Muslims should expect to be stopped.... - Page 8

Bifta · 02-03-2005, 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

If nazi intentions had been nipped in the bud then Belsen wouldn't have happened.....you agree?

Quick, invade the USA too then, just in case.

02-03-2005, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul M

Oh look, Graham's on his high horse again slinging out the insults to anyone who doesn't agree with him - the second surprise of the day ..... not

Well surprising as it may be to you, the fact that you post huge posts spouting off with lots of *shouting* does not make your views right and everyone elses wrong. Once again you seem to think that if you force your views on people long enough and loud enough then you win the "debate". Well to answer your neg rep comment, I don't want a reasonable debate (or an unreasonable one) I'm not interested in a debate at all - I agree with the home office, end of story. If you can't deal with that then tough - it's no surprise to me and certainly isn't going to change anything.

I'm with Graham on this one. If you don't want a debate, goodbye.

Agree with him or not,Graham's posts are always thought provoking, occasionally provocative, always reasoned, always intelligent, always detailed. Some posts on CF are bigoted, uninformed, regurgitated-from-the tabloids drivel; have a pop at them instead.
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

If nazi intentions had been nipped in the bud then Belsen wouldn't have happened.....you agree?

You're happy to be seen comparing muslims to the Nazis are you. And Paul M feels fit to have a pop at Graham!

And on your other point re other solutions; I've already responded.

Ramrod · 02-03-2005, 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bifta

Quick, invade the USA too then, just in case.

That may be

........but it doesn't invalidate my point that you can ultimately bend over backwards too far in trying not to offend.
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyl

You're happy to be seen comparing muslims to the Nazis are you.

erm.......no

I'm pointing out where appeasement gets us sometimes.

02-03-2005, 17:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

That may be

........but it doesn't invalidate my point that you can ultimately bend over backwards too far in trying not to offend.
__________________

erm.......no

I'm pointing out where appeasement gets us sometimes.

Whatever way I look at it you're comparing muslims to nazis in raising this 'appeasement' idea. Who precisely are we supposed to be appeasing?

Ramrod · 02-03-2005, 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyl

Whatever way I look at it you're comparing muslims to nazis in raising this 'appeasement' idea.

You can look at it any way you want but what you are alleging isn't true

Quote:

Who precisely are we supposed to be appeasing?

muslims

me283 · 02-03-2005, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Fighting fire with fire leaves nothing but ashes - Gandhi.

And it's all very well to talk about "inconveniencing a minority" when *YOU* are not *part* of that minority...
__________________

How do you know what my race or religion is? Bit of a pre-judgement there, don't you think? Presuming I am "guilty" because of my opinions... tut tut
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Sorry, were we talking about Belsen...???
__________________

No, try New York, Bali, etc etc
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyl

The report states " Hazel Blears said innocent Muslims would be targeted because of the search for Islamic extremists." If that it is accurate (don't want that debate going again!) then its as good as all muslims because they make no distinction between innocence and guilt in exercising powers. As I've already said God help us if its left to Police judgement because that's precisely what caused the 1981 riots. It's policing by caricature and its a nonsense. And most importantly, it won't work

IF it's true reporting, Andy. Key word there is IF. After all, IF my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle.

02-03-2005, 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

I take your point

but I'm not hearing any other options. During the IRA threat all people in N.I. were treated with suspicion. Even more so Catholics.

It wasn't nice but had to be done.

Unfortunately, through no fault of their own, some islamic/asian people may be inconvenienced, if in a given circumstance the police have good reason to speak to them.

Assuming that is true (my understanding is that Republicans were treated with suspicion) did it work? No. The police's record in finding good reason is not good.
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

IF it's true reporting, Andy. Key word there is IF. After all, IF my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle.

I quite specifically said I didn't want to re-open that debate and yet.....
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

You can look at it any way you want but what you are alleging isn't true

muslims

So how are you making your argument against so called appeasement then? And we're appeasing muslims are we? Is that all muslims, the majority of British muslims that don't support terrorism. Please do explain.

me283 · 02-03-2005, 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyl

I quite specifically said I didn't want to re-open that debate and yet.....

OK, I must have mis-understood... I presumed that you meant the debate on what was said specifically, as opposed to the question of whether the reporting was accurate.

By the way, this shows that because one person doesn't want something, they won't necessarily get their own way...

Ramrod · 02-03-2005, 18:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyl

So how are you making your argument against so called appeasement then? And we're appeasing muslims are we? Is that all muslims, the majority of British muslims that don't support terrorism. Please do explain.

Certainly. It has been pointed out today that muslims may experience more stop and search and more counter terrorist activities in order to try to stop loss of life in this country from terrorist activities. Some sections of the muslim community (and our own liberal contingent) are up in arms about this. If we back down from such counter terror activities then we are appeasing those sections of our society. Seems straightforward enough to me

My argument against appeasement is that sometimes giving in like that can lead to an increased confidence in those who would do us harm (as it did in the 1930's) and spur them on and indeed allow them a freer reign in their activities.

02-03-2005, 18:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyl

Assuming that is true (my understanding is that Republicans were treated with suspicion) did it work? No. The police's record in finding good reason is not good.

Actually, the VCP's (Vehicle Check Points), body searches before entering Belfast City Center etc, wheren't really designed to ''stop'' the terrorists. They where designed to make attacks more difficult.

Pierre · 02-03-2005, 18:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyl

Assuming that is true (my understanding is that Republicans were treated with suspicion) did it work? No. The police's record in finding good reason is not good.

Catholic/Republicans 99% = the same thing.

Did it work? not very well but then again the IRA had a political agenda that we could work on, and an avenue for peace.

What is the muslim extremists agenda? oh that's right destruction of the west and what it stands for. Could be a bit difficult negotiating peace with that.

The polices record in finding good reason is not good, based on what exactly. Do you have personal experience of it?

02-03-2005, 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

Catholic/Republicans 99% = the same thing.

Actually I think before the peace process Sinn Fein polled about 23% of the Northern Ireland electorate. So that would have given republicans approx 340,000 votes, which would constitute less than half of catholic voters in Northern Ireland.

02-03-2005, 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

Catholic/Republicans 99% = the same thing.

Did it work? not very well but then again the IRA had a political agenda that we could work on, and an avenue for peace.

What is the muslim extremists agenda? oh that's right destruction of the west and what it stands for. Could be a bit difficult negotiating peace with that.

The polices record in finding good reason is not good, based on what exactly. Do you have personal experience of it?

I think the agenda is just a little bit more complicated than that, the Middle East not being a particularly simple issue and our historic role within it not terribly impressive.

As I have said more than once, during the SUS laws of the 70s the Police were shown quite categorically not to have shown good judgement (see the Scarman report). Searches were only discriminate in that they disproportionally - by some margin - targeted the black population. Obviously blacks are Ok now, its Asians' turn. And yes I have personal experience. I have been illegally searched, illegally held and even had a nice 6ft tall policeman point out how big his boots were to me whilst I was illegally held in a cell (can't think why he should point that out to me). Is that enough for you?
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Certainly. It has been pointed out today that muslims may experience more stop and search and more counter terrorist activities in order to try to stop loss of life in this country from terrorist activities. Some sections of the muslim community (and our own liberal contingent) are up in arms about this. If we back down from such counter terror activities then we are appeasing those sections of our society. Seems straightforward enough to me

My argument against appeasement is that sometimes giving in like that can lead to an increased confidence in those who would do us harm (as it did in the 1930's) and spur them on and indeed allow them a freer reign in their activities.

1. If we 'back down' from indiscriminate searching/harassment of people because of their race/religion, that is not appeasement. That's having a sense of justice.

2. In discussing appeasement you refer to the Nazis (due to a previous post, granted). The appearance at least is one of comparison.

me283 · 02-03-2005, 19:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyl

I think the agenda is just a little bit more complicated than that, the Middle East not being a particularly simple issue and our historic role within it not terribly impressive.

As I have said more than once, during the SUS laws of the 70s the Police were shown quite categorically not to have shown good judgement (see the Scarman report). Searches were only discriminate in that they disproportionally - by some margin - targeted the black population. Obviously blacks are Ok now, its Asians' turn. And yes I have personal experience. I have been illegally searched, illegally held and even had a nice 6ft tall policeman point out how big his boots were to me whilst I was illegally held in a cell (can't think why he should point that out to me). Is that enough for you?

And as I pointed out, the 70s were about 30 years ago. You may as well accuse all German soldiers of goose-stepping! It is also a statistic that certain crimes in certain areas were committed by blacks more often than whites or Asians. You probably wouldn't complain if more skinheads than pensioners were searched at a football match, would you?

Why not move on from what was reported in the 70s and look at what's happening now. Remember, there are a lot more Asian police officers now... are you accusing them of being racist too?

02-03-2005, 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

And as I pointed out, the 70s were about 30 years ago. You may as well accuse all German soldiers of goose-stepping! It is also a statistic that certain crimes in certain areas were committed by blacks more often than whites or Asians. You probably wouldn't complain if more skinheads than pensioners were searched at a football match, would you?

Why not move on from what was reported in the 70s and look at what's happening now. Remember, there are a lot more Asian police officers now... are you accusing them of being racist too?

1. Lessons from history can be learnt; you don't move on from them
2. I don't think you understand the massively detrimental effect indiscriminate (ie nowt to do with suspicion) had at the time.
3. A lot more Asian police officers? Still rare as rocking horse sh*t (and I live in Greater Manchester where the police's record, by their own admission and widespread evidence, is hardly a bastion of race-neutral policing).