Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

"Rationalising" the risk doesn't mean that that rationalisation is valid or sensible. All of the responses you posted were not logical or sensible representations of the facts.

No, ScaredWebWarrior, these are *demonstrable* and *provable* facts. Trying to dismiss them with superficial "rationalisations" does not change that.

Where did I say "everyone else"? Answer, I didn't. There are some who, like me, have some understanding of the nature of risk and who don't simply assume that the headlines tell the whole story. Unfortunately there are also those who don't bother to actually think logically about the dangers and take the *more* risky choice.

[quopte]Just because the risk of shooting myself in russian roulette is less than not shooting myself doesn't mean that playing the game is a good idea.[/quote]

What on earth is this nonsense trying to prove, except that you seem to have missed the point again? Try looking at the examples I gave again and see what choices people made (eg use trains/ don't use trains) and the relative dangers of each (more likely to die on the road than on trains) and try to understand what I'm talking about.

And once again you try to put words into my mouth :rolleyes:

I have not said anything of the sort, please don't imply that I have.

Yes, I did and if you want you can check the figures for yourself.

Take a look at http://www.pacts.org.uk/policy/brief...tistics_uk.htm

Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres:

Motor cycle/moped 112
Foot 48
Pedal cycle 33
Car 3
Van 0.9
Rail 0.1

You are *THREE HUNDRED* times more likely to be killed in a car accident than a rail accident, yet when people were asked whether they would feel safe on the railways, many of them said "no" and that they'd go back to cars!

That is very evident.

Can you *really* say that that is a realistic scenario? Do you really think that the *terrorists* consider that to be an achievable aim? Whatever else they may be, they're not stupid.

Yes, that is what I'm asking for and yes, I believe that "kill the infidel" is not practical.

Yes, and I'm sure they are saying "God is on our side" and maybe I'm wrong for thinking that they're capable of thinking logically about the subject because that is what I would do, however I think their motivations are more subtle than that.

Or because we *have* "sex and drugs and rock & roll" and we are "exporting" that to their lands and trying to "corrupt the faithful".

I think they hate us more for recent history than the Crusades.

[qutoe]Because we don't believe in Allah like they do. Because we're not monotheistic (the Christians that believe in the trinity, anyway.) For being American. For being richer.[/quote]

Possibly, apart from the last one (who has all the oil?)

Again, possibly true.

No, but it follows from the evidence and given a choice between "they're just trying to kill us all" and "they're trying to make us react and make life hard from us", I know which I think sounds more logical.

Well if someone had invaded *your* country and then tried to impose what could be perceived as a "puppet government" whose main aim was to do the occupying power's bidding, what would *you* do?

See also the French Resistance in WWII...!

Or, as they see themselves, "the Faithful", which puts a different spin on it.

Yes, I do.

I'm well aware of the quote. I'm also well aware that Conan Doyle cheated and some of Holmes' deductions are more than a little ropey.

And, no, I don't think that "the improbable *must* be true", but the "impossibilities" seem a lot less likely to me.

The following is not meant to sound or be patronising, but I'm pleased to see that at least you are thinking about this. If you can demonstrate faults or fallacies in my reasoning, please, I would welcome seeing them so I can find out whether it stands up to scrutiny.

But from everything I have seen, I believe my conclusions are valid.
__________________

The point is, Xaccers, I am *not* going to answer that question.

My response of answering another question was to *demonstrate* that the question you asked is unhelpful to the debate because it makes assumptions about the answer and I'm not going to fall into the (obvious) trap.
__________________

Yes, I'm sure that's correct, but I think all but the the most fanatical of them realise that they can't simply kill us all, so they need to find *other* methods of getting rid of us and the first step on that path is to destroy our *societies* and that, I think, is what they aim to do with their attacks.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Says Master Graham.

Clear superiority complex.

You just don't get it, do you? It's not about the numbers. It's not about facts and figures. It's about sentient creatures with emotions, not computerised robots.

So your maths is spot on. Wow. Have a gold star.

That doesn't mean you're any better at judging the terrorists motives than I am, or anyone else.

Yet you try to suggest that you are.

Yes, I can really say that - in fact I did. And yes, you can make people believe almost anything, even that the impossible is achievable.
Not having met them, or seen the terrorists CV or academic qualifications, I'm not sure if I can make a valid judgement of their stupidity - clever of you that you can.

And you are the only one that has excluded that possibility without having any evidence, except that to accept the possibility would completely destroy your own pet theory.

(Emphasis mine)

Hang on, I got it wrong. You are saying that maybe you've got that wrong.
So maybe what I said is not so non-sensical or illogical after all?

So now you're trying to invalidate my suggested motives by changing them around a bit? Point made being that there are a range of motives.

Next time they need food/water/medicines we'll send them a few barrels of crude instead.

You've already said that maybe they're not being logical. So they may not be following the pattern you suggest.

I was talking immediately after the liberation. At that point nothing had as yet been imposed, yet as soon as Saddam was out of the picture there were others ready to take over where he left off.

Yeah - I notice that as soon as we stormed the Normandy beaches they started pelting us with stones and shooting us. Ever since we liberated them they've been trying to kill us.

No it doesn't.

Conan Doyle is not contributing to this debate, so the ropeyness of his argument is not in question here.

I did, and you conveniently ignored the ones you couldn't argue with.
They may not stand up to your scrutiny, but they will to others.
In fact, I don't think it is possible for you to accept the possibility of a flaw in your reasoning, hence you have to dismiss any and all reasoning or evidence to the contrary.

Indeed. Your belief in your own infallibility is only second to your arrogance.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Yes, it's about sentient creatures thinking *emotionally* instead of taking a step back and looking at *FACTS*!!!

You are conflating two entirely separate parts of the discussion here.

SWW once again, if you want to have a reasonable debate, *please* don't make comments like this because they add nothing to the discussion.

"The only one"? I'm the only one in this *discussion* who *may* have done such a thing, but that's rather a different matter.

And "completely destroy"? Nope, weaken, maybe. Destroy no. Curiously enough, that's what I think the terrorists are trying to do to us...

I'm saying that perhaps my assumption that you highlight is wrong. However in the absence of any other evidence, I still consider it to be valid.

Why do you seem to treat this as some sort of fight? I'm not trying to "invalidate" your suggested motives, but comment on them from *my* viewpoint.

Yes, I agree there are a range of motives that the terrorists have, however the aim of these are to bring about a worldwide Islamic state.

The point is they *have* the crude, but *we* then come in, and buy it all up, yet *they* see little return from it.

Yes, that's a possibility. I'm not a terrorist, I can't read their minds, but I know what I might try to do were I in their place.

Of course, did you expect otherwise? After Germany surrendered in WWII there were groups like the SS Werewolves who ran terror campaigns to try to bring back the Reich.

Oh dear, have you *really* missed the point *that* badly? I was talking about their reaction to the *GERMAN* invaders... :rolleyes:

<panto>Oh yes it does...</panto>

Care to back that up with something?

You brought the quote up! Now you're saying that the validity of the quote isn't relevant!! Sheesh! :shrug:

I did, and you conveniently ignored the ones you couldn't argue with.[/quote]

*WHICH* ones?

If they fail to stand up to any one particular scrutiny unless it is based on incredibly narrow criteria, then it it generally reasonable to assume that they fail.

In which case you think very, very *wrong*.

And now we're back to personal insults instead of reasoned debate... :rolleyes:

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Plenty of reasoned debate, if you want it.

For example, all of these are things you have said:

To me these things sound arrogant, particularly:

Whose scrutiny? Yours? Is that the benchmark? Maybe for you it is, and that's arrogant.

And since you persistently rubbish any reasoning from anyone else, you must believe that only you are right.

And with that one sentence you dismiss everything I say as 'rubbish'.

You persist in claiming you're right:

Hence my comment on your belief in your own infallibility.

So it is my opinion which I expressed in that statement that you call a 'personal insult', an opinion formed following the reasoning given above.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

People, we have started to get complaints about this topic and its content, please calm it down or the thread will be closed.

Have a nice day!

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

ScaredWebWarrior there was nothing in your post that was relevant to the discussion.

I see no point in continuing this further.

:walk:

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

:notopic: We have asked for you to keep this ontopic please try.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

The last of the Belmarsh detainees have been released on bail.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4338849.stm

The article mentions a list of restrictions placed on these people.
What I can't understand is that one of the detainees is described as "a truly dangerous individual" - so why is he being let out?
It seems hard to believe that this person can be judged to be so dangerous without any evidence of criminality or criminal intent, so why can we not prosecute, or deport?

Meanwhile, the curb on our civil liberties as being pushed through parliament has it's list of restrictions:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4288407.stm#list

Since it's beginning to look like these measures will become law, at least for the time being, maybe we'd all better get used to the idea.

The higher standard of proof demanded doesn't seem to make any real difference either.

Of course, if we didn't have any of this, those detainees released would be free to do whatever they chose.

So if we were not to have any of these restrictions, how would we deal with the threat these people appear to pose?

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

According to the BBC the House of Lords have now passed the bill...

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

You won't answer my question because it helps point out the flaw in your argument doesn't it?

Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are most likely to be Asian.
Now, that is not the same as saying "All Asians are islamic fundametalist terrorists" but then, no one believes that.
Now, being a muslim, you're more likely to come into contact with terrorist suspects than say a middle class white person, through no fault of your own.
For instance, you may unwittingly share a mosque with a terrorist suspect, and socialise with them.
As such, it is understandable that the security forces would be interested in you and may even bring you in for questioning.
That is why it was stated that muslims are more likely to be affected by the anti-terrorism proceedures.
It is not the case that a muslim going about his business with no links at all to terroism, is going to be dragged off for interrogation just in case they're a terrorist.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

No, it is because a ridiculous question.

Sorry, "no one believes that" you say, but you immediately continue:

The only "link" you have is entirely specious.

This is *NOT* "understandable" at all, this is simply "guilt by association".

You have no proof, no evidence, no *reasonable* grounds for supposing that someone may be a terrorist, yet you consider it "understandable" that someone should be dragged in for questioning simply because they have been seen *next* to a suspect and you seem to think that *they* should be *happy* to be questioned in this way!

Justice? Presumption of Innocence? Not in Xaccers' country!!!

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

It is an extremely valid question, one you felt you could not answer because it exposed the flaws in your argument.




Perhaps you neglected to read what I actually stated Graham?
What did I state which relates to presumption of innocence when dealing with a suspect? Suspect being the operative word graham, it means that someone is suspected of criminal activity but has not be charged, or found guilty, they are still innocent!

Perhaps you believe that if someone is murdered in a nightclub the police should let everyone there go and not take them in for questioning, after all, most of them would have had nothing to do with the murder.

Or perhaps you have no idea how the law has been working for the past 50+ years?


Intelligence? reasoned response? understanding of quoted text? Not in Graham's posts apparently!!!

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

At last....found the question!

OK how about answering your question with a question ;)

If you are a police officer within a force which confesses itself to be instutionally racist (as GMP here have) are you more likely to stop and search:

1. A white person?
2. A black/Asian person?

The issue with stop and search is that it is a power that has in the past been abused and demonstrated to be counter-productive to effective policing. We are all, I'm sure, concerned with reducing and containing the threat of terrorism (although we may disagree on what the level of threat is) and my point is simply that S&S is unlikely to be in any way effective in doing so.