What can you say, apart from hypocrites:
Good point but this link indicates that only one of them has killed people..
Good point but this link indicates that only one of them has killed people..
Er, yes... and while I'm no fan of David Cameron myself, I would still rather live in a country governed by him than one governed by Islamic State! o_O
Changing the subject a little, I was flabbergasted to hear in the last day or two that someone billed as a "terrorism expert" on Fox News in the US, speaking about Islamic extremism in Europe, declared that Birmingham is a 100% Muslim city where "non-Muslims simply don't go", and in parts of London, "Muslim religious police" attack and beat up people who don't dress according to "religious Muslim attire": [url]Apology for 'Muslim Birmingham Fox News claim[/url] :confused:
All I can say is that, with "expert" opinions like this being broadcast on a major American news station (albeit not one that's known for accuracy and reasoned analysis in the first place), I'm hardly surprised that there is so much Islamophobia out there. I'm also less surprised now that some Muslims are convinced that "the West", and particularly the US, is out to destroy Islam!!
This is the expert on Birmingham on this link:
I wouldn't wish to live in a world of IS either. But that's get right down the facts. IS is from Al Qaeda and that was originally developed by the CIA (yes a slight simplification but I've got to go to work). Western powers (with Israel, Saudi Arabia & Qatar) have been distorting the politics of the middle east for decades, supplying weapons and causing mass destruction to the region. The cause and effects then ripple out.
What has happened in Paris is inhuman and terrible, but terrible things happen all round the world. 1000's of people die every week in conflicts. Shouldn't we be asking why is this so? Is there a difference between the people suffering in Paris or in Aleppo?
And no I don't believe this is to do with religion, it's all to do with power, oil, money, trade routes, drugs etc, with a few misguided individuals that have a distorted believe that they are doing this for the glory of the "big daddy in the sky".
Ha....well, the 'expert' on Birmingham - Emerson - has had to give a grovelling apology! Here is the backlash to his exaggerated speech....
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/foxnewsfacts---how-birmingham-twitter-8423921
I know - I don't do Twitter myself, but have been watching the new hit hashtag #FoxNewsFacts since yesterday and just about splitting my sides laughing!! 😀
This cartoon is a (Brumma) gem:
(thanks to Dave Brown of the Independent)
Ha....well, the 'expert' on Birmingham - Emerson - has had to give a grovelling apology! Here is the backlash to his exaggerated speech....
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/foxnewsfacts---how-birmingham-twitter-8423921
Fox apologised to Birmingham. Not to all the Muslims in Birmingham that "the expert" had associated with terrorists.
Fox apologised to Birmingham. Not to all the Muslims in Birmingham that "the expert" had associated with terrorists.
Well, he apologised for calling Birmingham 'muslim only'....something is better than nothing. He had to eat humble pie and must have felt humiliated. His reputation must have taken a knock now, i.e. be less credible.
What I have been trying to say in this thread is that answers are more complex than questions, and - in situations like this - never easy.
As always, the wonderful Gary Younge puts this better than I could hope to - [url]here is a link from yesterday's Guardian.[/url]
Well, he apologised for calling Birmingham 'muslim only'....something is better than nothing. He had to eat humble pie and must have felt humiliated. His reputation must have taken a knock now, i.e. be less credible.
I doubt it. A typical Fox News broadcast has 3 million viewers - and most people don't want to change their minds, they just want to be justified in what they already think.
Just for interest - the New Statesman ran a breakdown of religious affiliation in Birmingham, and some other English and Welsh cities . Interesting reading, here.
What I have been trying to say in this thread is that answers are more complex than questions, and - in situations like this - never easy.
As always, the wonderful Gary Younge puts this better than I could hope to - [url]here is a link from yesterday's Guardian.[/url]
Yes I am starting to appreciate just how complex the roots go. Hopefully there will be more exposure of this....indeed, I am currently listening to LBC radio where they are discussing the link between foreign policy and this recent tragic event in France, i.e. with input from experts and general public voicing their opinions. Interesting and educational to all who hear it. No doubt papers will put their own spin on it though and allowances have to be made for whatever bias is associated with those papers.
That was another excellent article, Crowan, thanks.
I've also just been reading this one - [url]Did Charlie Hebdo's cover get it right?[/url] - which provides a variety of contrasting perspectives and arguments about the new issue of Charlie Hebdo in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Even just this one aspect of the debate shows clearly how complex these issues are on the whole - something that I assume most HP members are also aware of and appreciate.
I accept that you didn't start the thread as an argument, but I don't see how it isn't political - most things are.
Most topics have a multitude of perspectives from which to view them. This topic can indeed be viewed as part of an on-going political debate. As the many articles being posted show, this will be/is the primary focus of the media and politicians alike.
But sometimes in life, it is healthy to step back from the politics of the situation and look at it from the perspective of human nature.
If more politically motivated individuals were to consider this perspective, perhaps we would live in a different society.
Until then, political debate will reign... but so will political mistake.