London Bridge

The most sensible post I have read on this thread on this sad topic.
Agree with every word.

 

It's really nothing so sinister.

The Saudis hate the likes of Iran/Syria, provide the west with oil, and allow us access to their airbases to provide a geographical foothold in the Middle East.

In return, Western governments turn a blind eye to their terrorist state tendencies. The whole thing is just another proxy war.

It's a strange situation because you'll barely find any western voter on either side of a political divide who thinks we should continue to cozy up to them....and yet successive governments in multiple nations continue to do so.

 

I was joking, but seems I may have inadvertently stumbled onto something...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/15/bae.armstrade

Tenuous, however interesting that the Tories want to disolve the Serious Fraud Office.

 

Interesting. Hadn't seen that before. It's like the Night Manager was almost prophetic.

 

It was Tweeted by Wikileaks a couple of minutes ago.

 

But you alone are not putting forth your opinions for your 'own ends'?

 

You know what I mean, Moose. I have said all along that this is not a political issue.

Your first post in this thread last night was having a go some "right wing" American!

 

It's not the religions themselves that are the problem, it's the manipulating few who hang their blood-stained coats on it. As you say, every civilisation in the world has a spiritual side. If there wasn't religion, never mind the 3 Western religions you mention, the powermongers would find another ideology to hide behind.

 

Our PM made a political speech. She spoke about reviewing the terrorist prevention strategies and coming down harder on Islamic extremism. Corbyn made a political speech in response and in fact held back from saying what he could say about May's record, particularly about arm sales to Saudi Arabia.

Religion preaches tolerance, including Islam. You have to remember that it is power crazy political extremists that hide behind an ideology. I'm afraid that hate won't disappear if religion does (which it never will).

 

TM didnt make a political speech, it was a speech made by a politician, what she had to do as PM on the day after an attack. The BBC seemed very quick to point out that Corbyn made a political speech, criticising the Tories. But they think it was a good thing, so maybe they were making it up, which is entirely possible. I dont have the time to go through his speech word for word.

Headline
London attack: Corbyn criticises Tories in terror speech www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40153536

As I say, it is sad that politicians want take advantage of a tragedy to score political points.

 

I was disgusted by TM talking about what needed to be done by her government to crack down on terrorists. It was full if rhetoric and uneccersary. I feel it was entirely points scoring in the election campaign, trying to tell us she was strong and stable and would be hard on the extremists.

Corbyn was right to call her out on it

 

Good grief, what sickens me about this thread is the way some of you are rounding on Squibba as though he is responsible for it all somehow. Nothing he has said is controversial or unreasonable that I have seen. If this is what Muslims face in the UK its no surprise some are open to radicalisation. I'm almost being radicalised just listening to you.

First off, why shouldn't the Manchester bomber be lost or misguided or whatever the expression was? Does he have to be part of a highly trained squad of elite undercover agents planted by ISIS to carry out black ops?

It's not that far fetched to suggest ISIS is a western manufactured terrorist group. We are knowingly arming them via the Saudis so they are clearly acting with our tacit support and assistance.

The USA and UK need an enemy to function, whether as a means to frighten and thus subjugate its own citizens or simply financial. Once the Soviet bloc demised another needed to take its place, whether real, imagined or manufactured.

BRLR, you are not above personally abusing people yourself. You fully deserved the tirade you received.

 

The Tories were at Corbyn from the off yesterday as was the press. I suggest you 'grow a pair' and stop whingeing.

 

I also read May's speech 'enough is enough' is that there are people (liberals, hoomin rights loons, lefties) who are too tolerant of extremism. Not 'me' your PM, Home Sec for five years, the person with the actual power. I didn't read it as a mea culpa.

Nasty and utterly lacking in solution.

 

What on earth in that story indicates that the BBC "think it was a good thing"?

If anything it is positive about May's speech. Kuenssberg describes it as "high-voltage" and "bold".

 

You have misused the word 'reasoning'.
Why do you refuse to believe, against accepted science, that the world 'just fell into place?
I could equally say 'I choose to believe the world is flat' and 'if it was round, people underneath would fall off, that is my reasoning'.
In reality, you choose to believe because that is what your family and community have drilled into you since birth.

 

Sorry if this has been mentioned before.

Apparently one of the attackers is from Watford

 

cracking concert last night

the sight of empowered successful female artists prancing around the stage in tight and short things is 2 fingers up to muslim extremists

yawnmongers were excellent I thought

 

Errmm...Burmese/Myanmar state sanctioned Buddhists are currently leading an(other) exceptionally nasty, violent ethnic-cleansing campaign against indigenous Muslims.

Errmmm...what about those members of Aum Shinrikyo putting the fun back into fundamentalism?

The classic work.

If someone wants to try and get a handle on what (I think) @Squibba's trying to say I highly recommend this. The LDS is American as apple pie. It has an exceptionally bloody history (like A.N. Other faith), doesn't actually have a formalised system of clergy (like A.N. Other faith), relies on prophets interpreting God's laws (like A.N. Other faith), relies heavily on God directly speaking to believers which is then interpreted by "elders" with religious pronouncements based upon their utterances (like A.N. Other faith) and has an exceptionally virulent/violent fundamentalist wing (like A.N. Other faith) based upon the "pure teachings" of the religion's founder (like A.N. Other faith) - which actively preys on and recruits on those who are having doubts about their religion (like A.N. Other faith). The US judiciary had an exceptionally difficult time (and failed) trying to demarcate the line between "...insane..." and "...exceptionally pious hearing God communicate with them...".

 

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html - Plenty of scientists saying the opposite here. My belief in Islam isn't unwaveringly strong but my belief in a creator definitely is!

As for this "community" thing - why is it only applied to people of colour/faith? For all you know I could never leave my house. If I belong to a community, what community do you belong to GOBE?

 

A scientist saying something is not a counter to a scientist showing something with the scientific method.

 

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryo.html

Embryology 'science' described in the Quran plagerised from ancient Greece which was in any case wrong

 

I belong to the community of Watford fans. I belong to the community in my street, different races, faiths, demographics, but still a strong community. I am a cyclist and a motorcyclist, both of which have their own communities. None of these would have shunned me for marrying outside the community, for example, although I might get a bit of stick for not attending the church of WD18 for each home game. Would you deny that a sense of community is strong amongst many, many muslim families, and that deviating from the norms and customs is often frowned upon or worse?

And as for the web link you posted, a few (believer) scientists saying after interpreting a few hadiths to fit their own conceptions that 'Mohammed could not have known these things, therefore they must have come from god' does not outweigh the many thousands who would dismiss these interpretations as fanciful.

You are welcome to believe what you want, but don't dress it up in logic or evidence. You believe it because you want to. As, sadly, the lost and misguided souls in Manchester and London Bridge did. Do you think they would have done what they did if they didn't wrongly believe they were going to paradise?

 

Sorry GOBE you couldn't be more wrong. Accepted science totally allows for a God or creator. Certainly accepted science has never disproved a god. Accepted science in any event means what exactly...just what is known and demonstrable this month of May 2017? This month, this millennia even of human existence is not the be all and end all of the universe. We certainly didn't invent the universe even if we think we might just be beginning to understand it. About as much as an infant understands about the world maybe.

You do realise just how perfect and perfectly in sync this universe is...just the tiniest of fractions of a degree up or down in most everything and we wouldnt be here. You don't need to be born into a bible thumping family to acknowledge the possibility of there being some greater power out there.

 

Maybe we wouldn't. So what? What difference does that make, unless you are convinced that the universe only exists for us.
And even if there is a creator, why should we praise it, worship it, when if it is all seeing, all knowing, it comes up with the horrors we have in this world (along with the beauty)? Don't give me ******** about free will, either - what a vain, self-important concept. 'The creator created it all for us, but left us the free will to do wrong and suffer the consequences'. Arse-dribble.

Take 5 packs of playing cards, shuffle them and lay them out in a line. The odds on that particular order of cards is infinitessimal. But there it is.

"Science has never disproved a god"
Since when was it up to scientists to disprove a notion with no tangible evidence, whose postulation is at odds with 99% of demonstrable scientific evidence? Surely it should be down to the god-botherers to prove it's existence?

And I don't absolutely disbelieve in a 'higher being' but it is in a way irrelevant. This supposed higher being if it exists seems to be in no way benign; at best it shows no demonstrable interest at all, and has not deigned to show itself for 2,000 odd years, during which time we have created a lot more evil than existed in pre-Jesus times for which it was compelled to sacrifice 'it's only son', and has allowed the crusades, the black death, cancer, the spanish inquisition, Al Quaeda, Pol pot, stalin, Daesh, Hitler, AIDS, Biafra, Srebenica, etc etc etc since then.
At worst it is complicit in all of these wicked things.

Therefore God or no God, I am totally comfortable dismissing it from any influence on the way I live my life.

 

As you well know, a prayer will do me no good whatsoever. A cheque or postal order on the other hand...

 

Really? No seriously - really? What "...accepted science..." is this - Forteanism?

 

You are bringing religion into this when I was not. A belief in a higher power, God is as good a word as any, doesn't necessitate its worship or any other man made ritual or dogma. My one and only point is what humans 'know' is no more that what one grain of sand knows about the whole coastline, let alone the beach it's on. Humans are not gods, just a relatively intelligent mammal on an insignificant planet.

I'm not expecting or asking you to let anything influence your life outside of your own choosing, just don't be so ready to dismiss something you can't possibly know.