Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

The UK should just accept the inevitable and embrace Islam


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 437 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 15:39:07 BDT
Whitey says:
Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 15:42:38 BDT
Freedom...how are you using the word? Freedom from or freedom to? Do you believe in limits to freedom. Do all sentient beings have the right to life? Are you a Jain?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 16:10:30 BDT
Spin says:
Whitey: "Rights" are allocated, not inherited. They change over time. And a "Right" is not a "Freedom". Give one person a freedom and you remove the freedom of another opposing such actions. Rights, being artificial conceptual constructions, are universal. Freedoms, being physical and mental behaviours, are not.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 16:22:21 BDT
H. M. Sykes says:
That is a good question, Simon. I am not sure that Man has ever been free during his life. Whether in death is beyond this discussion. If freedom is a right there would be no prisons, no taxes, no wars, no travel (tried arguing about who's right it is to fly the 'plane?), no immigration service etc.

I think the Human race is born into slavery in the same way as my dog is (but the dog has the better life). Tell me a single person who cannot be brought down by another. The world's leaders are under constant security from attack, is that free? The world's poor are under constant threat of starvation. In between, you live your life working for someone else, whether the government (taxes), your boss, your shareholders....

Name a single person in the whole of history who was truly free, I can only think of The Buddah.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 16:55:03 BDT
T. S. C. says:
'H. M. Sykes says:

That is a good question, Simon. I am not sure that Man has ever been free during his life. Whether in death is beyond this discussion. If freedom is a right there would be no prisons, no taxes, no wars, no travel (tried arguing about who's right it is to fly the 'plane?), no immigration service etc.

I think the Human race is born into slavery in the same way as my dog is (but the dog has the better life). Tell me a single person who cannot be brought down by another. The world's leaders are under constant security from attack, is that free? The world's poor are under constant threat of starvation. In between, you live your life working for someone else, whether the government (taxes), your boss, your shareholders....

Name a single person in the whole of history who was truly free, I can only think of The Buddah.'

That's a pretty good assessment of freedom. Freedom for one can often be chains and slavery for someone else, quite literally. The notions of the liberty of all Englishmen in the 17th and 18th centuries meant that English people, some of them anyway, went around the world exercising that 'liberty' and that 'freedom' by denying it to others in India and Africa, through the Slave Trade, the oppressions of the Raj in India, the exploitation of people around the world on plantations and so on. Liberty for some English people meant enslavement and even extermination for others. In one sense, we are free, in that we can do anything we like at any time we like; in another sense, none of us are totally free, in that we are constrained in so many ways. Such is life.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 21:44:53 BDT
J. Forbes says:
You talk total nonsense.

In Africa, people were eating each other. In India, the oppression by the local aristorcracy was much worse, and continues to be worse, than it was under the Raj.

Go and learn some real history, from primary sources. Not the self-serving nonsense of the sixties.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 22:51:06 BDT
T. S. C. says:
'J. Forbes says:

You talk total nonsense.

In Africa, people were eating each other. In India, the oppression by the local aristorcracy was much worse, and continues to be worse, than it was under the Raj.

Go and learn some real history, from primary sources. Not the self-serving nonsense of the sixties.'

It's not total nonsense mate, but perhaps I need to read wider. Can you tell me some of these primary sources you've read from? I suspect if you ask educated Indians and educated Africans you might also learn something new as well; perhaps we all would.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jun 2013 23:02:36 BDT
I would agree with this. True islam is a peaceful religion - extremists excist in all religions. Those who want to live peacefully in Britain and accept our ways and traditions should be made welcome. Those who march on the streets chanting against our forces and burn poppies, why should they be allowed to stay and live off our benifits if they hate Britain so much?

Posted on 17 Jun 2013 23:28:43 BDT
J. Forbes says:
OK, not total! :-)

Read Speke and Burton. Or, as a digest, Alan Moorehead. Blue Nile, White Nile. Also Red Strangers, by Elspeth Huxley, for a sympathetic account of the culture clash when white met black in East Africa. Meinertzthagen for an account of the wars between British and Kikuyu in Kenya.

Human history is always an account of the oppression of the masses by the powerful. The British Empire was unusually powerful, and unusually enlightened. President Tubman of Liberia explained the backwardness of his country (created as a home for freed slaves by the USA) by saying it never benefitted by being a colony. He meant that no colonial power had bequeathed it an infrastructure of roads, schools, electricity, literacy, hospitals, etc.

In 60 years, countries like Kenya went from the iron age to the 20th century, thanks to massive investment by the colonial power (Britain) and the colonists.

Britain didn't invent the slave trade, but we pretty much abolished it.

We weren't perfect, but by the standards of the times, we weren't bad.

Posted on 18 Jun 2013 00:30:31 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 18 Jun 2013 00:31:15 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2013 03:53:59 BDT
H. M. Sykes says:
One of the problems is the integration of unfamiliar cultures within our native society. Do not forget that Christianity is the state religion in the UK as much as Islam is in Iran. The principal bishops are appointed by the Queen as head of the Church on advice from her ministers.

So, although the UK has a fine tradition of tolerence to immigrants, and recent studies have shown that the nation as a whole benefits from their input and taxes, you have to look at the problem from the imigrants' point of view as well. Be it black people from the Carribean in the 1960s or Asian people from Africa in the 1970s, Jewish people in the latter part of the 19th C or Hugenot refugees from France before then down to Eastern Europeans today, these immigrant populations have tended to ghettoise, just as emigrant British people do abroad when in the Spanish Costas, for example. Historically, the docklands area of London was where the new arrivals congregated until they had established a foothold and could afford to move to other areas, leaving room for the next wave.

This ghetto mentality is not suprising, the immigrants share a common language, culture, taste in food and, of course, religion. The lack of integration with their new homeland is not all their fault, in the 1960s it was quite normal for UK seaside boarding houses to display signs saying "No Blacks, Irish or Dogs". Some religions require special diets, there would not be a lot of business for a hallal or a kosher butcher in areas that did not have a significant immigrant population. Many immigrants prefer, for instance, to marry people from their own community or home country.

While it is completely unacceptable to protest violently, native Britons have been known to do so as well from the Peasants Revolt of 1381 to the General Strike of 1926, the miners in the 1980s, the hunt saboteurs of the 1990s to London 2011 hardly a place in Britain has not seen violent protest. And because of its tolerance to protest, Britain is a top choice for asylum seekers and free-thinking antagonists - the German Karl Marx is buried in London.

So the case against the Muslim protests is their propensity or ability to use indiscriminate weapons of terror such as bombs in 7/7. However, the IRA, many of them British citizens, did exactly the same. So can we now concentrate on the nub of the problem?

Anyone who you don't like, you percieve as a threat. A mullah, a rabbi, a priest, a skinhead, a hippy, a gang member, a Romany, an MP, a journalist. Individually, these people may be the nicest people you have ever met but collectively they are victimised. More effort needs to be made to understand and remove the causes of discontent and this is not a quick process. There are still fascist and racist political parties in the UK. Openess is the only way forward, sharing, compassion and understanding.

Posted on 18 Jun 2013 10:30:21 BDT
I'm uneasy about comparing the IRA bombings to the 7/7 attacks. The IRA picked their targets carefully, e.g. Conservative Party Conference in Brighton, rocket attack on Downing Street etc. In many cases coded warnings were given to minimize injuries to members of the general public. Islamic bombers are indiscriminate in their targets even killing co-religionists in those London bombings. They are far more dangerous than the IRA because of that.

With regard to the ghetto, these places are formed when former residents are displaced (heard of white flight?) but of course those forced out aren't of any importance because most are working class. Were the middle classes involved I suspect the reaction would be very different.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2013 11:01:00 BDT
SilverSurfer says:
H.M. Sykes: The deep rooted cause of discontent is such that it will take generations to achieve it, if at all, it is not without possibility that some radical culture who time after time offer themselves up for misguided martyrdom will continue to take lives indiscriminately. We are a soft touch and we need that to change zero tolerance of anyone or anything that threatens our country and disrupts the peace and daily lives in England. I am sure all of us can give an answer and yes we too have seen violent protests in UK by British people. Until this government gets a grip on who can enter our country, and enforces the fact that if they are here to stay to make sure they learn and understand the language and laws of this my country and abide by them as we native British citizens are expected to. After all which of us would want to emigrate to any of the troubled states of Asia & Europe etc; as they have nothing but a fragile insecure country to offer us. Their nations are much larger than our island and do not not work hard enough to take care of their people, and yet we allow any Tom, Dick or Harry in so to speak, they should have something to offer us not come here and desire to put our lives in danger...I am glad my father who fought in WW2 along with others to keep this country free is not here to see what happens I want us to be proud to call it Great Britain, because that is what I believe we are, just need to get our act together to make sure it stays great and that the British rules / law are honoured and respected by all who enter our country, or is this too much to ask.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2013 13:05:11 BDT
T. S. C. says:
'J. Forbes says:

OK, not total! :-)

Read Speke and Burton. Or, as a digest, Alan Moorehead. Blue Nile, White Nile. Also Red Strangers, by Elspeth Huxley, for a sympathetic account of the culture clash when white met black in East Africa. Meinertzthagen for an account of the wars between British and Kikuyu in Kenya.

Human history is always an account of the oppression of the masses by the powerful. The British Empire was unusually powerful, and unusually enlightened. President Tubman of Liberia explained the backwardness of his country (created as a home for freed slaves by the USA) by saying it never benefitted by being a colony. He meant that no colonial power had bequeathed it an infrastructure of roads, schools, electricity, literacy, hospitals, etc.'

Thank you! I am aware that often history can have a political bias, and some people see the BE as largely benign and others see it as largely evil. Obviously, and I feel this to be closer to the truth, there was good and bad aspects to it, and some in empire wanted profit and nothing more, and others were genuinely enlightened and wanted to bring the benefits of Western civilisation to other parts of the world. Curiously enough, been meaning to get some of Burton's accounts and a general good biography of the man because he is a hero of mine although I don't know a great deal about him. I suppose one of the reasons I haven't is merely I am pressed for time, usually writing something, studying for a course, and as all readers will understand, I have about 30 books from Amazon and elsewhere I've yet to read!!! So little time and so much to know hey?! I will of course write down the titles you gave me and at the very least check them out, if not buy them outright. I've come to the reality that more knowledge is always a good thing, because I know that though I am moderately well educated and moderately well read, I can be biased as anyone.

'We weren't perfect, but by the standards of the times, we weren't bad.'

No, that's absolutely right. I have heard tales of the Belgian Congo and that was another matter. But judging those people from our times is never going to be a perfect science is it? Another point of view is always welcome! Thanks!

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2013 13:48:04 BDT
D. Israel says:
Most people think that religion is a bit of an embarrassment, and Islam in particular, and while we might prefer to live and left, if we feel our secular rights, which have been fought for over hundreds of years, are being threatened, we will react.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2013 15:01:33 BDT
Conrad Jones says:
The IRA DID WHAT??????? Dance Veteran you should be ashamed of yourself.

I was an eye witness on Warrington Bridge St in 1993. They gave a warning alright, that a bomb would go off in Liverpool!!!! The day before Mother's Day, the town full of children shopping for presents, I watched kids blown apart and tended to bomb victims with a first aid kit designed for minor burns. Two young boys died that day, injuries you can't describe and if you had seen them, will never forget. You cannot raise the IRA above any other murdering scum. Most of us don't care what religion you are, we live and let live but when you cross the line and kill women and children then you defile your own God whoever that may be. Terrorists are murdering scumbags, no matter what colour or creed.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2013 15:15:00 BDT
SilverSurfer says:
Totally agree Conrad....well said. terrorists are as you say despicable people whatever walk of life they come from and are not fit to share the same air you and I breathe!

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2013 15:18:44 BDT
SilverSurfer says:
You should take note of Conrad's eye witness remarks and let the human devastation the IRA caused in 1993 sink in..how on earth can you assume they ever at any time consider minimising injuries...

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2013 15:31:45 BDT
sounds like racism to me. at the core of which is double-standards. your appeal to "secular values" really is just an excuse for tyrannical racism against innocent peace-living minorities. their very visible existence alone offends you and is enough for you to breach the peace using public racist agitation. siege mentality. wholly without evidence. wholly without justice. the first step to straight-up cold-blooded murder.

racist.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2013 15:32:37 BDT
Spin says:
Conrad: War is hell. It never claims to be anything else, despite the propoganda spun by politicians. Think of the civilians your military has killed in your unjustified conflicts overseas over the years. And you are soon to kill more in Syria. If you have a disdain for warfare then do not engage in it. Or are foreign children worth less than british children?

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2013 15:49:23 BDT
Last edited by the author on 18 Jun 2013 15:51:05 BDT
Conrad Jones says:
I wasn't aware that the people of Warrington were at war with anyone, what a ridiculous thing to say!!

Spin....what do you mean ....your conflicts and you are about to kill more in Syria????????? What the flying fluff has any of it got to do with the average man in the street? Nothing!!!!! I make no distinction between children anywhere, nor colours, nor faiths. I don't care where you are from and neither do most average Britains.....what our governments do is no reflection of the desires or morals of our people......the sad truth is, we have no say in it.......and neither do any population anywhere on this wonderful planet......our leaders are fuelled by money, power, greed and oil......and so are yours!!

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2013 15:54:32 BDT
Bellatori says:
Nice to see you are still ranting and railing agiainst injustice.

"against innocent peace-living minorities." I would guess these peace loving minorities would be muslims then.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.
The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.
Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history."

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2013 16:10:00 BDT
Last edited by the author on 18 Jun 2013 16:10:31 BDT
Ian says:
"your appeal to "secular values" really is just an excuse for tyrannical racism against innocent peace-living minorities."

What you did there GtL is very clever; you took the accusation frequently leveled at misogynists, homophobes and racists who attempt to defend their views by claiming their religion forces them to think that way and turned it around to make it look like DI is using "secular values" as an excuse for racism.

The problem is that DI is criticising religions (all of them, though one more strongly than the others), people's beliefs - not a group of people. Criticising somebody for being born into a culture might be racism, but criticising somebody's beliefs is not. Perhaps the word you're looking for is blasphemy?

Posted on 18 Jun 2013 16:10:37 BDT
Conrad Jones says:
Bellatori.......isn't the Christian faith responsible for equally terrible violence against other faiths? I think the world would be a far better place without any religion at all. Religion and greed are responsible for most of it's conflicts!

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2013 16:14:38 BDT
Spin says:
Conrad: So when one wages war against a nation, one is not waging war against its towns and their populations? It was the "Average man in the street" who dismissed the IRA as "Thick paddies". It is the "average man" who allows his sons to fight in foreign wars. The English are so used to being herded and told what to think, the Welsh and Scots cannot sleep at night for the bleating coming across the border.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Banned In The U.S. Amazon Forums 3488 17 minutes ago
Ukraine. Send in the SAS? 70 32 minutes ago
Amazon's poor service 46 1 hour ago
Roundheads vs Cavaliers...the battle continues. 131 3 hours ago
Financially rich homosexual couples are usually the ones surveyed in gay adoption studies --UNFAIR! 108 9 hours ago
Why Do The Newest "Designer Drugs" Seem Aimed More At Murder Than Thrills? 944 12 hours ago
For Compassion's Sake Let The Relatives Bury Their Dead. Someone Say Sorry and Mean It 33 1 day ago
Labour to increase taxes? 50 3 days ago
How will the the Cypriot economic crisis affect both Europe and the Cypriot territorial conflict with Turkey? 85 4 days ago
Is it wise to allow China to invest so heavily in UK infrastructure? 68 5 days ago
How Did the U.S. End Up Such A Slave to Bad Politicians and a Manipulative Media? 496 6 days ago
160 Palastinians deaths. No Israelis killed... 63 7 days ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  48
Total posts:  437
Initial post:  10 Jun 2013
Latest post:  6 Oct 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions