Londonistan - getting what they bargained for

Quote from Capablanca:
More...

I didn't hear about this. As far as I know terrorists can still be called terrorists.
BBC edits out the word terrorist
The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/12/nbbc12.xml



It is already known they are Muslim terrorists, why should their be a need to advertise the cause these terrorists want to draw attention to?
Because they are not fooling anyone by avoiding the word "muslim" in this context. The muslims know who these terrorists are, so do non-muslims. By trying to avoid mentioning what is obvious, accurate and unpleasant the British government and media project weakness and the ostrich qualities of head in the sand, not sensitivity. At least that's how it's perceived by the muslim world. Interestingly the brits don't hesitate to discuss "Quebec separatism", "american imperialism", "the Christian right in America", "Russian Nationalism" or "the Zionist occupation/aggression". Somehow they are not concerned that they may upset the French Canadians, the Americans, the Russians, the Christians or the Jews. Yet calling a spade a spade with regards to muslim terrorism is a tabu.


What purpose does it serve to distinguish the terrorists as Muslim?
Accuracy? Moreover it's important to make sure that these so-called moderate muslims realize that we still have the guts to call a spade a spade, they need to realize that we know that terrorists are coming from their midst and that it's therefore primarily their job to clean up their [muslim] house. So far these "moderate" muslims have been at the very least complicit and in many cases openly supportive of terrorist activities and methods, why would not they if they know we don't have the guts to even point finger at them.


I believe the Holocaust has a place in being taught in history but the question does bear asking why is it that the Jewish Holocaust is a staple of the school curriculum but not for example the atrocities the Japanese committed in China? Or why not a more current issue: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
No one would object to that of course but there is one unique feature associated with the Holocaust - unlike other examples of atrocities and conflicts you mentioned, during the Holocaust one nation was openly and deliberately trying to completely exterminate another nation, an entire extremely efficient industry of murder and extermination was built. That's why the Holocaust is in a league of its own, not because it's about the Jews.

The basic thrust of your post seems to suggest that Muslims are being given special privilidges.
Not exactly, my point is that the Muslim world is quickly becoming an international bully, radical Islam is sperading like cancer and it's just beginning to flex its muscles. The brits appear to be unwilling to stand up to this bully.

Instead the brits are bending over backward more than any other nation (even more than France) to please the bully rationalizing every concession, betraying one principle and one friend/ally at a time and hoping against hope that the bully will be placated and go away. The Europeans tried that with Germany in the 1930s. It won't work any better this time.
 
Quote from dddooo:

I didn't hear about this. As far as I know terrorists can still be called terrorists.
BBC edits out the word terrorist
The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/12/nbbc12.xml
More...


The BBC may be going a little too PC in that case but as is seen it is pointed out very quickly by another British media outlet. The ensuing debate will lead to the situation correcting itself. From what I know such a discussion on tactics did not even play out in the US.

It is already known they are Muslim terrorists, why should their be a need to advertise the cause these terrorists want to draw attention to?
Because they are not fooling anyone by avoiding the word "muslim" in this context. The muslims know who these terrorists are, so do non-muslims. By trying to avoid mentioning what is obvious, accurate and unpleasant the British government and media project weakness and the ostrich qualities of head in the sand, not sensitivity. At least that's how it's perceived by the muslim world. Interestingly the brits don't hesitate to discuss "Quebec separatism", "american imperialism", "the Christian right in America", "Russian Nationalism" or "the Zionist occupation/aggression". Somehow they are not concerned that they may upset the French Canadians, the Americans, the Russians, the Christians or the Jews. Yet calling a spade a spade with regards to muslim terrorism is a tabu.
More...

Weakness? Is an elephant stampeding because a rat appears a good example of an elephant's strength or weakness? Giving the radicals more attention than deserved is the true form of weakness. Being egged on to do something foolish like invading Iraq without adequate planning and clear goals shows a lack of self-control and is a sign of weakness. The exercise of restraint when called for is a sign of intelligence and strength. Terrorists thrive when you give them attention. Without it, they tend to wither and die on their own especially if one can attack the source of the problem.

In the US everything is sensationalized and blown up out of proportion. This has its advantages and disadvantages. Problems that would otherwise go unnoticed are fixed. On the other hand there are problems that don't need fixing getting more air time than problems that do.

What purpose does it serve to distinguish the terrorists as Muslim?
Accuracy? Moreover it's important to make sure that these so-called moderate muslims realize that we still have the guts to call a spade a spade, they need to realize that we know that terrorists are coming from their midst and that it's therefore primarily their job to clean up their [muslim] house. So far these "moderate" muslims have been at the very least complicit and in many cases openly supportive of terrorist activities and methods, why would not they if they know we don't have the guts to even point finger at them.
More...

You are approaching this in a very American way presuming you are dealing with other Americans. But you are not dealing with other Westerners you are dealing with a group that are still largely a bunch of Easterners. What I see from the Muslim community when Muslim terrorists act is silence and sadness. Perhaps you see that as complicity. I think Western culture would prefer to see anger and outrage. But if you came from some of the countries where they came from where being outspoken was likely to get you in trouble or worse maybe the silence would be more understandable.

That said, the Muslim community does have added responsibility and it should be firmly made aware of the fact (something I agree we have not seen much leadership on) but repeatedly hammering it home that it was Muslims behind terrorists attacks over and over without regard to the message it is sending does not help. After events like Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing was it repeated ad nauseum that right wing vigilantes were the greatest threat to US security? After 9/11 weren't images of the Twin Towers collapsing moderated? There is already a fire there is no need to throw oil on it.

I believe the Holocaust has a place in being taught in history but the question does bear asking why is it that the Jewish Holocaust is a staple of the school curriculum but not for example the atrocities the Japanese committed in China? Or why not a more current issue: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

No one would object to that of course but there is one unique feature associated with the Holocaust - unlike other examples of atrocities and conflicts you mentioned, during the Holocaust one nation was openly and deliberately trying to completely exterminate another nation, an entire extremely efficient industry of murder and extermination was built. That's why the Holocaust is in a league of its own, not because it's about the Jews.
More...
The whole of WWII is in a league of its own when it comes to human suffering and while the Jewish Holocaust is very representative of that there is a part of me that finds it odd that the entirety of WWII seems to have been reduced to a story of the Jewish Holocaust. No other social group I can think of has been put in as sympathetic a light in as many school curriculums. The systematic extermination of the Jews is widely known but are you aware of the similarly gruesome Japanese gassing experiments conducted on the Chinese where planes flew over heavily populated areas dropping biological weapons? Doesn't get nearly the same amount of press but it explains in part the ingrained revulsion many Chinese have for the Japanese. Shouldn't such a history be better known considering the increasing role China is expected to play in the world?

The basic thrust of your post seems to suggest that Muslims are being given special privilidges.
Not exactly, my point is that the Muslim world is quickly becoming an international bully, radical Islam is sperading like cancer and it's just beginning to flex its muscles. The brits appear to be unwilling to stand up to this bully.

Instead the brits are bending over backward more than any other nation (even more than France) to please the bully rationalizing every concession, betraying one principle and one friend/ally at a time and hoping against hope that the bully will be placated and go away. The Europeans tried that with Germany in the 1930s. It won't work any better this time.
More...
Is radical Islam really more of a bully now than it was before? What changed? Has Britain really become softer than it was previously? Maybe the Brits simply understand the first part of the phrase "speak softly but carry a big stick" better.
 
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

You're making the point AAA as to why me and some other conservatives are pro-immigration.

Bringing in millions of Catholics from Latin America is the perfect remedy to the Godless secular souls who threaten the U.S. from within.
More...

Damn right. I am no fan of any of the Catholic leadership, never will be. The followers are fine people in most ways however and not to be faulted for much of anything. I sure as hell don't want to be surrounded by Muslims. Muslims are gangbangers with a religious front and a propaganda machine.

BTW, this "war on terror" is designed to go on forever. You can't tell when it's over, right? there is no way to declare an end to it. Might as well get used to it. So far the pipeline has been built through Afghanistan to get the oil out of Russia to the tankers, that's fine as far as I am concerned, and the oil has been taken from Saddam, I don't care much about that either except that US troops and $ trillions of US taxpayers money was used to take it. Whatever, time marches on and not much changes....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top