Terrorism in London

I've always found this type of argument a bit odd Crash. Civil liberties have always been tempered by their effect on society as a whole. The right to free speech ends when you incite violence, for example. Do I take it that it would be OK for someone in the states to own a jet fighter? Do the words "It's not the surface-to-air missiles that kill, it's the people who kill!" regularly trip off your toungue?I think, as already touched upon in other posts, that the more worrying threats to peoples rights come from racist reactions to asian and muslim people, or from over-zealous implication of anti-terror laws (again, likely with asian and muslim people as targets).But,as modulous pointed out, I haven't seen anything racist about the coverage in the news channels over here, or in the statements of politicians. If anything, the general consensus has been - The muslim council of Great Britain has made statements and the mayor of London has been especially keen to demand that no communities be ostracised as a result of these attacks.

But that's exactly my point. Civil Freedoms are always measured a sliding scale: they are not absolutes. In Britain the right to own a gun is viewed as negligible when compared to the right for other people to live in a society without guns. We could discuss this in another thread if you like - I suspect it's fairly off-topic. Can you then outfit it with sidewinder missiles?

quote:

---

And why beholdest thou the mote that is thy brothers eye, but considerest not the beam that is your own eye

---

As I'm sure others have already pointed out, Christianity has not been all sweetness and light in regards to the whole killing and plundering thing.So when you say: in such a condeming tone as part of your evidence that "Islam is Bad" I hope you think that others can present the horrific crimes committed during the crusades as evidence that "Christianity is Bad". Ever read anything about the sacking of Constantinopol? Or how about the intial land grab by the 'holy' Constantine himself? But there are people in the good old US of A who want to pervert democracy and impose standards dictated to them BY A BOOK. Guess that makes Christianity an evil anti-democratic faith doesn't it?The invasion of Iraq is one of the factors that have made the middle east a hotbed for fundamentalist Islam, "Islam is Bad!" is not one of them. Please go and read about true Islam and go and talk to real muslims. There's some pretty good stuff in the Koran, just as there is in Christianity, it's just that there is some pretty questionable stuff knocking about as well (just as in the Bible). The vast majority of Muslims pay no attention to the type of things you've been going on about - don't tar them with the same brush as fundamentalist nutters.

CS, You (and a great many others) say that such things are un-Christian, the majority of muslims say that the kind of attacks we saw last week were un-Islamic. I really fail to see the difference between the two.The 'Evil' things done in the name of Jesus Christ were justified by referring to holy scripture and the recent terrorist attacks are justified by certain (rare) interpretations of the Islamic holy texts. What is the fundamental distinction between the two faiths, other than your own biased opinion? As others have already pointed out, this is complete and utter bollocks! Democracy may be widespread in the former Christian kingdoms, but this is despite the rule of Christian law, not because of it. Show me a democratic Christian state that doesn't have a practical separation of church and state. Show me the words "One person, one vote" in the King James Bible. Did you even know that the largest muslim country in the world is a democracy? Again others have pointed this out, but I think it bears repeating. The Christian Kingdoms of Europe had to change their interpretation of the Bible considerably to transform themselves from God-given Monarchies to true democracies. Or do you still think we live in a world where the Pope's word is law? Edit: SpellingThis message has been edited by Ooook!, 10-07-2005 11:55 PM

Holmes,I don't want to get too involved in your exchange with modulous, but I thought it was probably worth piping up in defence of his position about Blair's emphasis on the Iraq War.While it may be true that Blair has parroted Bush about Iraq being the front-line against terrorism, I don't think that has ever been sold as the solution to international terrorism, as it seems to come across when Bush goes on about it.The link between pre-war Iraq and international terrorism has never been heavily played in Britain (probably because the link was so feeble) and my interpretation of the statements by Blair that you have posted is "If we leave Iraq as it is, we're really going to be shafted!".I don't think that anyone in the UK believes (or has been led to believe) that if we stop all insurgancy in Iraq everything is going to be tickety-boo again, or that the reason for going to war with Iraq was to crush Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism. It was sold as trying to stop some unpredictable nutter who had WMDs - the fact that this was a false premise is another thread. The UK was already on the terrorists hitlist before Iraq: the war gave them one more excuse, that's all.Hope this gives a different insight into the matter.

A few comments: Well, I have taken a good look at both and come the same conclusion: they are both political documents which need to be taken in historical and cultural context.Both have objectionable things in them, and both have some pretty good stuff too. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I have come to a conclusion about faiths not by comparing aged holy texts but by the actions and attitudes of their followers. Some people who class themselves as Christians do horrific things, some people who view themsleves as Islamic commit dreadful crimes. Most followers of both faiths live in peace with everybody else.Prattling on about how 'Islamists' want to bring about an Islamic world means nothing when the vast majority of muslims DO NOT. Likewise, insisting that democracy is un-Islamic flies in the face of the evidence: Could any of these Iraqis have classified themselves as Muslims? Why do Muslim people turn out to vote at all? Why is there a push (by Muslims) in Iran for more democracy that was present before the Iraq war?The muslim world clearly doesn't have to change it's interpretation of the Koran in the future - it already has! Go back and read what I actually wrote. The key word is practical. I am well aware that there is a Church of England with a Monarch at it's head - living in England you notice things like that - but to all intents and purposes the whole thing is for show. The Kirk in Scotland separated some time ago.There are still some links in England but they are fairly minor and are in the process of being disposed of (Charles, for example has declared that he wants to be known as 'Defender of all Faiths' when made king). It's a messy business, but that's what you get when you don't have a clearly written constitution.On the other hand, I'm sure the French will be amazed to hear you assert that the USA is the only democracy to officially draw a line between church and state. They are almost fanatical about keeping them separate, and I'm fairly certain they are not alone in Europe.The important part about democracy in the 'Christian' world is that when Church and state were tied together (IOW laws were passed down according to the Bible) then there was no democracy. Only when certain things in the Bible were re-interpretted was this possible. How is this different to Muslims re-interpreting the Koran in accordance with democracy?And as a general point: I've noticed that when challenged by others to back up your statements (Jar, Crashfrog, Holmes) you turn tail and flee. I think it is time to answer their questions or admit you don't want to debate.This message has been edited by Ooook!, 11-07-2005 10:36 AM

I don't think the majority of Brits would refer to the person in the top picture as 'Asian' (middle-eastern?). The most common use of the word is to describe people with origins in the Indian Sub-continent. Although geographically inaccurate, I suppose the use of the word has been increased to stop the racist label of 'Paki'There is a considerable proportion of the UK's Muslim population who come from India, Pakistan etc.Come to think of it, I don't think the person in the second picture would be called 'Asian' by many people (although it is getting more common). 'Oriental', maybe.

No apologies to Admins for this comment, I know it won't contribute to the discussion but I feel it has to be said by someone Bastards!