them by a previous Environment secretary.....oh, wait....
Call yourselves conspiracy theorists? You're not fit to lace Tap's boots. Ed ensures fuel prices stay high -- voters are less well off than they'd otherwise be -- voters blame the government for their cost of living crisis -- voters turn to Labour and Ed Is An Evil Strategic Genius becomes Prime Minister.
Chetan Bhatt, the director at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the London School of Economics, has also spent years studying this movement. "Narendra Modi has been an activist for the Hindu far-right paramilitary RSS and its affiliates for the entirety of his political life. He remains committed to the supremacist ideology of Hindutva which says that India should be an exclusive Hindu nation state in which minorities are treated as second-class citizens or worse."
Come off it. They are largely an extremist organization, very few acts of terror are blamed on them, and almost all of those on closer inspection have turned out to be caused by islamic terrorists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffron_terror
Mr. Isam, you made the claim, it's yours to make a case for. I can't prove negatives, such as the chocolate teapot orbiting Jupiter.
I think there is a lunatic fringe in Islam which is more violent and larger than in other faiths. Boko Haram, ISIS, Taliban in Afganistan and Pakistan, and Al-Qaeda would seem to support this. Individual Muslims are generally the same as everyone else, save they pray five times a day. Just because 95%+ are entirely normal doesn't mean the Islamist lunatic fringe doesn't exist.
If you disagree, feel free to provide a list of comparable murderous international organisations for Catholics, Buddhists, Methodists or Jews.
Mr. Surbiton, it is fair to say that there has been some Hindu-related terrorism in India, as Breivik was, of course, a white Christian. However, such incidents are rare and (in Breivik's case) lone wolf rather than as part of a larger organisation.
@RodCrosby The semi evolved ape? The circumstances that lead to a panicked response may have been a useful trait before the rise of global societies and weapons, but is now as useless as an appendix. (intestinal rather than literal )
Right, and the specific situation here is that the adversary is expecting, and hoping to exploit, the panic response.
Miss Vance, Red Ed wants the state to set energy prices, not merely freeze them [as denounced by Ammianus Marcellinus in the 4th century]?
Captain Communism strikes again.
More like Captain Cock up!
Prices aren't falling because the Energy Co's fear a Labour Gov in May introducing a price freeze....so Ed will legislate to i) Drive prices down and ii) Freeze them......
Just as well the consumer is not lumbered with a lot of Green Taxes foisted on them by a previous Environment secretary.....oh, wait....
Call yourselves conspiracy theorists? You're not fit to lace Tap's boots. Ed ensures fuel prices stay high -- voters are less well off than they'd otherwise be -- voters blame the government for their cost of living crisis -- voters turn to Labour and Ed Is An Evil Strategic Genius becomes Prime Minister.
So you don't think the threat of a price freeze would have any impact on market pricing? Bottom of the class for you!
Ed Miliband plan to freeze energy prices is putting firms off cutting household bills before the election, experts say.
Chetan Bhatt, the director at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the London School of Economics, has also spent years studying this movement. "Narendra Modi has been an activist for the Hindu far-right paramilitary RSS and its affiliates for the entirety of his political life. He remains committed to the supremacist ideology of Hindutva which says that India should be an exclusive Hindu nation state in which minorities are treated as second-class citizens or worse."
Come off it. They are largely an extremist organization, very few acts of terror are blamed on them, and almost all of those on closer inspection have turned out to be caused by islamic terrorists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffron_terror
Checkout the decline in number of Hindu's and rise in number of Muslims in India over the last 60 years, and how conflict has increased with it
@RodCrosby The semi evolved ape? The circumstances that lead to a panicked response may have been a useful trait before the rise of global societies and weapons, but is now as useless as an appendix. (intestinal rather than literal )
Right, and the specific situation here is that the adversary is expecting, and hoping to exploit, the panic response.
Actually he wins either way. Either you panic, and you create a conflict, or at worse act as a recruiting sergeant, or you do nothing and the usual salami tactics continue, the response of western and particularly British politicians after outrages has to curtail freedoms in the hope of not inciting any further outrages, and peoples fear of reprisals does the rest.
Mr. Isam, you made the claim, it's yours to make a case for. I can't prove negatives, such as the chocolate teapot orbiting Jupiter.
I think there is a lunatic fringe in Islam which is more violent and larger than in other faiths. Boko Haram, ISIS, Taliban in Afganistan and Pakistan, and Al-Qaeda would seem to support this. Individual Muslims are generally the same as everyone else, save they pray five times a day. Just because 95%+ are entirely normal doesn't mean the Islamist lunatic fringe doesn't exist.
If you disagree, feel free to provide a list of comparable murderous international organisations for Catholics, Buddhists, Methodists or Jews.
Mr. Surbiton, it is fair to say that there has been some Hindu-related terrorism in India, as Breivik was, of course, a white Christian. However, such incidents are rare and (in Breivik's case) lone wolf rather than as part of a larger organisation.
"I think there is a lunatic fringe in Islam which is more violent and larger than in other faiths."
Yes there are. Because there are more places with significant minorities of Muslims than any other religion. That's the point
There would be a lunatic fringe in any mass of people.. and the bigger the mass, the bigger the fringe
Chetan Bhatt, the director at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the London School of Economics, has also spent years studying this movement. "Narendra Modi has been an activist for the Hindu far-right paramilitary RSS and its affiliates for the entirety of his political life. He remains committed to the supremacist ideology of Hindutva which says that India should be an exclusive Hindu nation state in which minorities are treated as second-class citizens or worse."
Come off it. They are largely an extremist organization, very few acts of terror are blamed on them, and almost all of those on closer inspection have turned out to be caused by islamic terrorists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffron_terror
Checkout the decline in number of Hindu's and rise in number of Muslims in India over the last 60 years, and how conflict has increased with it
Those figures appear to show an increase in size of the muslim minority, which matches an increase in violence, much as we are seeing in the west, I believe that is that claim you have been trying to refute all along.
12.21 Spain's interior minister, Jorge Fernandez Diaz, earlier said he intended to call for changes to the Schengen treaty allowing border controls. His proposal for change was in order to limit the movements of Islamic fighters returning to Europe from the Middle East, AFP reports. "We are going to back border controls and it is possible that as a consequence it will be necessary to modify the Schengen treaty," he told the daily El Pais ahead of a ministerial meeting on the subject in Paris.
Mr. Isam, you made the claim, it's yours to make a case for. I can't prove negatives, such as the chocolate teapot orbiting Jupiter.
I think there is a lunatic fringe in Islam which is more violent and larger than in other faiths. Boko Haram, ISIS, Taliban in Afganistan and Pakistan, and Al-Qaeda would seem to support this. Individual Muslims are generally the same as everyone else, save they pray five times a day. Just because 95%+ are entirely normal doesn't mean the Islamist lunatic fringe doesn't exist.
If you disagree, feel free to provide a list of comparable murderous international organisations for Catholics, Buddhists, Methodists or Jews.
Mr. Surbiton, it is fair to say that there has been some Hindu-related terrorism in India, as Breivik was, of course, a white Christian. However, such incidents are rare and (in Breivik's case) lone wolf rather than as part of a larger organisation.
"I think there is a lunatic fringe in Islam which is more violent and larger than in other faiths."
Yes there are. Because there are more places with significant minorities of Muslims than any other religion. That's the point
There would be a lunatic fringe in any mass of people.. and the bigger the mass, the bigger the fringe
At about the same stage in the history of Christianity there were some incredibly vicious "lunatic fringes". Our own Puritans, although a bit later, could be pretty nasty to their opponents, too.
@tnewtondunn: Asked 5 times by #Marr whether he would rule out any Coalition deal with SNP, Ed Miliband ducks. Just says: "I'm not about deals".
@paulwaugh: “I’m not about deals” Clearly EdM’s formulation. Marr rightly asks if ‘i’m not about it’ means won’t do one. Miliband says not focused on it
Why is that an issue and why should he answer now. Tories would do a deal with the devil to get power , why should Ed be any different. SNP are far better than the pathetic Lib Dems. Marr is a balloon of the first order, Tory plonker.
I think that Mr Jackie Ashley would be quite surprised to hear himself described as a Tory. Perhaps he should regard it as a badge of honour.
Nasty little man he is: "And the final answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress. It may be my Presbyterian background, but I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good. Stamp hard on certain 'natural' beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off. The police are first in line to be burdened further, but a new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the state on millions of other lives too." http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/28/lawrence.ukcrime4
Certainly is. The Left moan about Fox News, but one of the most chilling pieces of unbridled NeoCon propaganda was promulgated by their beloved BBC:
Late last night in a short conversation with TimB I set out a rough calculation that is used to estimate in numerical terms the potential group of hard core Jihadis who will, in some form, get involved in terrorist activities ondomestic or European soil. the travellers who go abroad and return. The yardstick used is 5-8% and needs to take into account not just those who have gone to Syria but also maybe up to 20 years back of Jihadi travellers.
That led to an estimate of at least a minimum of 100 or so in France that are considered top level targets for the security agencies.
If we are to believe the article on the front of The Times this morning that 5-8% yardstick probably holds good with their report that around 150 Jihadis are the big threat that the security agencies here focus upon.
The case of Hayat Boumeddiene may well prove problematic for the French authorities to explain away. As it emerges she was not in country when things went down it will be interesting if later reports suggest she actually bailed days before events took place. Her reported travel to Syria is a strong suggestion that this is IS related whilst AQAP, the Yemeni connection., have claimed the Charlie Hebdo attack pair as their own.
One claims IS allegiance, the other two may well be AQAP in allegiance. The attacks are claimed co-ordinated and stories of comms intercepts suggest this is so. How much organisational level, AQAP & IS, co-ordination has taken place? Is it just local individuals who decided to join their activities without outside direction (even if their individual intent did have outside direction) or is it something bigger?
Miss Vance, Red Ed wants the state to set energy prices, not merely freeze them [as denounced by Ammianus Marcellinus in the 4th century]?
Captain Communism strikes again.
More like Captain Cock up!
Prices aren't falling because the Energy Co's fear a Labour Gov in May introducing a price freeze....so Ed will legislate to i) Drive prices down and ii) Freeze them......
Just as well the consumer is not lumbered with a lot of Green Taxes foisted on them by a previous Environment secretary.....oh, wait....
Call yourselves conspiracy theorists? You're not fit to lace Tap's boots. Ed ensures fuel prices stay high -- voters are less well off than they'd otherwise be -- voters blame the government for their cost of living crisis -- voters turn to Labour and Ed Is An Evil Strategic Genius becomes Prime Minister.
So you don't think the threat of a price freeze would have any impact on market pricing? Bottom of the class for you!
Ed Miliband plan to freeze energy prices is putting firms off cutting household bills before the election, experts say.
Mr. Isam, fewer, and you have no evidence at all to back up your claims that more Hindus would mean they would start creating problems.
and you have none to prove that they wouldn't
So we can take you think muslims are just generally nastier than other people? OK
I have to come in on this isam and say what all the world knows but for some reason wants to keep quiet
Of all the religions in the world operating in the present day, only Islam is a political movement as well as a religion. In all the countries where Islam holds away, like Iran, Saudi Arabia the Emirates or parts of Sudan, no other religion or political party in the western sense is allowed.
In other nations where Islam predominate, only limited political freedoms are allowed: i,e. Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Libyia, etc., which are either run by islamic parties or are dictatorships.
Only Islam has world wide killing organisations that operate freely in all the Moslem countries.
No other other religion, Not the Jews, Christians, Hindus or even Shinto, sends its acolytes out on killing sprees from its holy places, urged on by so called holy men with their messages of hate.
Until Islam even begins to understand that toleration of other religions and beliefs is not an act of satan, they should be put beyond the pale of civilised people.
Ed Miliband plan to freeze energy prices is putting firms off cutting household bills before the election, experts say.
Frankly, I am amazed the tories aren't making more of Ed's catastrophic blunder.
What an open goal they are missing.
It is not an open goal for the government, though it might be one for UKIP or the Greens. The problem is that as soon as George Osborne, to pluck a name out of the air, says high prices are Red Ed's fault, voters will immediately retort along the lines of: well, you're the sodding government so why don't you force the energy companies to stop ripping us off?
Ed Miliband plan to freeze energy prices is putting firms off cutting household bills before the election, experts say.
Frankly, I am amazed the tories aren't making more of Ed's catastrophic blunder.
What an open goal they are missing.
No, that argument is too complicated for Joe Public.
If Con say that it puts the phrase "Lab energy price freeze" into people's heads - which is good for Lab.
So Con has to stay quiet on the subject.
But the two good points for Con are:
1) No energy price rises means no talk of energy prices in the media 2) Mild winter keeps bills lower so people not so concerned about the issue anyway
Chetan Bhatt, the director at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the London School of Economics, has also spent years studying this movement. "Narendra Modi has been an activist for the Hindu far-right paramilitary RSS and its affiliates for the entirety of his political life. He remains committed to the supremacist ideology of Hindutva which says that India should be an exclusive Hindu nation state in which minorities are treated as second-class citizens or worse."
Come off it. They are largely an extremist organization, very few acts of terror are blamed on them, and almost all of those on closer inspection have turned out to be caused by islamic terrorists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffron_terror
Checkout the decline in number of Hindu's and rise in number of Muslims in India over the last 60 years, and how conflict has increased with it
Those figures appear to show an increase in size of the muslim minority, which matches an increase in violence, much as we are seeing in the west, I believe that is that claim you have been trying to refute all along.
It does, but my claim is that if you substitute Mulims for any other mass of people in that case, communists, jews, Christians, anyone whose numbers increased from 9% to 13% (I think it was) the same trouble would have been caused
You may disagree, many obviously do, but I am certain that it is the abstract concept of power that causes the violence and not the muslim faith.. they just happen to be the current significant minority
12.43 From that meeting between interior ministers, they said there was an "urgent and crucial need" to share European air passenger information and strengthen the EU's external borders.
No other other religion, Not the Jews, Christians, Hindus or even Shinto, sends its acolytes out on killing sprees from its holy places, urged on by so called holy men with their messages of hate.
I think this is a key point which Isam dances around. Take Salman Rushdie, a cleric ordered his execution, wherever he was in the world. I believe similar instructions have been made in respect of a dozen or so other people since, mostly writers. I can't recall any other religion in recent history commanding its followers to commit murder.
There's a serious risk Al-Qaeda and ISIS will get into a pissing contest over who can **** up Western cities the most.
The government's reason for banning weapons in our society is (presumably) that they can protect us.
If they can;t protect us, they should allow us to break out the ammo.
Given that - statistically - you are at least 1,000x more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist incident, presumably I can use my gun on a dangerous driver.
Or is a life cut short by a bomb worth more than one cut short by a drunk driver?
Ed Miliband plan to freeze energy prices is putting firms off cutting household bills before the election, experts say.
Frankly, I am amazed the tories aren't making more of Ed's catastrophic blunder.
What an open goal they are missing.
It is not an open goal for the government, though it might be one for UKIP or the Greens. The problem is that as soon as George Osborne, to pluck a name out of the air, says high prices are Red Ed's fault, voters will immediately retort along the lines of: well, you're the sodding government so why don't you force the energy companies to stop ripping us off?
It won't be for the Greens, they might not like to say so before elections, but they want it much higher still.
12.43 From that meeting between interior ministers, they said there was an "urgent and crucial need" to share European air passenger information and strengthen the EU's external borders.
And apparently look on Youtube a bit more frequently....
Carnyx You cannot exclude Scottish Tory and UKIP voters, about a fifth of Scots, and then say the remainder is 'the true Scottish voter'.
As we als0 discussed leftwing, pro independence Labour voters now voting SNP or Green are highly unlikely to return any time soon to Labour, Murphy would be better off targeting Tory or LD tactical votes in Labour v SNP marginal seats
Oh quite so, I would agree on the first para. But you were originally arguing that the average Scot would vote Labour rather than SNP - and I argued that you had to exclude the Tories and LDs from that, which gave a rather different balance (which makes sense when you think about it, seeing as how far the Tories and LDs are out on their end of the seesaw).
On the second point, that is an interesting comment, and would certainly fit in with his Blairism, bringing in Mr McTernan, etc. That would make some sense, of sorts.
There's a serious risk Al-Qaeda and ISIS will get into a pissing contest over who can **** up Western cities the most.
The government's reason for banning weapons in our society is (presumably) that they can protect us.
If they can;t protect us, they should allow us to break out the ammo.
Given that - statistically - you are at least 1,000x more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist incident, presumably I can use my gun on a dangerous driver. Or is a life cut short by a bomb worth more than one cut short by a drunk driver?
Just one insight. The level of drunk driving deaths these days is a fraction of the carnage of old and the chances of dying because of a drunk driver are very low. 230 deaths in 2012 of which 2/3 of deaths are typically the drunk driver. So circa 75 a year that were not the drunk driver. As a passenger in a car your risks are even lower.
The problem of course is that it didn't work, because the same people that like his socially liberal policies, also hate his austerity, correct as (in my view) that policy is for the country. Most of those people will take the view that they can get the same socially liberal policies from EdM without the austerity (they are wrong), or at least a nicer austerity (they are deluded), or at least austerity with tea and sympathy (more likely). .
I think this early post really hits the nail on the head. A tactic which seemed worth trying, and it makes me personally more favourable toward them, but which has undercut the base support without any expansion elsewhere of any substance. That's why they are reliant on Laboru collapsing rather than improving their own results.
Ed Miliband plan to freeze energy prices is putting firms off cutting household bills before the election, experts say.
Frankly, I am amazed the tories aren't making more of Ed's catastrophic blunder.
What an open goal they are missing.
No, that argument is too complicated for Joe Public.
If Con say that it puts the phrase "Lab energy price freeze" into people's heads - which is good for Lab.
So Con has to stay quiet on the subject.
Correct. I hear all about how awful the Labour plan is on here, but without having looked into it in any detail yet, I like the sound of it, and so will most people who will be even more unlikely than me to look into it to see if the Tories are correct about that, even if they are Tories themselves.
Ed Miliband plan to freeze energy prices is putting firms off cutting household bills before the election, experts say.
Frankly, I am amazed the tories aren't making more of Ed's catastrophic blunder.
What an open goal they are missing.
No, that argument is too complicated for Joe Public.
If Con say that it puts the phrase "Lab energy price freeze" into people's heads - which is good for Lab.
So Con has to stay quiet on the subject.
But the two good points for Con are:
1) No energy price rises means no talk of energy prices in the media 2) Mild winter keeps bills lower so people not so concerned about the issue anyway
Assuming that its right that energy prices should fall - and there are regulators which should see to that if, if, its right - then prices should fall. Labours policy was always stupid and would not be without cost. A cut in prices would expose that and as is being clearly seen it would also expose that oil prices are volatile. Miliband's ploy was based on some notion that the companies are profiteering at out expense and that he could offer an easy 'tax cut'.
Yes there are. Because there are more places with significant minorities of Muslims than any other religion. That's the point
There would be a lunatic fringe in any mass of people.. and the bigger the mass, the bigger the fringe
Except extremism and fundamentalism are just as common in places where Muslims are the majority as where they're the minority: Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.
Mr. Isam, fewer, and you have no evidence at all to back up your claims that more Hindus would mean they would start creating problems.
and you have none to prove that they wouldn't
So we can take you think muslims are just generally nastier than other people? OK
In other nations where Islam predominate, only limited political freedoms are allowed: i,e. Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Libyia, etc., which are either run by islamic parties or are dictatorships.
Er.....Indonesia, world's most populous Muslim nation, by quite some margin - the 'Islamic' parties did not fare well in the recent Presidential election and the government is a coalition....and changes at most elections.....but apart from that.....
Mr. Isam, fewer, and you have no evidence at all to back up your claims that more Hindus would mean they would start creating problems.
Hindus can be terrorists too ! Look at the Gujarat riots. It can also mobilise majority opinion against minorities, shore up your own base. You could even end up as Prime Minister.
Yes, they can be. It's just that they do it on a much, much rarer basis than when Muslims do. I find it amazing how much people want to ignore the obvious facts on this. About 90% of terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims, despite the fact they only make up 25% of the world's religious breakdown. It's an epic case of logical confusion to say "well the correlation isn't a perfect 1.0, so therefore it doesn't exist."
Carnyx But then we go back to the point that on a forced choice Tory and LD voters would rather tactically vote for Labour than the SNP. I think we agree on Murphy's tactics
Affiliates are now running India. A huge statute is planned for a Hindu terrorist who was involved I attacks in London (as anyone who reads t'Economist will know).
Racists and hatred is colour-blind. The BJP and affiliates are no saints....
Yes there are. Because there are more places with significant minorities of Muslims than any other religion. That's the point
There would be a lunatic fringe in any mass of people.. and the bigger the mass, the bigger the fringe
Except extremism and fundamentalism are just as common in places where Muslims are the majority as where they're the minority: Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.
Yes wherever there is a significant minority it will happen, doesn't matter who is who
No other other religion, Not the Jews, Christians, Hindus or even Shinto, sends its acolytes out on killing sprees from its holy places, urged on by so called holy men with their messages of hate.
I think this is a key point which Isam dances around. Take Salman Rushdie, a cleric ordered his execution, wherever he was in the world. I believe similar instructions have been made in respect of a dozen or so other people since, mostly writers. I can't recall any other religion in recent history commanding its followers to commit murder.
No!!!!
Good job I didn't become a politician as I am obviously not good at making my point clearly
These things you cite happened "because they are members of the world second biggest religion, and the religion is a significant minority of many countries" not "because they are muslims"
Mr. Isam, fewer, and you have no evidence at all to back up your claims that more Hindus would mean they would start creating problems.
and you have none to prove that they wouldn't
So we can take you think muslims are just generally nastier than other people? OK
In other nations where Islam predominate, only limited political freedoms are allowed: i,e. Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Libyia, etc., which are either run by islamic parties or are dictatorships.
Er.....Indonesia, world's most populous Muslim nation, by quite some margin - the 'Islamic' parties did not fare well in the recent Presidential election and the government is a coalition....and changes at most elections.....but apart from that.....
Not sure you can really talk about "most elections" when there has only been four legislative elections since its stopped being a single party state.
A snippet from the local press from one of the PPCs. He thinks an EU referendum can't come soon enough, and in the meantime,he wants UK control of its borders, agricultural policy and fishing restored as quickly as possible, to return the situation to what it was in 1975 - a common market.
Yes, it's the new Conservative Parliamentary candidate, Matt Warman.
Yes there are. Because there are more places with significant minorities of Muslims than any other religion. That's the point
There would be a lunatic fringe in any mass of people.. and the bigger the mass, the bigger the fringe
Except extremism and fundamentalism are just as common in places where Muslims are the majority as where they're the minority: Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.
Yes wherever there is a significant minority it will happen, doesn't matter who is who
Can you point me to all the Christians in Iraq, China, Egypt and Syria who have been involved in terrorism?
It's that time of the week again, the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) - and for the first time in 2015. A bit paltry the total number of polls, only 8 this week, the lowest weekly number since early September. But for the first time we're including the Greens, and they have a reasonable debut ELBOW score too!
ELBOW for this week ending 11th Jan, now including YouGov/Sunday Times (brackets are changes from the week or so running up to Xmas)
Lab 33.3 (-0.9) Con 32.5 (+0.9) UKIP 14.5 (-0.9) LD 7.7 (+0.2) Grn 6.4 (NEW in ELBOW for 2015!)
Mr. Isam, fewer, and you have no evidence at all to back up your claims that more Hindus would mean they would start creating problems.
and you have none to prove that they wouldn't
So we can take you think muslims are just generally nastier than other people? OK
In other nations where Islam predominate, only limited political freedoms are allowed: i,e. Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Libyia, etc., which are either run by islamic parties or are dictatorships.
Er.....Indonesia, world's most populous Muslim nation, by quite some margin - the 'Islamic' parties did not fare well in the recent Presidential election and the government is a coalition....and changes at most elections.....but apart from that.....
Would that be this Indonesia where Christian churches are being closed?
It's that time of the week again, the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) - and for the first time in 2015. A bit paltry the total number of polls, only 8 this week, the lowest weekly number since early September. But for the first time we're including the Greens, and they have a reasonable debut ELBOW score too!
ELBOW for this week ending 11th Jan, now including YouGov/Sunday Times (brackets are changes from the week or so running up to Xmas)
Lab 33.3 (-0.9) Con 32.5 (+0.9) UKIP 14.5 (-0.9) LD 7.7 (+0.2) Grn 6.4 (NEW in ELBOW for 2015!)
Lab lead 0.8% (was 2.6% for Xmas week)
I understand the UKIP 3.1% in 2010 was a record for a fourth party in recent times, looks like 2015 could see three parties exceed that (UKIP, Green and SNP).
Carnyx You cannot exclude Scottish Tory and UKIP voters, about a fifth of Scots, and then say the remainder is 'the true Scottish voter'.
As we als0 discussed leftwing, pro independence Labour voters now voting SNP or Green are highly unlikely to return any time soon to Labour, Murphy would be better off targeting Tory or LD tactical votes in Labour v SNP marginal seats
Oh quite so, I would agree on the first para. But you were originally arguing that the average Scot would vote Labour rather than SNP - and I argued that you had to exclude the Tories and LDs from that, which gave a rather different balance (which makes sense when you think about it, seeing as how far the Tories and LDs are out on their end of the seesaw).
On the second point, that is an interesting comment, and would certainly fit in with his Blairism, bringing in Mr McTernan, etc. That would make some sense, of sorts.
I think we're seeing the evolution of McMurphyism, within a few weeks I think Murphy and McTernan will have managed to upset everyone. SLAB is on its deathbed.
Probably mentioned, but Sajid Javid directly contradicted Cameron today.
SJ said "its not enough to dismiss the Paris terrorists as not Muslims, since they claim to be part of Islam"
DC said “They are not Muslims. They are monsters” when Haines was beheaded.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for any politician or journalist to address the Wilders/Griffin conundrum: why is Voltairian expression to be defended for Charlie Hebdo, but not for your political opponents.
Isn't part of the "difficulty" with Islam is that while there is the Qu'ran, it's open to interpretation by individual readers. There's no hierarchical "bishops-type" structure in Islam
Mr. Isam, fewer, and you have no evidence at all to back up your claims that more Hindus would mean they would start creating problems.
Hindus can be terrorists too ! Look at the Gujarat riots. It can also mobilise majority opinion against minorities, shore up your own base. You could even end up as Prime Minister.
Yes, they can be. It's just that they do it on a much, much rarer basis than when Muslims do. I find it amazing how much people want to ignore the obvious facts on this. About 90% of terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims, despite the fact they only make up 25% of the world's religious breakdown. It's an epic case of logical confusion to say "well the correlation isn't a perfect 1.0, so therefore it doesn't exist."
Once again we see prejudice based on ignorance http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/muslims-only-carried-out-2-5-percent-of-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html ''Since 9/11, [Charles Kurzman, Professor of Sociology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, writing for the Triangle Center on Terrorism and National Security] and his team tallies, 33 Americans have died as a result of terrorism launched by their Muslim neighbors. During that period, 180,000 Americans were murdered for reasons unrelated to terrorism. In just the past year, the mass shootings that have captivated America’s attention killed 66 Americans, “twice as many fatalities as from Muslim-American terrorism in all 11 years since 9/11,” notes Kurzman’s team.''
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/11/updated-europol-data-less-than-1-of-terrorist-attacks-by-muslims/ ''a minuscule percentage of terrorist attacks in Europe were committed by Muslims. In 2009 and 2010, there were a grand total of 543 terrorist attacks, of which only 4 were committed by Muslims. This means that only 0.7% of terrorist attacks–again, less than 1%–were committed by Muslims. Meanwhile, in that same time frame, separatist groups in Europe committed 397 terrorist attacks, or 73% of terrorist attacks overall. In other words, separatist groups committed 99.2 times (almost 100 times) more terrorist attacks than Muslims.''
Any terrorist incident is bad. Bad bad bad. The motivations that underline these muslim attacks are both terrible wrongheaded and without any foundation; they need to be corrected and redressed.
Mr. Isam, fewer, and you have no evidence at all to back up your claims that more Hindus would mean they would start creating problems.
and you have none to prove that they wouldn't
So we can take you think muslims are just generally nastier than other people? OK
In other nations where Islam predominate, only limited political freedoms are allowed: i,e. Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Libyia, etc., which are either run by islamic parties or are dictatorships.
Er.....Indonesia, world's most populous Muslim nation, by quite some margin - the 'Islamic' parties did not fare well in the recent Presidential election and the government is a coalition....and changes at most elections.....but apart from that.....
Would that be this Indonesia where Christian churches are being closed?
Isn't part of the "difficulty" with Islam is that while there is the Qu'ran, it's open to interpretation by individual readers. There's no hierarchical "bishops-type" structure in Islam
You're simply incorrect on this. Mainstream Islam is all about only the scholars can decide, particularly Shia Islam. Al Qaeda and others do disagree, but they're a minority. Out of the larger religious movements, it is Protestantism that believes in a priesthood of all believers, where all can get direct revelation from God.
Mr. Isam, fewer, and you have no evidence at all to back up your claims that more Hindus would mean they would start creating problems.
and you have none to prove that they wouldn't
So we can take you think muslims are just generally nastier than other people? OK
In other nations where Islam predominate, only limited political freedoms are allowed: i,e. Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Libyia, etc., which are either run by islamic parties or are dictatorships.
Er.....Indonesia, world's most populous Muslim nation, by quite some margin - the 'Islamic' parties did not fare well in the recent Presidential election and the government is a coalition....and changes at most elections.....but apart from that.....
It's an interesting country, which seems to have developed a moderate version of Islam, grafted onto existing local beliefs. It is also physically remote from the cauldron of the Middle East, with no strong ethnic links. It is quasi-secular, although the Indonesian Constitution provides "all persons the right to worship according to their own religion or belief" and states that "the nation is based upon belief in one supreme God." Seven religions are officially recognised, and each has a share of public holidays given in their name...
Isn't part of the "difficulty" with Islam is that while there is the Qu'ran, it's open to interpretation by individual readers. There's no hierarchical "bishops-type" structure in Islam
True. But there isn't in much of Christianity either. I don't recall the Presbyterians of Scotland being involved in much terrorism, the odd assassination of an Archbishop aside (in the 17th century).
Mr. Isam, fewer, and you have no evidence at all to back up your claims that more Hindus would mean they would start creating problems.
and you have none to prove that they wouldn't
So we can take you think muslims are just generally nastier than other people? OK
In other nations where Islam predominate, only limited political freedoms are allowed: i,e. Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Libyia, etc., which are either run by islamic parties or are dictatorships.
Er.....Indonesia, world's most populous Muslim nation, by quite some margin - the 'Islamic' parties did not fare well in the recent Presidential election and the government is a coalition....and changes at most elections.....but apart from that.....
Would that be this Indonesia where Christian churches are being closed?
Pages 6 and 7, para 1.8: 1.8 total public spending is now projected to fall to 35.2 per cent of GDP in 2019-20, taking it below the previous post-war lows reached in 1957-58 and 1999-00 to what would probably be its lowest level in 80 years.
Much of the discussion here in recent days strikes me as being ahistorical. I mean by that all this talk of a clash of civilisations, of a 'fifth column', of the failures of mass immigration and multiculturalism. When I was growing up in London, we lived through repeated IRA terrorist atrocities. The closest I've ever been to a terrorist attack (thankfully!) is being woken up one Sunday morning by the sound of an IRA bomb. (It wasn't very close: it was just very loud.)
When we look back on that period, do we seek to explain what happened as coming from the tenets of Catholicism? Do we see it as arising from some inherent aspect of Irish culture? Was it about the mass immigration of Irish people into the UK over many decades and their failure to integrate into British society? No. We see it as the result of a particular geopolitical history. The terrorism was eventually ended around the negotiation table (backed up by strong security measures). Today, we seem largely at ease with former members of the IRA having high-ranking government positions in Northern Ireland and being MPs.
Do you know what the worst terrorist atrocity in France since WWII was? It is not the events of the last few days. That would be second in terms of lives lost. It was a 1961 train bombing: 28 killed, over 100 injured. The perpetrators were the OAS, Organisation de l'Armée Secrète, a right-wing group opposed to giving Algeria independence, with links to Christian fundamentalism and to today's Front National. Another group from more recent French history is the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, responsible for two terrorist attacks in the country in the 1980s and another in Turkey: they were an anti-Turkish, Communist group. Last decade saw serious attacks by ETA (Basque separatists) and FLNC (Corsican separatists). What were the solutions to the OAS and ASALA? What are the solutions to ETA and FLNC?
It is wrong to lump all terrorists together as being the same. Each of these has their own story. But it is also wrong, I suggest, to offer essentialist and exceptionalist arguments about today's Islamist terrorism as if no other religious, ethnic or political groups had ever spawned violent action.
Isn't part of the "difficulty" with Islam is that while there is the Qu'ran, it's open to interpretation by individual readers. There's no hierarchical "bishops-type" structure in Islam
True. But there isn't in much of Christianity either. I don't recall the Presbyterians of Scotland being involved in much terrorism, the odd assassination of an Archbishop aside (in the 17th century).
As I mentioned below, it's not really true in Islam. Both Sunni and Shia Islam believe that ijtihad (independent reasoning) should be limited to muhtajids, qualified scholars. And in Sunni Islam, there's very little room for ijtihad even by them. The only people that believe in wide access to ijtihad are those that want to break from the Muslim status quo: arch-reactionary Islamists on the one hand, and the small minority of progressive Muslims on the other.
Yes there are. Because there are more places with significant minorities of Muslims than any other religion. That's the point
There would be a lunatic fringe in any mass of people.. and the bigger the mass, the bigger the fringe
Except extremism and fundamentalism are just as common in places where Muslims are the majority as where they're the minority: Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.
Yes wherever there is a significant minority it will happen, doesn't matter who is who
Can you point me to all the Christians in Iraq, China, Egypt and Syria who have been involved in terrorism?
Have they arrived recently and increased rapidly as a result of mass immigration?
Isn't part of the "difficulty" with Islam is that while there is the Qu'ran, it's open to interpretation by individual readers. There's no hierarchical "bishops-type" structure in Islam
True. But there isn't in much of Christianity either. I don't recall the Presbyterians of Scotland being involved in much terrorism, the odd assassination of an Archbishop aside (in the 17th century).
Hmm. You say I’ve understood, at least in part, correctly. Socrates suggests I’m quite wrong. However, I get the impression that the Presbyterian tradition is a bit of a “sport” in Christianity (yes, I know); the majority of Christians worship in some sort of heirarchical structures, although the “newere” churches have much looser structures than say, the RC’s. Socrates says that in mainsteam Islam onl;y scholars can decide; what makes a scholar?
And as I suggested upthread the Presbyterian-type Puritans could be somewhat unforgiving of dissenters. Look at the way the Quakers were treated in parts of New England.
'Scottish Labour will put the needs of Scotland first when creating policy under a new doctrine the party has dubbed "Murphy's Law".
New leader Jim Murphy [...] will present a redrafted version of Scottish Labour's constitution to the party's Scottish executive today, emphasising his desire to "put Scotland first" without "giving up solidarity with people across the UK [...]. I will always make policy in Scotland that is for the good of the country. The new Clause 4 sets the principles behind my leadership in stone.'
Interesting attempt to wave the Saltire!
McMurphyism starts to take shape, I'm not sure how this will go down with the tactical Tories Murphy seems to be chasing. As for dubbing it "Murphy's Law", you couldn't make it up if you tried.
Much of the discussion here in recent days strikes me as being ahistorical. I mean by that all this talk of a clash of civilisations, of a 'fifth column', of the failures of mass immigration and multiculturalism. When I was growing up in London, we lived through repeated IRA terrorist atrocities. The closest I've ever been to a terrorist attack (thankfully!) is being woken up one Sunday morning by the sound of an IRA bomb. (It wasn't very close: it was just very loud.)
When we look back on that period, do we seek to explain what happened as coming from the tenets of Catholicism? Do we see it as arising from some inherent aspect of Irish culture? Was it about the mass immigration of Irish people into the UK over many decades and their failure to integrate into British society? No. We see it as the result of a particular geopolitical history. The terrorism was eventually ended around the negotiation table (backed up by strong security measures). Today, we seem largely at ease with former members of the IRA having high-ranking government positions in Northern Ireland and being MPs.
Do you know what the worst terrorist atrocity in France since WWII was? It is not the events of the last few days. That would be second in terms of lives lost. It was a 1961 train bombing: 28 killed, over 100 injured. The perpetrators were the OAS, Organisation de l'Armée Secrète, a right-wing group opposed to giving Algeria independence, with links to Christian fundamentalism and to today's Front National. Another group from more recent French history is the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, responsible for two terrorist attacks in the country in the 1980s and another in Turkey: they were an anti-Turkish, Communist group. Last decade saw serious attacks by ETA (Basque separatists) and FLNC (Corsican separatists). What were the solutions to the OAS and ASALA? What are the solutions to ETA and FLNC?
It is wrong to lump all terrorists together as being the same. Each of these has their own story. But it is also wrong, I suggest, to offer essentialist and exceptionalist arguments about today's Islamist terrorism as if no other religious, ethnic or political groups had ever spawned violent action.
Very good piece. Sadly, elements of the far Right have seen the recent atrocity as a means of fulfilling certain desires: sow the seed that foreigners are inherently and incurably undemocratic. Thence (they hope) it follows that the only solution is repatriation or the cattle trucks.
13.51 "I've lived in Paris for 14 years and have never seen any demo on this scale before. The avenues leading to the Republique, a square bigger than Trafalgar Square, are jammed with people as far as the eye can see with people trying to get on to the square. So many that no one is moving any more," adds Rory Mulholland.
Mr. Isam, fewer, and you have no evidence at all to back up your claims that more Hindus would mean they would start creating problems.
and you have none to prove that they wouldn't
So we can take you think muslims are just generally nastier than other people? OK
In other nations where Islam predominate, only limited political freedoms are allowed: i,e. Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Libyia, etc., which are either run by islamic parties or are dictatorships.
Er.....Indonesia, world's most populous Muslim nation, by quite some margin - the 'Islamic' parties did not fare well in the recent Presidential election and the government is a coalition....and changes at most elections.....but apart from that.....
Would that be this Indonesia where Christian churches are being closed?
Isn't part of the "difficulty" with Islam is that while there is the Qu'ran, it's open to interpretation by individual readers. There's no hierarchical "bishops-type" structure in Islam
True. But there isn't in much of Christianity either. I don't recall the Presbyterians of Scotland being involved in much terrorism, the odd assassination of an Archbishop aside (in the 17th century).
Hmm. You say I’ve understood, at least in part, correctly. Socrates suggests I’m quite wrong. However, I get the impression that the Presbyterian tradition is a bit of a “sport” in Christianity (yes, I know); the majority of Christians worship in some sort of heirarchical structures, although the “newere” churches have much looser structures than say, the RC’s. Socrates says that in mainsteam Islam onl;y scholars can decide; what makes a scholar?
And as I suggested upthread the Presbyterian-type Puritans could be somewhat unforgiving of dissenters. Look at the way the Quakers were treated in parts of New England.
Edited: I note Socrates later post.
It could, I suppose, indeed be argued yoiir remark is also applicable to the Presbyterians - it is just that the conveners of the various kirk sessions, synods and General Assembly change on a very short cycle (one reason why the media in Scotland tend to cite the RCs and, of yore, the Anglican Bishop Holloway was probably they couldn't remember who was leading the Assembly each year). The other point is that the Scots were fussier about de jure saecular control by kings and lairds - they did disestablish the Kirk relatively early (de facto, in terms of the assorted Free Churches, Reform Churches, Burghers and Dissenters, and de jure, early in the C20).
Mr. Isam, fewer, and you have no evidence at all to back up your claims that more Hindus would mean they would start creating problems.
and you have none to prove that they wouldn't
So we can take you think muslims are just generally nastier than other people? OK
In other nations where Islam predominate, only limited political freedoms are allowed: i,e. Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Libyia, etc., which are either run by islamic parties or are dictatorships.
Er.....Indonesia, world's most populous Muslim nation, by quite some margin - the 'Islamic' parties did not fare well in the recent Presidential election and the government is a coalition....and changes at most elections.....but apart from that.....
Would that be this Indonesia where Christian churches are being closed?
When we look back on that period, do we seek to explain what happened as coming from the tenets of Catholicism? Do we see it as arising from some inherent aspect of Irish culture?
We certainly saw it as arising from many of the long-standing traditions of Irish nationalism, of which there were many violent strains.
Was it about the mass immigration of Irish people into the UK over many decades and their failure to integrate into British society? No.
That's because the vast majority of Irish people in the UK had integrated with British society. They did not live in ethnic ghettoes where entire neighbourhoods were predominantly Irish. They did not send their kids to separate Irish-culture schools. They did not have widespread support for extreme political positions. It's thus a comparison that doesn't make any sense to Muslims in Europe.
Do you know what the worst terrorist atrocity in France since WWII was? It is not the events of the last few days. That would be second in terms of lives lost. It was a 1961 train bombing: 28 killed, over 100 injured. The perpetrators were the OAS, Organisation de l'Armée Secrète, a right-wing group opposed to giving Algeria independence, with links to Christian fundamentalism and to today's Front National.
This one, on the other hand, is a great comparison. The Pied Noir in Algeria were, on the whole, highly prejudiced, intolerant and supportive of violent action. The French elite failed to properly deal with the issue for far too long, and there was almost a coup to dismantle the republic as a result. It was only when De Gaulle came back to power and made a rigorous stand against the movement, including policies that upset the more 'moderate' Pied Noir movements, by providing independence to Algeria, rather than thinking a softly-softly approach could work. If only our leaders took similarly tough action without fear of offending the 'moderate' Muslims.
It is wrong to lump all terrorists together as being the same. Each of these has their own story. But it is also wrong, I suggest, to offer essentialist and exceptionalist arguments about today's Islamist terrorism as if no other religious, ethnic or political groups had ever spawned violent action.
Nobody on this board has ever claimed that no other religious, ethnic or political groups had ever spawned violent action. You're arguing with a ridiculous strawman.
When in doubt there is always someone on PB.com that has the answer.
I need some help here regarding Juries and as I know there are a number of legal type people on here posting perhaps you could help. This for my daughter who is has done some research regarding juries decisions etc but now has to describe how she would communicate the research information to people who do not understand the technical parts of that research but may form policy or procedures on the subject?
In regard to juries who is responsible for the policy of how a jury or an individual juror undertakes the jury service and the deliberation? Now I know the judge directs juries at the end of the trial and even during, the question is before they arrive to start the trials?
Is there guidance or best practice used to introduce jurors to their duties? Who actually formulates that guidance and best practice? Is that an government body or a professional association?
I know their are legal requirements in law for jurors etc but is there anything else besides along the lines described above?
I need any information or guidance as soon as possible thanks in advance
Yes there are. Because there are more places with significant minorities of Muslims than any other religion. That's the point
There would be a lunatic fringe in any mass of people.. and the bigger the mass, the bigger the fringe
Except extremism and fundamentalism are just as common in places where Muslims are the majority as where they're the minority: Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.
Yes wherever there is a significant minority it will happen, doesn't matter who is who
Can you point me to all the Christians in Iraq, China, Egypt and Syria who have been involved in terrorism?
Have they arrived recently and increased rapidly as a result of mass immigration?
Yes there are. Because there are more places with significant minorities of Muslims than any other religion. That's the point
There would be a lunatic fringe in any mass of people.. and the bigger the mass, the bigger the fringe
Except extremism and fundamentalism are just as common in places where Muslims are the majority as where they're the minority: Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.
Yes wherever there is a significant minority it will happen, doesn't matter who is who
Can you point me to all the Christians in Iraq, China, Egypt and Syria who have been involved in terrorism?
"Chemical" Ali was a Christian in Iraq: not a terrorist as such, but part of a murderous regime and responsible for many crimes against humanity.
In China, the Eastern Lightning Christian sect have killed and mutilated multiple people since 1998. The most recent case was in May 2014 when six members brutally attacked and killed a woman in a McDonald's in Shandong.
The Syrian Syriac Military council are active in the Syrian civil war. Slightly different countries but nearby, there's Wadie Haddad, a Greek Orthodox Palestinian, was was leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, responsible for multiple terrorist attacks, mainly plane hijackings. There's Sirhan Sirhan, another Palestinian Christian, who assassinated Robert F Kennedy. Chris Bandak, another Palestinian Christian, was very active in the Second Intifada.
The worst atrocities, however, are probably the Sabra and Shatila massacres in Beirut in 1982, carried out by a Phalangist militia, i.e. Lebanese Christian, with the support of Israeli forces. Estimates vary, but between between 762 and 3,500 civilians were slaughtered. To quote from the Wikipedia article:
"Many of the bodies found had been severely mutilated. Many boys had been castrated, some were scalped, and some had the Christian cross carved into their bodies.[60]
"Janet Lee Stevens, an American journalist, later wrote to her husband, Dr. Franklin Lamb, "I saw dead women in their houses with their skirts up to their waists and their legs spread apart; dozens of young men shot after being lined up against an alley wall; children with their throats slit, a pregnant woman with her stomach chopped open, her eyes still wide open, her blackened face silently screaming in horror; countless babies and toddlers who had been stabbed or ripped apart and who had been thrown into garbage piles."[61]"
When in doubt there is always someone on PB.com that has the answer.
I need some help here regarding Juries and as I know there are a number of legal type people on here posting perhaps you could help. This for my daughter who is has done some research regarding juries decisions etc but now has to describe how she would communicate the research information to people who do not understand the technical parts of that research but may form policy or procedures on the subject?
In regard to juries who is responsible for the policy of how a jury or an individual juror undertakes the jury service and the deliberation? Now I know the judge directs juries at the end of the trial and even during, the question is before they arrive to start the trials?
Is there guidance or best practice used to introduce jurors to their duties? Who actually formulates that guidance and best practice? Is that an government body or a professional association?
I know their are legal requirements in law for jurors etc but is there anything else besides along the lines described above?
I need any information or guidance as soon as possible thanks in advance
Hi Moses
By a curious coincidence I am due to start Jury Service tomorrow - Snaresbrook Crown Court, so might get a juicy case.
If I can assist, she can contact me at arklebar@gmail.com
So to even find a handful of examples of terrorism, you needed to include three examples which weren't actually terrorism, and then go into other countries not on the list?
EDIT: Just looked up the Chinese one. That wasn't terrorism either.
Yes there are. Because there are more places with significant minorities of Muslims than any other religion. That's the point
There would be a lunatic fringe in any mass of people.. and the bigger the mass, the bigger the fringe
Except extremism and fundamentalism are just as common in places where Muslims are the majority as where they're the minority: Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.
Yes wherever there is a significant minority it will happen, doesn't matter who is who
Can you point me to all the Christians in Iraq, China, Egypt and Syria who have been involved in terrorism?
"Chemical" Ali was a Christian in Iraq: not a terrorist as such, but part of a murderous regime and responsible for many crimes against humanity.
No he wasn't. You are thinking of Tariq Aziz, who was just a harmless and hapless diplomat...
Yes there are. Because there are more places with significant minorities of Muslims than any other religion. That's the point
There would be a lunatic fringe in any mass of people.. and the bigger the mass, the bigger the fringe
Except extremism and fundamentalism are just as common in places where Muslims are the majority as where they're the minority: Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.
Yes wherever there is a significant minority it will happen, doesn't matter who is who
Can you point me to all the Christians in Iraq, China, Egypt and Syria who have been involved in terrorism?
Have they arrived recently and increased rapidly as a result of mass immigration?
Christians in Singapore then.
There isn't one massive religion in Singapore to fight against
You've successfully named one case of a Christian involved in terrorism, from a country not on my life, and in an organization that was predominantly Muslim and not in anyway about Christian identity. Brilliant.
Comments
2) Not all security measures make you safer. A lot of security measures make you less safe. One notoriously counter-productive security measure is keeping a gun in your house. In countries where it's allowed a lot of people continue to do this despite clear evidence that it increases the danger, because our monkey brains aren't good at thinking rationally about risk.
PS. A gun in your home is a good metaphor for some of the other security measures people want to take when threatened by terrorism, like giving a lot of unaccountable power to government agencies. The downside risk this poses are huge, because once someone evil or irresponsible gets control of them they can use them against entire populations. The upside benefits are tiny, because the number of people who would be killed by terrorism are tiny compared to the numbers historically killed by out-of-control governments, and the effect on preventing them small in any case. This is only even a conversation because we evolved for dealing with wild animals and our intuitions totally suck when it comes to even a slightly complicated security analysis.
Prices aren't falling because the Energy Co's fear a Labour Gov in May introducing a price freeze....so Ed will legislate to i) Drive prices down and ii) Freeze them......
Just as well the consumer is not lumbered with a lot of Green Taxes foisted on them by a previous Environment secretary.....oh, wait....
They integrate well because there are less of them
My general point is humans are pretty much the same everywhere, it is the abstract concept of power that causes the problems between us, and civil strife requires an incumbent, a significant minority and a fast growth in numberof the latter... It doesn't matter who plays which role
The real point is that psychopath is really just a lack of emotion and empathy, they often are not criminal and use their glibness and lack of moral concerns to get to the top in business, where their "straight talking" and single mindedness are seen as an asset. Of course many others that are more prone toward a life of violence often become soldiers.
The figures depend on the level set, but there are only so many jobs that the true psychopath can do (feel free to guess which ones those are), and unfortunately, if they fail, they blame everyone else.
It's a b*gger, but the human race has had to put up with it for millennia.
#jesuispissedoff
I thought stats have been posted on PB in the past showing that turnout is not significantly different in the marginals than in other seats? In which case, how much difference does ground game actually make?
Ditto - what about the fact turnout is higher in safe Con seats - where again ground game doesn't matter / there won't be focus on ground game?
It's fine making assertions - what does the data actually show?
A mind built up with countless specific adaptations can never be rational. We piece together the results of a small set of probes to judge the world, picking up a few signals and making quick assessments of what is outside, in the case of marauders, and inside, in the case of memories and dreams. [p. 221]
Since the mind evolved to select a few signals and then dream up a semblance, whatever enters our consciousness is overemphasized. It does not matter how the information enters, whether via a television program, a newspaper story, a friend's conversation, a strong emotional reaction, a memory—all is overemphasized. We ignore other, more compelling evidence, overemphasizing and overgeneralizing from the information close at hand to produce a rough-and-ready reality. [p. 258]
The [mental] system we recruited had the primary aim of reacting quickly to immediate danger—those who did lived long enough to produce us. Those who acted more thoughtfully and with due deliberation of the proper course, who could avoid panic when confronted by mild threats—who acted rationally, that is—probably lived shorter, and thus less generative, lives. The survival argument against rationality in primeval conditions is that payoff is very lopsided: Fail to respond to a real danger, even if that danger would kill you only 1/10,000 as often, and you will be dead. A few years later, you will be deader in evolutionary terms, for fewer of your genes will be around. However, an overreaction to danger produces only a little hysteria, a little stress, and maybe a little embarrassment—probably little or no loss of reproductive ability.
Running from every snake or tiger or loud noise probably doesn't disrupt life too much. Not running, while it might kill you only slightly more often, can eventually produce major changes in the population... If panic in response to a threat in all cases improved survival by even 1/10,000, those who panicked would be 484 million times more populous than those who did not. And so it was good to respond emotionally and quickly to the average dangers threatening most of our ancestors. Rationality is a great idea and ideal, but we never had the time for it; we don't have time for it now, and thus we don't have the mind for it."
Robert Ornstein, "The Evolution of Consciousness"
If we assume a full campaigning team of 20 in each seat (round about normal) with a coordinating agent, and national coordination at CCHQ, then if they fought all of these simultaneously then could cover the lot with c.1600 activists nationwide.
In reality, that doesn't happen of course. The bigger and stronger associations are in the safer seats where incumbent MPs have always been keen to maintain/increase their majority as a sign of their virility. However, a few activists(<10) from stronger constituents do tend to float across the border. CCHQ also maintains a campaign bus that busses in activists around the key marginals, particularly in the last few weeks. I'd expect it'd draw on a pool of between 300-500 of the most keen. So there should still be a good GOTV ground effort in most places during the official campaign itself.
Where Nick Palmer is right is on canvassing data. Building up good canvassing data of where your supporters are, and achieving good name recognition, requires months of consistent ground effort around the constituency. It's here that the Tories may suffer in some places, although offset to some degree by incumbency, and will have to rely on voter software assumptions instead.
That could be worth 500-1000 votes in a few key marginals, but not everywhere.
So we can take you think muslims are just generally nastier than other people? OK
EDIT
"Hindu fundamentalism, also called Hindutva, is driven by a trio of organisations in India called the Sangh Parivar – the family. The RSS is an ultra-conservative group that demands unflinching patriotism and preservation of Hindu culture; the VHP is their religious arm; the BJP is the political arm and India's main opposition party. There are smaller offshoots too including a violent paramilitary wing called the Bajrang Dal and the hardline Shiv Sena party in Mumbai whose founder adored Hitler.
"Hindu nationalism is built on the idea that India is a Hindu majoritarian nation, with Muslims and Christians cast as the minority, 'other'," Rahul Verma, a journalist and researcher on the subject, says. He says Hindu nationalism in recent years has fed off the Islamophobic, post-9/11 "Muslim terrorist" narrative.
Chetan Bhatt, the director at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the London School of Economics, has also spent years studying this movement. "Narendra Modi has been an activist for the Hindu far-right paramilitary RSS and its affiliates for the entirety of his political life. He remains committed to the supremacist ideology of Hindutva which says that India should be an exclusive Hindu nation state in which minorities are treated as second-class citizens or worse."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/hindu-nationalists-are-gaining-power-in-india--and-silencing-enemies-along-the-way-9155591.html
The semi evolved ape? The circumstances that lead to a panicked response may have been a useful trait before the rise of global societies and weapons, but is now as useless as an appendix. (intestinal rather than literal )
Cowboys vs Indians would be one
The rise of UKIP is another.. they are hated more than ever now by the other parties, despite being far more mainstream than before. Why? There are more of them and so they are a threat to power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffron_terror
I think there is a lunatic fringe in Islam which is more violent and larger than in other faiths. Boko Haram, ISIS, Taliban in Afganistan and Pakistan, and Al-Qaeda would seem to support this. Individual Muslims are generally the same as everyone else, save they pray five times a day. Just because 95%+ are entirely normal doesn't mean the Islamist lunatic fringe doesn't exist.
If you disagree, feel free to provide a list of comparable murderous international organisations for Catholics, Buddhists, Methodists or Jews.
Mr. Surbiton, it is fair to say that there has been some Hindu-related terrorism in India, as Breivik was, of course, a white Christian. However, such incidents are rare and (in Breivik's case) lone wolf rather than as part of a larger organisation.
Ed Miliband plan to freeze energy prices is putting firms off cutting household bills before the election, experts say.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2904189/Ed-Miliband-s-energy-prices-plan-keeps-bills-high-Families-seen-140-reduction-Big-Six-haven-t-passed-savings-amid-fear-freeze-policy.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India#Statistics
Yes there are. Because there are more places with significant minorities of Muslims than any other religion. That's the point
There would be a lunatic fringe in any mass of people.. and the bigger the mass, the bigger the fringe
A lesson from history? Killing large animals with wooden spears and stones can be dangerous, better to panic them over a cliff.
;-)
"We are going to back border controls and it is possible that as a consequence it will be necessary to modify the Schengen treaty," he told the daily El Pais ahead of a ministerial meeting on the subject in Paris.
Our own Puritans, although a bit later, could be pretty nasty to their opponents, too.
Frankly, I am amazed the tories aren't making more of Ed's catastrophic blunder.
What an open goal they are missing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_JC371jxPI
Late last night in a short conversation with TimB I set out a rough calculation that is used to estimate in numerical terms the potential group of hard core Jihadis who will, in some form, get involved in terrorist activities ondomestic or European soil. the travellers who go abroad and return. The yardstick used is 5-8% and needs to take into account not just those who have gone to Syria but also maybe up to 20 years back of Jihadi travellers.
That led to an estimate of at least a minimum of 100 or so in France that are considered top level targets for the security agencies.
If we are to believe the article on the front of The Times this morning that 5-8% yardstick probably holds good with their report that around 150 Jihadis are the big threat that the security agencies here focus upon.
The case of Hayat Boumeddiene may well prove problematic for the French authorities to explain away. As it emerges she was not in country when things went down it will be interesting if later reports suggest she actually bailed days before events took place. Her reported travel to Syria is a strong suggestion that this is IS related whilst AQAP, the Yemeni connection., have claimed the Charlie Hebdo attack pair as their own.
One claims IS allegiance, the other two may well be AQAP in allegiance. The attacks are claimed co-ordinated and stories of comms intercepts suggest this is so. How much organisational level, AQAP & IS, co-ordination has taken place? Is it just local individuals who decided to join their activities without outside direction (even if their individual intent did have outside direction) or is it something bigger?
Of all the religions in the world operating in the present day, only Islam is a political movement as well as a religion. In all the countries where Islam holds away, like Iran, Saudi Arabia the Emirates or parts of Sudan, no other religion or political party in the western sense is allowed.
In other nations where Islam predominate, only limited political freedoms are allowed: i,e. Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Libyia, etc., which are either run by islamic parties or are dictatorships.
Only Islam has world wide killing organisations that operate freely in all the Moslem countries.
No other other religion, Not the Jews, Christians, Hindus or even Shinto, sends its acolytes out on killing sprees from its holy places, urged on by so called holy men with their messages of hate.
Until Islam even begins to understand that toleration of other religions and beliefs is not an act of satan, they should be put beyond the pale of civilised people.
If Con say that it puts the phrase "Lab energy price freeze" into people's heads - which is good for Lab.
So Con has to stay quiet on the subject.
But the two good points for Con are:
1) No energy price rises means no talk of energy prices in the media
2) Mild winter keeps bills lower so people not so concerned about the issue anyway
You may disagree, many obviously do, but I am certain that it is the abstract concept of power that causes the violence and not the muslim faith.. they just happen to be the current significant minority
Most seats:
Lab 1.97/1.98
Con 2.04/2.06
Con now well ahead in majority market:
Con Maj 6.0/6.4
Lab Maj 7.2/7.6
Rob's graph shows how good a week it has been for Con:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v1-aXNoGwZSLOIWziLoqq9rbN3MHg6qezWKbjsAkunw/edit?pli=1#gid=1268197642
On the second point, that is an interesting comment, and would certainly fit in with his Blairism, bringing in Mr McTernan, etc. That would make some sense, of sorts.
If you had enough brain-cells and neurons you could understand this. Sadly, you are an infamous [MODERATED]....
:TUMBLEWEED:
Labours policy was always stupid and would not be without cost. A cut in prices would expose that and as is being clearly seen it would also expose that oil prices are volatile. Miliband's ploy was based on some notion that the companies are profiteering at out expense and that he could offer an easy 'tax cut'.
Ayodya Mosque,
Affiliates are now running India. A huge statute is planned for a Hindu terrorist who was involved I attacks in London (as anyone who reads t'Economist will know).
Racists and hatred is colour-blind. The BJP and affiliates are no saints....
Good job I didn't become a politician as I am obviously not good at making my point clearly
These things you cite happened "because they are members of the world second biggest religion, and the religion is a significant minority of many countries" not "because they are muslims"
They ARE muslims, but that is almost incedental
A snippet from the local press from one of the PPCs. He thinks an EU referendum can't come soon enough, and in the meantime,he wants UK control of its borders, agricultural policy and fishing restored as quickly as possible, to return the situation to what it was in 1975 - a common market.
Yes, it's the new Conservative Parliamentary candidate, Matt Warman.
Not sure how the Kipper can out-kipper that.
ELBOW for this week ending 11th Jan, now including YouGov/Sunday Times (brackets are changes from the week or so running up to Xmas)
Lab 33.3 (-0.9)
Con 32.5 (+0.9)
UKIP 14.5 (-0.9)
LD 7.7 (+0.2)
Grn 6.4 (NEW in ELBOW for 2015!)
Lab lead 0.8% (was 2.6% for Xmas week)
http://barnabasfund.org/news/IslamistpressureforcesclosureofchurchesinIndonesia
And this one where non-muslims are subject to Sharia law including banning of alcohol and compulsory headscarves for women?
http://barnabasfund.org/news/Sharialawstobeappliedtonon-MuslimsinAcehIndonesia
If this is the most tolerant and open Muslim society then God help us all!
(Edited to add, the SNP got 2.9% in Oct 1974)
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/revealed-the-truth-about-ed-milibands-1930s-porkie/
http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarnings/worldwide-caution.html
https://t.co/MJ5wSC3Q21
SJ said "its not enough to dismiss the Paris terrorists as not Muslims, since they claim to be part of Islam"
DC said “They are not Muslims. They are monsters” when Haines was beheaded.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for any politician or journalist to address the Wilders/Griffin conundrum: why is Voltairian expression to be defended for Charlie Hebdo, but not for your political opponents.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/muslims-only-carried-out-2-5-percent-of-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html
''Since 9/11, [Charles Kurzman, Professor of Sociology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, writing for the Triangle Center on Terrorism and National Security] and his team tallies, 33 Americans have died as a result of terrorism launched by their Muslim neighbors. During that period, 180,000 Americans were murdered for reasons unrelated to terrorism. In just the past year, the mass shootings that have captivated America’s attention killed 66 Americans, “twice as many fatalities as from Muslim-American terrorism in all 11 years since 9/11,” notes Kurzman’s team.''
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/11/updated-europol-data-less-than-1-of-terrorist-attacks-by-muslims/
''a minuscule percentage of terrorist attacks in Europe were committed by Muslims. In 2009 and 2010, there were a grand total of 543 terrorist attacks, of which only 4 were committed by Muslims. This means that only 0.7% of terrorist attacks–again, less than 1%–were committed by Muslims.
Meanwhile, in that same time frame, separatist groups in Europe committed 397 terrorist attacks, or 73% of terrorist attacks overall. In other words, separatist groups committed 99.2 times (almost 100 times) more terrorist attacks than Muslims.''
Muslims mostly kill other muslims
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/after-boston-a-few-facts-about-terrorism
Any terrorist incident is bad. Bad bad bad. The motivations that underline these muslim attacks are both terrible wrongheaded and without any foundation; they need to be corrected and redressed.
Economic and fiscal outlook, December 2014
http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/December_2014_EFO-web513.pdf
Pages 6 and 7, para 1.8: 1.8 total public spending is now projected to fall to 35.2 per cent of GDP in 2019-20, taking it below the previous post-war lows reached in 1957-58 and 1999-00 to what would probably be its lowest level in 80 years.
When we look back on that period, do we seek to explain what happened as coming from the tenets of Catholicism? Do we see it as arising from some inherent aspect of Irish culture? Was it about the mass immigration of Irish people into the UK over many decades and their failure to integrate into British society? No. We see it as the result of a particular geopolitical history. The terrorism was eventually ended around the negotiation table (backed up by strong security measures). Today, we seem largely at ease with former members of the IRA having high-ranking government positions in Northern Ireland and being MPs.
Do you know what the worst terrorist atrocity in France since WWII was? It is not the events of the last few days. That would be second in terms of lives lost. It was a 1961 train bombing: 28 killed, over 100 injured. The perpetrators were the OAS, Organisation de l'Armée Secrète, a right-wing group opposed to giving Algeria independence, with links to Christian fundamentalism and to today's Front National. Another group from more recent French history is the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, responsible for two terrorist attacks in the country in the 1980s and another in Turkey: they were an anti-Turkish, Communist group. Last decade saw serious attacks by ETA (Basque separatists) and FLNC (Corsican separatists). What were the solutions to the OAS and ASALA? What are the solutions to ETA and FLNC?
It is wrong to lump all terrorists together as being the same. Each of these has their own story. But it is also wrong, I suggest, to offer essentialist and exceptionalist arguments about today's Islamist terrorism as if no other religious, ethnic or political groups had ever spawned violent action.
Socrates says that in mainsteam Islam onl;y scholars can decide; what makes a scholar?
And as I suggested upthread the Presbyterian-type Puritans could be somewhat unforgiving of dissenters. Look at the way the Quakers were treated in parts of New England.
Edited: I note Socrates later post.
That's because the vast majority of Irish people in the UK had integrated with British society. They did not live in ethnic ghettoes where entire neighbourhoods were predominantly Irish. They did not send their kids to separate Irish-culture schools. They did not have widespread support for extreme political positions. It's thus a comparison that doesn't make any sense to Muslims in Europe. This one, on the other hand, is a great comparison. The Pied Noir in Algeria were, on the whole, highly prejudiced, intolerant and supportive of violent action. The French elite failed to properly deal with the issue for far too long, and there was almost a coup to dismantle the republic as a result. It was only when De Gaulle came back to power and made a rigorous stand against the movement, including policies that upset the more 'moderate' Pied Noir movements, by providing independence to Algeria, rather than thinking a softly-softly approach could work. If only our leaders took similarly tough action without fear of offending the 'moderate' Muslims. Nobody on this board has ever claimed that no other religious, ethnic or political groups had ever spawned violent action. You're arguing with a ridiculous strawman.
I need some help here regarding Juries and as I know there are a number of legal type people on here posting perhaps you could help. This for my daughter who is has done some research regarding juries decisions etc but now has to describe how she would communicate the research information to people who do not understand the technical parts of that research but may form policy or procedures on the subject?
In regard to juries who is responsible for the policy of how a jury or an individual juror undertakes the jury service and the deliberation? Now I know the judge directs juries at the end of the trial and even during, the question is before they arrive to start the trials?
Is there guidance or best practice used to introduce jurors to their duties?
Who actually formulates that guidance and best practice?
Is that an government body or a professional association?
I know their are legal requirements in law for jurors etc but is there anything else besides along the lines described above?
I need any information or guidance as soon as possible
thanks in advance
In China, the Eastern Lightning Christian sect have killed and mutilated multiple people since 1998. The most recent case was in May 2014 when six members brutally attacked and killed a woman in a McDonald's in Shandong.
The Syrian Syriac Military council are active in the Syrian civil war. Slightly different countries but nearby, there's Wadie Haddad, a Greek Orthodox Palestinian, was was leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, responsible for multiple terrorist attacks, mainly plane hijackings. There's Sirhan Sirhan, another Palestinian Christian, who assassinated Robert F Kennedy. Chris Bandak, another Palestinian Christian, was very active in the Second Intifada.
The worst atrocities, however, are probably the Sabra and Shatila massacres in Beirut in 1982, carried out by a Phalangist militia, i.e. Lebanese Christian, with the support of Israeli forces. Estimates vary, but between between 762 and 3,500 civilians were slaughtered. To quote from the Wikipedia article:
"Many of the bodies found had been severely mutilated. Many boys had been castrated, some were scalped, and some had the Christian cross carved into their bodies.[60]
"Janet Lee Stevens, an American journalist, later wrote to her husband, Dr. Franklin Lamb, "I saw dead women in their houses with their skirts up to their waists and their legs spread apart; dozens of young men shot after being lined up against an alley wall; children with their throats slit, a pregnant woman with her stomach chopped open, her eyes still wide open, her blackened face silently screaming in horror; countless babies and toddlers who had been stabbed or ripped apart and who had been thrown into garbage piles."[61]"
By a curious coincidence I am due to start Jury Service tomorrow - Snaresbrook Crown Court, so might get a juicy case.
If I can assist, she can contact me at arklebar@gmail.com
You can tell her I don't bite. Much.
Good to see OFCOM pulled him up for his anti UKIP bias, shame they didn't mention the lies he told in the interview with Farage
Btw, I've just noticed your wonderful Avatar. I presume that is you, in your Saturday gear.
Nice legs.
So to even find a handful of examples of terrorism, you needed to include three examples which weren't actually terrorism, and then go into other countries not on the list?
EDIT: Just looked up the Chinese one. That wasn't terrorism either.
You've successfully named one case of a Christian involved in terrorism, from a country not on my life, and in an organization that was predominantly Muslim and not in anyway about Christian identity. Brilliant.