[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Just a quick thread derail kirk: if we're going to be posting on the same threads about these issues and adhering to the rules as suggested by Niamh, then I would greatly appreciate it if you reign in some of how you express things, even if it's in relation to the argument and not intended to be personal.

I understand that there are many things that we're never going to see eye to eye on and I have absolutely no problem with disagreement, but at the moment, it certainly feels a little bit personal.

I don't mind that if I can respond in kind or at least have a bit of fun with it as we were before, but where that isn't possible, I'd prefer to keep the debates a little more civil.

Specifically, I am referring to this:



Again I don't have a problem with you thinking that the analogy is an exaggeration too far and saying so (I am well aware that I have a tenancy to over-exaggerate when making a point), and I don't even have a problem with your phrasing IF the circumstances allow that sort of back-and-forth, I do enjoy the sport. But we have been asked to stop so I feel like I have to say that in this situation, there's really no need for you to phrase your disagreement in ways that could be inflammatory.

In return, I can promise to refrain from using extreme hyperbole in these sorts of threads.

I very much enjoy engaging in these threads on TiBB and I can see the moderators stance on this where things going this way is putting other people off when it comes to participating, and that's not really fair.

Im going on a bit but thought it needed saying. I hope it's taken in the spirit it's intended.

Certainly a valid point T.S. and I apologise then, and will ensure that I do moderate such expressions. Sincere thanks for your 'olive branch' this time, which I will grasp and agree to go on from here as before.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Kirk, I actually agree some of what you suggest may have to be implemented in order to try and avoid the situation that is happening in France, but I wanted to show where that kind of control eventually goes.

It's not that much of a leap from what you suggest to what I listed. and I would still prefer to take my chances with the terrorists than live in that kind of Dystopian nightmare...thank you very much

And i'm sorry if my stance on terrorism is "mystifying" to you, I have not changed my views one inch in fact I posted earlier on a another thread where I re-iterated my anger re Islam in general.

What I have had to do however, is re-state my desire to welcome the so called peaceful majority if they can express more solidarity with their Christian brothers. also I don't want to be seen as Anti-Muslim per se as then my posts could be seen as inflammatory and interpretated as hate speech which they are not.

My views on this subject should be quite clear now for all to see.

Also I recently received an infraction from TiBB for one of my more straight talking replies to one poster who was attacking my post by suggesting the french cartoonists deserved to die.

So although this is a great Forum to debate issues we have to keep a sense of perspective and not become too emotional or aggressive or obsessive in our posts.

Hope you can see this.

.

I can see what you are saying Nedusa - you write with such clarity and skill I never fail to understand you. But please don't misunderstand me, because I am not falling out with you but merely disagreeing and was a little perplexed by what I did perceive as a change in stance - not that you have not the right to do so, but more by your reasons. However, now you've explained all's well.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Kirk, I actually agree some of what you suggest may have to be implemented in order to try and avoid the situation that is happening in France, but I wanted to show where that kind of control eventually goes.

It's not that much of a leap from what you suggest to what I listed. and I would still prefer to take my chances with the terrorists than live in that kind of Dystopian nightmare...thank you very much

And i'm sorry if my stance on terrorism is "mystifying" to you, I have not changed my views one inch in fact I posted earlier on a another thread where I re-iterated my anger re Islam in general.

What I have had to do however, is re-state my desire to welcome the so called peaceful majority if they can express more solidarity with their Christian brothers. also I don't want to be seen as Anti-Muslim per se as then my posts could be seen as inflammatory and interpretated as hate speech which they are not.

My views on this subject should be quite clear now for all to see.

Also I recently received an infraction from TiBB for one of my more straight talking replies to one poster who was attacking my post by suggesting the french cartoonists deserved to die.

So although this is a great Forum to debate issues we have to keep a sense of perspective and not become too emotional or aggressive or obsessive in our posts.

Hope you can see this.





.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

What I have had to do however, is re-state my desire to welcome the so called peaceful majority if they can express more solidarity with their Christian brothers.

This, I 100% agree with and I guess all I can say is that my entire stance is based on my belief that this is in fact the only way that religious extremism can be brought back under control. No amount of soldiers, bombs or military campaigns can stop it. Only people who have the same basic belief system - but a more moderate version - can bring these people around or help to ensure that their young people are better protected from being taken in by them.

And that's why I think it's essential that, at all costs, we avoid marginalizing these communities, making it "us and them" (even if we believe that's already been done), and bringing in ideas that they should be closely monitored or even cast out. You could argue that they should simply want to help anyway, to improve their own image, but I think it's important to remember than in many communities (even here, but especially overseas), standing up against these things can be exceptionally risky and at the end of the day most peaceful Muslim's primary concern is going to be protecting themselves and their own families. Are they really likely to stand up to fundamentalism is they don't feel like they are supported and backed up by the rest of society? The more cast out people feel, the more likely they are to think of only themselves and their loved ones.

To play devil's advocate - if I was of Middle Eastern origin and lived in a Muslim country, would I stand up against extremists and condemn them, even if I found their actions to be abhorrent? With two young children in my home? No... I think I would pretend to be a god-fearing Muslim and keep my head down as much as possible.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

This, I 100% agree with and I guess all I can say is that my entire stance is based on my belief that this is in fact the only way that religious extremism can be brought back under control. No amount of soldiers, bombs or military campaigns can stop it. Only people who have the same basic belief system - but a more moderate version - can bring these people around or help to ensure that their young people are better protected from being taken in by them.

And that's why I think it's essential that, at all costs, we avoid marginalizing these communities, making it "us and them" (even if we believe that's already been done), and bringing in ideas that they should be closely monitored or even cast out. You could argue that they should simply want to help anyway, to improve their own image, but I think it's important to remember than in many communities (even here, but especially overseas), standing up against these things can be exceptionally risky and at the end of the day most peaceful Muslim's primary concern is going to be protecting themselves and their own families. Are they really likely to stand up to fundamentalism is they don't feel like they are supported and backed up by the rest of society? The more cast out people feel, the more likely they are to think of only themselves and their loved ones.

To play devil's advocate - if I was of Middle Eastern origin and lived in a Muslim country, would I stand up against extremists and condemn them, even if I found their actions to be abhorrent? With two young children in my home? No... I think I would pretend to be a god-fearing Muslim and keep my head down as much as possible.

Good Point, much has been said recently of the fact more peace loving Muslims don't speak out against the extremist acts carried out in their name. Could there be more than a kernel of truth in the fact that no one wants to stand up against these fanatics and risk having their lives destroyed as a consequence.

If that is the case then how and under what circumstances would large numbers of the silent peaceful muslim majority finally stand up and public state "No...not in my name"

We have seen atrocity after atrocity carried out and each one worse than the last and closer to home yet nothing is really said other than standard condemnations by elected leaders.

What would actually have to happen to cause a major outcry by Muslims against the murder carried out in their name.

Should there be for example like the troubles in Northern ireland in the seventies, some sort of civil peace movement like Muslims for Peace perhaps even the Muslim Church publishing plans for modernising Islam or bringing it into post modernity.

At least start the debate with the Muslim Church as to where the faith is going and how the extremism is damaging it.

If they are talking then there must be some hope that the killing might stop.

Surely enough blood has been spilled over this.






.

[the truth]

yea so were back where we started, we can anything we like about white men and christians but we cant with any other section of society

[Jose Mourinho]

Thing is, everyone has a right to say what they want, when they want and how they want, but there is simply NO WAY to stop reactions to whatever speech is said though. Freedom of speech has NEVER meant you can say what you want and ASSUME that everyone must smile and ACCEPT what you have said, because that simply already defies the logic of freedom of speech. With freedom of speech, inevitably comes consequences both in verbal retaliation and wrongly so ..through physical force....physical retaliation defies the law of free speech, otherwise we would call it Freedom of physical expression.

The worst example of this is the Charlie Hebdo killings. People got offended and handled it the wrong way defying the very law of freedom of speech, by physically taking away people's lives in order to intimidate them and PHYSICALLY STOP THEM from further using their right to voice their opinions. Now that is what I call a breach of freedom of speech. The law is actually trying to protect their freedom of speech and has done so by capturing and gunning down 3? I think? Of the killers.

Incidents like the Charlie Hebdo one ARE WHAT I CALL a breach of freedom of speech. Other than that I myself personally have had no problems expressing my views and when I have been penalized or retaliated against I can accept it and react appropriately without using force to physically terminate another person's right to freedom of speech.

I see no problem with freedom of speech.

[the truth]

I see no problem with it either.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

Pope on Charlie Hebdo: There are limits to free expression

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-charlie-h...121639260.html

[Jose Mourinho]

Originally Posted by Ithinkiloveyoutoo

He would like to have it that way and for sure it would stop a lot of trouble I guess but the Pope really does not make the rules!

[Kizzy]

'Francis by no means said the violent attack on Charlie Hebdo was justified. Quite the opposite: He said such horrific violence in God's name couldn't be justified and was an "aberration." But he said a reaction of some sort was to be expected.'

It was to be expected due to the extremist views of a minority, but that's not to say those actions are justifiable.