No - the West Country. I accept therefore that my experience may not be typical and a friend of mine who taught in inner-city London (Shepherd's Bush, if memory serves) might have a very different view.
However, it was an experience several teachers in the area had had - I particularly remember one (Christian) teacher who had had to teach about homosexuality and homophobia to an all-Muslim class, and was beyond surprised to find that they were quite relaxed about what other people got up to in their own time.
I want Trump to win the prez. I want Marine Le Pen as POTFR.
Geert Wilders in charge of Holland would just be a delicious bonus.
Add in Farage as PM post EU ref and full house!
cally.
There was a lot of intemperate language on here yesterday. I genuinely believe it was mostly venting.
I don't hate Muslims; that would be daft. I do get riled by their apologists; it speaks volumes about their attitude to non-Muslims that they feel we need to be restrained from an orgy of bloodshed.
I'd rather just ban people from invoking Islamophobia and/or racism every single fecking time it's pointed out that some Muslims have attitudes and practices that are incompatible with western liberal democracies, and the people that have to change are those Muslims, not the rest of us.
This must surely be the way forward. Do you want freedom of expression, equality for LGBTs, tolerance of other religions and other ways of life and at least an attempt at democratic forms of government - or do you want religious bigotry, segregation and intolerance?
As an atheist I am not particularly enamored by any religions but even I can see that mainstream official Christianity and Judaism as they are generally practiced in Europe - though they may still have some distance to go - are far beyond Islam in their acceptance of modern western culture.
We should no longer accept that certain sections of Islam can openly practice, preach and promote a culture that is so fundamentally different and opposed to ours.
This makes a lot of sense and after the moment of madness here on PB last night (which did not include you), is a more coherent way forward.
However, we need to do some Gap analysis to examine closely what we want to ban and what is already banned. My suspicion is that plenty is banned already that we want banned.
There is also the issue of unintended consequences in terms of which minorities are caught. I have no idea what some African churches in London preach but if it reflects what some African churches in Africa preach then they too might be affected by any legislation, given what I understand to be their views on various things. Likewise other religions. What about arranged marriages, "forced" hiding of the hair by orthodox jewish women, and any other number of practices we (I) believe incompatible with our society.
So am I excusing Muslims/Islam? Absolutely not - but we must separate Muslim religious practices from Islamofascists and somehow go after the latter while respecting the former.
"Cabinet Minister in sex blackmail plot: Politician confesses to affair after Cameron aide is accused of scheme to film trysts A Cabinet Minister has alerted Number 10 about a sex blackmail plot It is claimed Tory director Mark Clarke planned to film the minister The minster came forward after Tory activist Elliot Johnson killed himself Mark Clarke has denied any bullying or attempted blackmail claims"
Hopefully Elliot Johnson's family get the justice they deserve.
Tories and sex scandal go together. It must be the public school hang ups.
LOL...Because the other parties never have sex scandals. It is rife across Westminster, you know like man of the people Labour Leader's etc.
Well looking at the volume of bizarre sex scandals in the Tory party since way back to at least the Profumo scandal, one has to say it seems there is a lot of sexual repression among Tory party members.
With Labour it is money, with Tories it is sex, was ever thus
Irrelevant. Most Irish people did not support the IRA. Most Germans did not vote for Hitler. But enough people in each community did give tacit or overt support to extremism, such that it enabled extremism to triumph - quire catastrophically, in the case of Hitler.
We need to root out the blatant AND quiet supporters of Islamism, and make life so uncomfortable they leave. This may involve hundreds of thousands of Europeans. So be it.
I would argue it is anything but irrelevant. British policy in Ireland was designed to squash the IRA. Had it been done carefully and with restraint, the British might be ruling Ireland now. Because it was heavy-handed, clumsy and tarred all the Irish with the taint of treason, they drove the Irish into the arms of the IRA. The policy of the SPD was to keep Hitler out of power at all costs. But by attacking those ideas and aims which he shared with the Centre Party and failing to make common cause with the Catholics against the far graver Nazi threat, they allowed Papen and his fellow intriguers to put them into power.
If we are to defeat radical Islam, it must be by showing we are the enemies of Islamism not the enemy of Muslims. Otherwise, we will create far more enemies and make them harder to beat, from where we should have allies among those who are disgusted and ashamed at these people who share their religion and commit such dreadful crimes.
By contrast, I also taught a number of girls whose parents were secular humanists and in particular, admirers of Richard Dawkins. Without exception, I found them close-minded, ignorant, and extremely aggressive. Their usual response to a difficult question was to shake their head and smile smugly, saying 'you're wrong' and leaving it at that (a trick they learned from Keith Porteous Wood, perhaps)? When you provided facts that showed their earlier knowledge was wrong - e.g. evidence that the Testimonium Flavium was partially accurate and Tacitus was not tampered with at all, or that Catholics in the Middle Ages did not believe the world was flat - they simply stated that the evidence was forged. They could not deal, on an emotional level, with the questioning of their religious beliefs.
(snip) (Before anyone asks, the practicing Christians varied.)
A nice and interesting post, thanks.
As a control, how did pupils with atheist parents (as opposed to secular humanist parents) act in class?
As an aside, it's perfectly possible to be an atheist and dislike both Dawkins and his 'message'.
Irrelevant. Most Irish people did not support the IRA. Most Germans did not vote for Hitler. But enough people in each community did give tacit or overt support to extremism, such that it enabled extremism to triumph - quire catastrophically, in the case of Hitler.
We need to root out the blatant AND quiet supporters of Islamism, and make life so uncomfortable they leave. This may involve hundreds of thousands of Europeans. So be it.
I would argue it is anything but irrelevant. British policy in Ireland was designed to squash the IRA. Had it been done carefully and with restraint, the British might be ruling Ireland now. Because it was heavy-handed, clumsy and tarred all the Irish with the taint of treason, they drove the Irish into the arms of the IRA. The policy of the SPD was to keep Hitler out of power at all costs. But by attacking those ideas and aims which he shared with the Centre Party and failing to make common cause with the Catholics against the far graver Nazi threat, they allowed Papen and his fellow intriguers to put them into power.
If we are to defeat radical Islam, it must be by showing we are the enemies of Islamism not the enemy of Muslims. Otherwise, we will create far more enemies and make them harder to beat, from where we should have allies among those who are disgusted and ashamed at these people who share their religion and commit such dreadful crimes.
Feel free to disagree.
He can't disagree because what you write is eminently sensible and transparently obviously the way forward.
The problem for @SeanT is that it is also non-sensational whereas writing some total rubbish such as "...this may involve hundreds of thousands of Europeans. So be it." has the right touch of drama to it.
"Whereas Roger doesn't know that the Lebanese are Arabs. Nice of him to parade his ignorance so publicly :-) "
When you go through the airport at Beirut there are three gates. One for foreigners another for Lebanese and a third for Arabs. With a Christian Muslim population of 40 60 and where their first language was French followed by what they call 'Lebanese' and 'Arab' is often used by the educated Lebanese derogatorily it is less ignorant than you suggest
It's worth reading Fawwaz Traboulsi [ from Tripoli ] 's book: A History of Modern Lebanon recommended to me by a Maronite.
The Anglican bishop who married my parents went on to become a Maronite bishop in what must have been one of the oddest defections in recent history
Attacks of the type in Paris are not random, the targets are not random, they are areas of high people density. Its no more complicated than that.
One major question is who made the explosive devices. All appeared to go off, all seemed remarkably stable for what is a basically unstable compound.
That takes skill, not a Youtube video.
Well ISIS has 4 years of fighting experience, plus a lot of western weapons in their arsenal, and plenty of members that may have been trained by westerners before they jumped ship to them.
Basically any syrian rebel who took a course in explosives making by lets say the CIA and disappeared would be a suspect.
Poor little middle easterners - can't do anything unless someone from the CIA tells them to, and how to do it.
Just had to be the Americans fault somehow.
Bizarrely ignorant that you feel they can be absolved of blame.
Irregular warfare means fomenting dissent and arming local groups to achieve your aims, rather than conventionally invading. America didn't invent it, but they have been doing it for decades - with Al Qaeda being one of their early success stories.
So far so good, but what do you feel may be the issue with doing this in Syria, where the armed groups are Islamists? And when they get killed, training thousands more in how to kill and equipping them to do so? Any chance of that going wrong do you think?
Ah our resident (or is it rezident?) apologist for Russia.
So, as Russia invaded Afghanistan and kicked this all off, it must therefore be their fault?
Or is that different?
Every eight year old Yazidi girl.chained in a cellar and repeatedly raped by an ISIS soldier is the fault of America?
Or, alternatively, the ISIS soldiers are just a bunch of sociopathic, bullying scumbags with guns and Toyotas, stupid enough to believe there is an afterlife and easily-led enough to tag their unemployable, nihilistic wares to a medieval religion hoping Westerners will read more into their motives than is actually there.
They are dangerous, murderous scum using America and the West as an excuse and I'd support the state sponsored slaughter of every fucking one of them.
I give a talk to bankers and one of the topics is the duty to speak up about wrongdoing. What I say is this:-
“A trader sees a pile of shit near him. And he goes “Well, it’s not mine.” And walks away. And others do the same. And yet others see the pile and think it’s fine for it to be there and so they add to it. And eventually the pile becomes so big and smelly that people can’t move far enough away and it has to be cleaned up. That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is LIBOR and the FX scandal and every scandal there has ever been in banking. No-one saw anything, no-one heard anything. No-one said anything. They moved away and held a hankie to their nose and pretended it had nothing to do with them. But it’s not good enough to say “I am not a rogue trader. I don’t manipulate markets or insider deal or cheat my clients.” That may all be true. But when an industry has as many problems over such a long period in pretty much every organization and in every part of those organizations, saying that isn’t good enough.
That shit sticks to your shoe. That smell hangs around you. We are all tainted in this industry by what the bad guys do. Just as bad money drives out, so bad guys drive out the good. And it’s time – long past the time, frankly – for the good people to drive out the bad. And that’s why we all have to speak up. Because if you don’t, it’s your hard work, it’s your professional reputation, it’s your integrity, it’s your good name which is tainted. People will see you – however unfairly – as the same as the bad guys.”
Why am I sharing this?
FWIW, I'm ashamed of what my industry has become. Too many people lost sight of the fact that they exist to serve their clients. They were greedy - not always for money, but for peer recognition, for success, for plaudits. And the firms made too many mistakes - promoted the wrong people, thought short term, didn't judge risks correctly.
Banking should be a boring job, a quiet job, one which exists to help clients achieve what they need. Conflicts should be avoided - which probably means monoline firms - and I remain to be convinced that publicly quoted, limited liability companies are the right thing for our industry, our clients, our regulators, employees and other stakeholders.
One day - if I'm ever able to do my talk publicly or, maybe under Chatham House rules, I will invite you. I would like to hear your reaction.
I give a talk to bankers and one of the topics is the duty to speak up about wrongdoing. What I say is this:-
“A trader sees a pile of shit near him. And he goes “Well, it’s not mine.” And walks away. And others do the same. And yet others see the pile and think it’s fine for it to be there and so they add to it. And eventually the pile becomes so big and smelly that people can’t move far enough away and it has to be cleaned up. That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is LIBOR and the FX scandal and every scandal there has ever been in banking. No-one saw anything, no-one heard anything. No-one said anything. They moved away and held a hankie to their nose and pretended it had nothing to do with them. But it’s not good enough to say “I am not a rogue trader. I don’t manipulate markets or insider deal or cheat my clients.” That may all be true. But when an industry has as many problems over such a long period in pretty much every organization and in every part of those organizations, saying that isn’t good enough.
That shit sticks to your shoe. That smell hangs around you. We are all tainted in this industry by what the bad guys do. Just as bad money drives out, so bad guys drive out the good. And it’s time – long past the time, frankly – for the good people to drive out the bad. And that’s why we all have to speak up. Because if you don’t, it’s your hard work, it’s your professional reputation, it’s your integrity, it’s your good name which is tainted. People will see you – however unfairly – as the same as the bad guys.”
Why am I sharing this?
FWIW, I'm ashamed of what my industry has become. Too many people lost sight of the fact that they exist to serve their clients. They were greedy - not always for money, but for peer recognition, for success, for plaudits. And the firms made too many mistakes - promoted the wrong people, thought short term, didn't judge risks correctly.
Banking should be a boring job, a quiet job, one which exists to help clients achieve what they need. Conflicts should be avoided - which probably means monoline firms - and I remain to be convinced that publicly quoted, limited liability companies are the right thing for our industry, our clients, our regulators, employees and other stakeholders.
One day - if I'm ever able to do my talk publicly or, maybe under Chatham House rules, I will invite you. I would like to hear your reaction.
I hope you have a section on brokers promoting companies with favourable research reports in order to gain primary market business.
There is always a lot of black and white in politics discussions (I'm not talking about race). Like football supporters, their team is always the best even when it isn't. And the bias is so ingrained, it's never really seen.
I think Jezza is a nutter, but I'm happy to believe he may be nice and polite. I disagree with many Tory policies but I don't believe they eat babies or ever intend to. I quite like the LDs but they are a bit bed-wettery. Ukip have some reasonable ideas but have their own share of nutters too.
On Islam, I know some Muslims who are kind, considerate and are horrified by Friday (the vast majority) but a few will be quietly supportive. I've no doubt some of the latter kind will be coming here as migrants. asylum seekers, refugees (call them what you will). Some people will consider them all tarred with the same brush, others will deny they could possibly be anything other than very nice people.
Why not consider joining the "pox on all of 'em" party, or as they are all shades of grey, just vote for the lesser of all the evils.
Even if I found a party I totally agreed with, they'd probably all be loons anyway.
Attacks of the type in Paris are not random, the targets are not random, they are areas of high people density. Its no more complicated than that.
One major question is who made the explosive devices. All appeared to go off, all seemed remarkably stable for what is a basically unstable compound.
That takes skill, not a Youtube video.
Well ISIS has 4 years of fighting experience, plus a lot of western weapons in their arsenal, and plenty of members that may have been trained by westerners before they jumped ship to them.
Basically any syrian rebel who took a course in explosives making by lets say the CIA and disappeared would be a suspect.
IS has a lot more than four years of fighting experience. If you can even get your facts straight then don't bother with the conspiracies.
Most ISIS members started their careers fighting in a civil war called the Syrian Civil War which started 4 years ago, though their leadership has plenty of it since at least the Iraq war, now get your facts straight before starting your conspiracies.
One of their leaders said its origins and early organisation went back to before 2008. I will take his testimony above yours.
That is what Tel Aviv says.
This is the second time today you've made insinuations about Israel. Are they a convenient bogeyman for you to blame for anything you don't understand?
"Daddy, why do people have to die?" "Well son, there's this country called Israel ..."
This post is about how old ISIL is. The Tel Aviv correspondent says it goes back to 2008.
Regardless , when was the first or second time I blamed Israel for this particular atrocity ? I have blamed Israel for many an atrocity in Gaza and the West Bank. Yes. But Paris is not in Gaza.
I mentioned nothing about the Paris attacks.
In that case why twice, I will say a THOUSAND times about Israel's atrocities on Palestinians.
I am talking of the Israel dominated by Ashkenazis. immigrants fromEurope.
You should read Shlomo Sand's books.
And why don't you balance it with the sh*t going the other way?
The situation over there is complex. Israel does itself no favours, but neither do the people who pretend to run Palestinian affairs for their people.
Seeing bad in only one side, as from your comments I guess you do, rather devalues anything you have to say about the ME.
Very interesting comments, and not far from my own experience. It is one reason why (though I hate the thing) I would not support a burkha ban. We should not punish the victims of a misogynist medival mindset. The Burkha is a barrier as is the compulsory chaperoning. This is bypassed by modern technology and is obselete. These women can and do explore the web, and not just here in Leicester but in most parts of the world. They can read Cyclefrees comments as easily as the next person.
Muslim women do tend to academically do better than the men. I think partly is because of fewer distractions, but also because of the greater self discipline they need to survive in such a controlling culture. Those that can work outside the home are in contact with a much more liberal worldview. Those that cannot get frustrated. Either way there is tremendous cognitive dissonance. Some react by going deeper in, perhaps even fantasising about being jihadi brides. Others just gradually evolve more western values. The steps are small and gingerly but need to be encouraged.
The threat to the fundamentalists is not military or police (though this may nessecary for containment) it is the ubiquity and appeal of pop music, fashion, celebrity gossip, sport, chinese tat and Bollywood movies. IS know this, which is why they hate our culture, and perpetrate acts like Friday 13th. We are eroding the sand that the fanatics have built their house on.
Tory scandal: Whether Mark Clarke is a good guy or a baddie is not important. Was the Cabinet Minister playing away from home ? Apparently, a death is involved.
Already posted. But to me the important aspect to me is neither of these things, it's that it's quite possible that the Tory party is home to blackmail. I note that already Mark Clarke (nasty piece of work that he appears to be) is already being 'arms lengthed' (Cameron's team briefing that he has called Clarke 'a nightmare'), so this will be written off as one bad apple.
But we've heard all this before - Heath's 'little black book' of his Minister's activities etc. As I have said before, the most important aspect of people in high places engaging in activities that are unlawful and/or unacceptable in the eyes of society is not the activities themselves, but the fact that this makes them the victims of political blackmail, forcing them into decisions that could be against their personal principles and the interests of their constituents and the country.
Or perhaps you should try Gulen, who has a massive movement of millions behind him?
Recalling that Islam attaches the utmost regard to the sanctity of human life and citing the verse of the Quran that states “killing an innocent person unjustly is like killing all lim.
I still haven't got a handle on Gulen. He's either the biggest charlatan in existence or a potential moderate way forward for Islam.
The problem is that an "innocent person" is an innocent Muslim. Kafir do not count as human. They can be killed, raped, brutalised with utter umpunity for there is no punishment under Sharia for anything done to a Kafir.
Against kuffars make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war to strike terror into the (hearts of) the Enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside, whom you may not know, but whom Allah does know. Whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allah, shall be repaid to you, and you shall not be treated unjustly. (Qur'an: 8:60)
That horrible piece of shit Choudery said exactly that on the BBC, (re "innocent people"
I believe a certain reasonably well known muslim journalist got caught out referring to non believers as kuffar as well.
Most Muslims don't consider non-Muslims as scum. It's important to remember that.
But, there is a sub-culture that does think precisely that.
But this allows them to see non believers as cockroaches, white whores, decadent. It enables them to carry out types of behaviour towards non believers that they would not even contemplate being done to their own people.
And kuffar is an Arabic word which is offensive and known to be so. Ironic that people who scream about "offence" caused to them are so willing to use a highly offensive word about those who are not Muslim. We should point out the double standards.
Muslims don't think we are scum, they just think we are kafirs which we are, since we don't believe that the Koran is the truth.
Tyson, I think you are getting confused. Kaffirs are what white people under apartheid used to call the Africans they ruled. Muslims consider Jews and Christians to be 'dhimmi', because they are mentioned in the Qu'ran as the forerunners of Islam. Other religious groupings (specifically Hinduism and Zoroastranism in this context) were 'infidels'. Radical Islamists apply this label to all non-Muslims. Most Muslims do not.
"It's worth reading Fawwaz Traboulsi [ from Tripoli ] 's book: A History of Modern Lebanon recommended to me by a Maronite."
Thanks. I'll take a look. They're very aware of their heritage. They got me to do this for their COI. (A bit OTT but they ran it throughout the Arab world)
Turkish authorities foiled a plot to stage a "major" attack in Istanbul on the same day as the deadly gun and suicide attacks in Paris, a senior official has told AFP news agency.
Police on Friday detained five people in Istanbul, the source said.
MikeK, can you actually not hear yourself when you make remarks like that?
I was pointing out that the Muslims I taught were well-behaved, well-adjusted and I have no doubt will be appalled by what has happened. You immediately assume I am an apologist for Islam, which I am not, and never have been.
Is it so difficult for you to understand those facts, which appear to conflict with your worldview? And if so, can you not spot the irony of that?
If it is of any interest, although I frankly cannot see how it is relevant, I am a liberal Christian who mostly attends Church of England churches, and have been for fifteen years when I converted from being an atheist.
All I asked was a simple question - Since all evening you have done nothing but offer apologies for muslim belief and behavour - WHEN ARE YOU CONVERTING TO ISLAM?
There is a simplicity and completeness about faith in a supernatural being. I have often said that it mustn't be that bad living with a moderate learning difficulty where one is happy with very simple things. So, profound belief in a supernatural thing must be really quite rewarding. Thinking and rationalising is not easy.
But this allows them to see non believers as cockroaches, white whores, decadent. It enables them to carry out types of behaviour towards non believers that they would not even contemplate being done to their own people.
There is a simplicity and completeness about faith in a supernatural being. I have often said that it mustn't be that bad living with a moderate learning difficulty where one is happy with very simple things. So, profound belief in a supernatural thing must be really quite rewarding. Thinking and rationalising is not easy.
But this allows them to see non believers as cockroaches, white whores, decadent. It enables them to carry out types of behaviour towards non believers that they would not even contemplate being done to their own people.
I'm not sure who said what in this mess (both in tidiness and content), but the first para under the question is just the epitome of a simplistic, one dimensional, un-enquiring, closed-minded, self-satisfied brain fart. The tragic irony that the author regards him or herself as a thinker will not be lost on the reader. It's the type of thinking that led people to confidently intervene medically on the basis of the four humours, and insist that the earth was flat. 'Nothing exists or can exist that I can't measure'.
Once again on PB, adherents of one religion have done something bad, 'faith' is being criticised.
MikeK, can you actually not hear yourself when you make remarks like that?
I was pointing out that the Muslims I taught were well-behaved, well-adjusted and I have no doubt will be appalled by what has happened. You immediately assume I am an apologist for Islam, which I am not, and never have been.
Is it so difficult for you to understand those facts, which appear to conflict with your worldview? And if so, can you not spot the irony of that?
If it is of any interest, although I frankly cannot see how it is relevant, I am a liberal Christian who mostly attends Church of England churches, and have been for fifteen years when I converted from being an atheist.
All I asked was a simple question - Since all evening you have done nothing but offer apologies for muslim belief and behavour - WHEN ARE YOU CONVERTING TO ISLAM?
Comments
However, we need to do some Gap analysis to examine closely what we want to ban and what is already banned. My suspicion is that plenty is banned already that we want banned.
There is also the issue of unintended consequences in terms of which minorities are caught. I have no idea what some African churches in London preach but if it reflects what some African churches in Africa preach then they too might be affected by any legislation, given what I understand to be their views on various things. Likewise other religions. What about arranged marriages, "forced" hiding of the hair by orthodox jewish women, and any other number of practices we (I) believe incompatible with our society.
So am I excusing Muslims/Islam? Absolutely not - but we must separate Muslim religious practices from Islamofascists and somehow go after the latter while respecting the former.
If we are to defeat radical Islam, it must be by showing we are the enemies of Islamism not the enemy of Muslims. Otherwise, we will create far more enemies and make them harder to beat, from where we should have allies among those who are disgusted and ashamed at these people who share their religion and commit such dreadful crimes.
Feel free to disagree.
As a control, how did pupils with atheist parents (as opposed to secular humanist parents) act in class?
As an aside, it's perfectly possible to be an atheist and dislike both Dawkins and his 'message'.
The problem for @SeanT is that it is also non-sensational whereas writing some total rubbish such as "...this may involve hundreds of thousands of Europeans. So be it." has the right touch of drama to it.
Or, alternatively, the ISIS soldiers are just a bunch of sociopathic, bullying scumbags with guns and Toyotas, stupid enough to believe there is an afterlife and easily-led enough to tag their unemployable, nihilistic wares to a medieval religion hoping Westerners will read more into their motives than is actually there.
They are dangerous, murderous scum using America and the West as an excuse and I'd support the state sponsored slaughter of every fucking one of them.
They contribute nothing constructive to mankind.
There is always a lot of black and white in politics discussions (I'm not talking about race). Like football supporters, their team is always the best even when it isn't. And the bias is so ingrained, it's never really seen.
I think Jezza is a nutter, but I'm happy to believe he may be nice and polite. I disagree with many Tory policies but I don't believe they eat babies or ever intend to. I quite like the LDs but they are a bit bed-wettery. Ukip have some reasonable ideas but have their own share of nutters too.
On Islam, I know some Muslims who are kind, considerate and are horrified by Friday (the vast majority) but a few will be quietly supportive. I've no doubt some of the latter kind will be coming here as migrants. asylum seekers, refugees (call them what you will). Some people will consider them all tarred with the same brush, others will deny they could possibly be anything other than very nice people.
Why not consider joining the "pox on all of 'em" party, or as they are all shades of grey, just vote for the lesser of all the evils.
Even if I found a party I totally agreed with, they'd probably all be loons anyway.
The situation over there is complex. Israel does itself no favours, but neither do the people who pretend to run Palestinian affairs for their people.
Seeing bad in only one side, as from your comments I guess you do, rather devalues anything you have to say about the ME.
Very interesting comments, and not far from my own experience. It is one reason why (though I hate the thing) I would not support a burkha ban. We should not punish the victims of a misogynist medival mindset. The Burkha is a barrier as is the compulsory chaperoning. This is bypassed by modern technology and is obselete. These women can and do explore the web, and not just here in Leicester but in most parts of the world. They can read Cyclefrees comments as easily as the next person.
Muslim women do tend to academically do better than the men. I think partly is because of fewer distractions, but also because of the greater self discipline they need to survive in such a controlling culture. Those that can work outside the home are in contact with a much more liberal worldview. Those that cannot get frustrated. Either way there is tremendous cognitive dissonance. Some react by going deeper in, perhaps even fantasising about being jihadi brides. Others just gradually evolve more western values. The steps are small and gingerly but need to be encouraged.
The threat to the fundamentalists is not military or police (though this may nessecary for containment) it is the ubiquity and appeal of pop music, fashion, celebrity gossip, sport, chinese tat and Bollywood movies. IS know this, which is why they hate our culture, and perpetrate acts like Friday 13th. We are eroding the sand that the fanatics have built their house on.
But we've heard all this before - Heath's 'little black book' of his Minister's activities etc. As I have said before, the most important aspect of people in high places engaging in activities that are unlawful and/or unacceptable in the eyes of society is not the activities themselves, but the fact that this makes them the victims of political blackmail, forcing them into decisions that could be against their personal principles and the interests of their constituents and the country.
And kuffar is an Arabic word which is offensive and known to be so. Ironic that people who scream about "offence" caused to them are so willing to use a highly offensive word about those who are not Muslim. We should point out the double standards.
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/is-this-a-tearful-pope-francis-ringing-a-radio-station-to-pray-for-the-paris-victims/
"It's worth reading Fawwaz Traboulsi [ from Tripoli ] 's book: A History of Modern Lebanon recommended to me by a Maronite."
Thanks. I'll take a look. They're very aware of their heritage. They got me to do this for their COI. (A bit OTT but they ran it throughout the Arab world)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL6AVWLPJD0&feature=youtu.be
Police on Friday detained five people in Istanbul, the source said.
There is a simplicity and completeness about faith in a supernatural being. I have often said that it mustn't be that bad living with a moderate learning difficulty where one is happy with very simple things. So, profound belief in a supernatural thing must be really quite rewarding. Thinking and rationalising is not easy.
But this allows them to see non believers as cockroaches, white whores, decadent. It enables them to carry out types of behaviour towards non believers that they would not even contemplate being done to their own people.
I'm not sure who said what in this mess (both in tidiness and content), but the first para under the question is just the epitome of a simplistic, one dimensional, un-enquiring, closed-minded, self-satisfied brain fart. The tragic irony that the author regards him or herself as a thinker will not be lost on the reader. It's the type of thinking that led people to confidently intervene medically on the basis of the four humours, and insist that the earth was flat. 'Nothing exists or can exist that I can't measure'.
Once again on PB, adherents of one religion have done something bad, 'faith' is being criticised.