Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Name-calling and threats......

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Name-calling and threats......
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject:

Quote:

You don't think Islam should be banned, but with all the measures mentioned above it's tantamount to a ban - not only on religious practice, but on foreigners in general.

Can you read? Where did I say a ban on foreigners in general? What a pathetic strawman. I said I wanted a ban of Muslim immigration. Not Chinese immigration, or African immigration, but Muslim immigration. That is quite a specific ban, certainly not a 'general' one.

Quote:

We all know that it's an easy cop out in an argument to compare an opponent to Hitler, or nazis, but come on!!! Big Verne should be able to concede that the kinds of measures he's proposing are comparable.

They are not in any way comparable to Nazi Germany. For example, banning people who may be sympathetic to Jihadist groups (i.e Muslims), from working in institutions that are key to national security is simple common sense.

Also, what is your problem with this proposal?

2. Ban all Imams from countries which do not give equal rights to non-Muslims.

You think Imams from Saudi for example should be allowed to preach in the UK while other religions are completely banned from that country? What I am proposing is reciprocity, not facism as you ignorantly alledge.

happeningthang

Joined: 26 Apr 2003

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:57 am Post subject:

OK. I can can see, and concede, that you didn't say that "all foreigners" were to be banned, but I was being abstract saying the "other" is being banned for being different (that is general), and extending that to otherness - sure - you didn't say it... specifically.

bigverne wrote:

You're showing your hand in the same way as Sandubman...you're so convinced of your own opinions you're losing your objectivity. Which shouldn't be suprising since you long ago lost your sense of objectivity in regard to Muslims.

My main issue with you in this regard is that you can't recognise that some Muslims are criminals (terrorists) while others are not. That the muslim community has a criminal element just like everyone else. Are all Italians mafia? No. Are all Jews zionists? No. Are all Muslims terrorists? NO!!

So then if you deny Italians jobs in an airport, because you're afraid s/he might be in the mafia...what is that called? It's discrimination my friend, and you know it, based on fear and prejudice. I don't think it should be open slather either, but that's what security checks and follow up procedures are for.

So, essentially, with your proposal to "ban" Muslims and Islamic practice - you're being discriminatory based on....fear and prejudice... What's worse is you're suggesting it be institutionalised, passed into law, made a social convention - that fear and prejudice against a "specific" group of people is to be a part of life in England. I don't know how your imagination works, but that's pretty good description of life in Nazi Germany where I come from.

And my problem with your proposal to ban ALL Imams from countries which do not give equal rights to non-Muslims is that perhaps such Imams are not in said country BECAUSE the country doesn't give equal rights. I know you're being "specific" against Muslims and non-Muslims (Lord, God I know), but I don't think practicing what you protest against is going to achieve much. Doesn't it just sound hypocritical to you? That's where your reciprocity gets you.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:55 am Post subject:

Quote:

My main issue with you in this regard is that you can't recognise that some Muslims are criminals (terrorists) while others are not. That the muslim community has a criminal element just like everyone else. Are all Italians mafia? No. Are all Jews zionists? No. Are all Muslims terrorists? NO!!

Please point out where I have ever stated that all Muslims are terrorists. If you can't please refrain from such pathetic strawman arguments.

Quote:

So then if you deny Italians jobs in an airport, because you're afraid s/he might be in the mafia...what is that called?

IF the Mafia were a terrorist organisation intent on killing hundreds of civilians, IF they enjoyed widespread support in Italian immigrant communities and IF they were waging a war against the British state, that might be a reasonable suggestion. But none of those things are true. All of them are true with respect to Islamic terrorism and the Muslim community in the UK. We need to make our ports as safe as possible, and if that means excluding people (mainly young Muslim men) who are more likely to be sympathetic to Islamic terrorism, then so be it. Political correctness should not get in the way of public safety. It is also the case that many of these would be matyrs have no criminal records and probably go to great lengths to portray themselves as ordinary 'cricket loving' Brits. They will not be picked up by the normal security checks. Thus, a non-discriminatory policy in regards to religious affiliation puts the safety of the public at risk.

Quote:

So, essentially, with your proposal to "ban" Muslims and Islamic practice - you're being discriminatory based on....fear and prejudice... What's worse is you're suggesting it be institutionalised, passed into law, made a social convention - that fear and prejudice against a "specific" group of people is to be a part of life in England. I don't know how your imagination works, but that's pretty good description of life in Nazi Germany where I come from.

I am only calling for discrimination in regards to institutions that are key to national security. Life in Nazi Germany involved Nuremburg Laws, shop boycotts, mass internments, brutal violence and genocide. The comparison is childish in the extreme, although it is highly predictable indeed.

Why do you continue to misrepresent what I have written? Perhaps because you do not have the maturity to respond to my posts in a reasoned manner? Where did I state that I wanted to 'ban Islamic practice'.

Quote:

And my problem with your proposal to ban ALL Imams from countries which do not give equal rights to non-Muslims is that perhaps such Imams are not in said country BECAUSE the country doesn't give equal rights.

That's irrelevant. Perhaps some of those Saudi and Yemeni Imans are all for freedom of religion, although judging by the way Islam is practiced in such nations that would be very hard to beleive indeed. However, it is only fair that as long as such nations continue to prohibit other religions from practising freely, we should restrict the rights of Imams from such countries from preaching in the UK.

happeningthang

Joined: 26 Apr 2003

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:10 am Post subject:

V you're hilarious. A paradoy of yourself where your convictions allow for contradiction, disingenuity and outright hypocrisy.

bigverne wrote:

Please point out where I have ever stated that all Muslims are terrorists. If you can't please refrain from such pathetic strawman arguments.

bigverne wrote:

Just in case you're as unfamiliar with grammar as you are with your own words, let's just paraphrase what you've said here;

the Muslim community in the UK are;

"Giving widespread support ... (to) a terrorist organisation intent on killing hundred of civilians...(,and who are) waging a war against the British state"

Your words, in the same breath as your asking where you've ever stated all muslims are terrorists, and if not terrorists, terrorist sympathisers.

Yeah, yeah be a pedantic, jobsworth to try and redeem yourself, OK you didnt' say ALL muslims, just the muslims in the UK, but at least be honest with yourself, if not everyone else. You equate all muslims with terrorists. Maybe you don't say the words, but in the subtext of what you say, propose and promote that's your message. I don't think you actually believe all Muslims in the UK are sharpening knives and whispering, but the fact that you're willing to treat them all as though they were means you equate muslims with terrorists. Obviously. Denying things like this make you appear contradictory.

bigverne wrote:

We need to make our ports as safe as possible, and if that means excluding people (mainly young Muslim men) who are more likely to be sympathetic to Islamic terrorism, then so be it. Political correctness should not get in the way of public safety. It is also the case that many of these would be matyrs have no criminal records and probably go to great lengths to portray themselves as ordinary 'cricket loving' Brits. They will not be picked up by the normal security checks. Thus, a non-discriminatory policy in regards to religious affiliation puts the safety of the public at risk.

All perfectly good concerns, I just don't agree that making muslims ineligible is going to help. Normal security checks wont work - change them. Just curious, how is policy regarding religious affiliation non-discriminatory? Typo or wishful thinking?

bigverne wrote:

So you're calling for discrimination, yes... and...
Alright, yes your proposals aren't the full manifestation of Nazi Germany, yet, but the spirit of your ideas are the "intellectual rationalising" that leads to it and is comparable. If your proposals are implemented than they're going to require legislation, police enforcement, surveillance regulation. That's a big message being handed on down from the politicians and judiciary to the people - that's what I meant by institutionalising. Just as Nazi Germany institutionalised discrimination against the Jews. How are the media going to portray Muslims after that, how's little Johnny Brit going to view Muslims in the midst of this? The comparison is merited, and highly predictable considering how apt it is. This is where I consider you disingenious V, there are similarities, but you don't want to see them.

bigverne wrote:

Why do you continue to misrepresent what I have written? Perhaps because you do not have the maturity to respond to my posts in a reasoned manner? Where did I state that I wanted to 'ban Islamic practice'.

I dunno, sounds like I'm giving reasons doesn't it? I apologise if I'm misrepresenting you, it's not intentional. I'm reading what you've written and extrapolating likely effects. Again, you didn't specifically say you wanted to ban 'Islamic practice' - but you can't be suprised that people draw that inference, can you?

bigverne wrote:

Perhaps some of those Saudi and Yemeni Imans are all for freedom of religion, although judging by the way Islam is practiced in such nations that would be very hard to beleive indeed. However, it is only fair that as long as such nations continue to prohibit other religions from practising freely, we should restrict the rights of Imams from such countries from preaching in the UK.

And here's the hypocrisy... you're upset that other nations, not your own, don't allow freedom of religion, so you propose we deny freedom of religion in your own country?? The problem with basic rights is that you don't get to be selective. If they're preaching hatred and advocating murder - then deny away - hell, put the lunatics in jail where they belong.
Denying someone the right to speak based on an assumption of what he might say, or what his/he government does is out of proportion and unproductive.[/quote]

Last edited by happeningthang on Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:17 am; edited 1 time in total

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:14 am Post subject:

I do enjoy posts from bozos who advocate overturning the Constitution as a way of saving the Constitution and then whine that people call them names. OP, you are an embarrassment to the country. If you refuse to believe in our values, why not seek a country that has, I hate to use the word 'values' in this context, views similar to yours.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:44 am Post subject:

Quote:

Islamic terrorism and the Muslim community in the UK are;

"a terrorist organisation intent on killing hundred of civilians"
and
"waging a war against the British state"

It was quite obvious that what I was stating was that Islamic terrorists were 'intent on killing hundreds of civilians' and that Islamic terrorists were 'waging a war against the British state'. It is also obvious that my reference to the Muslim community, in clear comparison to the previous sentence about the Italian community, was that there was widespread support for radical groups within the Muslim community.

But, in case you still don't get it, no I do not think all Muslims are terrorists. Only a tiny minority are. However, a significant number of people within that community sympathise with radical Islam (this is more so the case with young Muslim men).

Quote:

You equate all muslims with terrorists

No I do not. You are willfully misreading what I have written.

Quote:

I don't think you actually believe all Muslims in the UK are sharpening knives and whispering, but the fact that you're willing to treat them all as though they were means you equate muslims with terrorists

No, I am quite specifically stating that Muslims should be barred from a very select number of institutions which are vital to national security. When we know that the threat of terrorism to this country comes specifically from one section of the community, and that security could be increased by barring this community from such positions, then it is common sense to pursue such a policy.

Quote:

Just curious, how is policy regarding religious affiliation non-discriminatory? Typo or wishful thinking?

Proving that you can't read once again. I am arguing in favour of a discriminatory policy, in regards to certain institutions which are key to national security. This is why I stated that a non-discriminatory policy (which you support) puts the safety of the public at risk.

Ask yourself a simple question, and try to answer it honestly.

Are Muslims more likely to be sympathetic to Islamic radicals? If that is the case, surely it makes sense to err on the side of caution and not put Mohammed Ahmed as Head of Security at Sizewell Nuclear Power Plant, despite the fact that he has no criminal record and no links to Islamic extremists.

Quote:

How are the media going to portray Muslims after that, how's little Johnny Brit going to view Muslims in the midst of this?

That is a secondary concern. Our main concern should be the safety of British citizens from being blown to smithereens, and barring people who may sympathise with Islamic terrorism (i.e Muslims) from working in our ports, or other key institutions would be a small step towards making them safer.

By the way, when the UK was fighting against Nazi Germany, the powers that be interned the entire German population of the UK. That did not make us 'as bad as the Nazis', but was simply a necessary precaution in a time of war. Now, I am not arguing for the internment of all Muslims, or stating that we are facing the same threat we faced in 1941, but we do face a specific threat, from a specific section of the population, and we should take any practicle measures that will increase our security. That means banning those most likely to be sympathetic with Islamic terrorists from working at airports, nuclear power plants, and in other institutions that are key to public safety. You are arguing against this, on the basis that Muslims will be portrayed negatively. Well, I think that ship has already sailed, don't you?

safeblad

Joined: 17 Jul 2006

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:10 am Post subject:

nah, i dont like the sound of your apartheid system.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:29 am Post subject:

Quote:

nah, i dont like the sound of your apartheid system.

And I don't much like the sound of your ignorant 'logic'. It seems any fool can get himself a university degree these days.

safeblad

Joined: 17 Jul 2006

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:47 am Post subject:

edit Last edited by safeblad on Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:53 am; edited 1 time in total

safeblad

Joined: 17 Jul 2006

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:49 am Post subject:

bigverne wrote:

Quote:

nah, i dont like the sound of your apartheid system.

And I don't much like the sound of your ignorant 'logic'. It seems any fool can get himself a university degree these days.

thats true mate. ive got two!

happeningthang

Joined: 26 Apr 2003

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:52 am Post subject:

bigverne wrote:

It was obvious, that's why I said you were calling the muslim community in the UK terrorist sympathisers. Looking at the quote you were responding to my first effort. I admit that it wasn't the best response to what you said, and edited it - take a look - I think you'll be pleased.

As for wilfully misreading what you say, the totality of your messages, your proposals and thoughts on muslims in general...all seem to be leading in one direction. All muslims can't be trusted, we can't tell good from bad so treat them as though they're all bad - that essentially says, all muslims are terrorists, terrorist sympathisers, or potential terrorists. You don't leave a lot of room for secular muslims, you don't allow for a conception of muslims that isn't associated with terror. I can find the quotes if you want...., but I'm pretty sure you don't.

bigverne wrote:

Yeah, good and well, but your other measures involving stopping all muslim immigration, encouraging muslims to leave the UK, revoking the UK citizenship of muslims and subjecting them to tests, that would be considered an outrage if applied to any other group of people....what about all that?? You're not so keen to defend these ideas anymore??

Increased security is the way to respond to threats, not a wholsale discrimination.

Oh, and the NON-discriminatory thing?? You're absolutely right, completely misread that. It's been a long day.

Your simple question?

Yes, muslims are more likely to be sympathetic to Islamic radicals, but what of these recent converts, what about the guy who you were calling traitorous scum? They're white, christian and sympathetic. Your ideas wont work. If you're a dedicated terrorist, you want to infiltrate somewhere, but they don't allow muslims...Hey presto. I'm a born again christian, who hates allah!! Let me in boys!

You assume the people running these places are idiots who just don't think of these things? I'm sure they do, have and are acting on it right now. All your proposed ban achieves is making it appear there's a tough stance on terrorists, and furthering isolation and discrimination.

You're right though about media representation and children growing up in an environment of discrimination - it is a secondary concern to the UK becoming a facistic state, condoning and institutionalising discrimination. Makes me wonder why you chose to address the smaller concerns over the larger picture. As for British citizens being blown to smithereens yes that is a concern, but a small, sensationalist, not-very-likely, hysterical concern.

bigverne wrote:

By the way, when the UK was fighting against Nazi Germany, the powers that be interned the entire German population of the UK. That did not make us 'as bad as the Nazis', but was simply a necessary precaution in a time of war. Now, I am not arguing for the internment of all Muslims, or stating that we are facing the same threat we faced in 1941, but we do face a specific threat, from a specific section of the population, and we should take any practicle measures that will increase our security. That means banning those most likely to be sympathetic with Islamic terrorists from working at airports, nuclear power plants, and in other institutions that are key to public safety. You are arguing against this, on the basis that Muslims will be portrayed negatively. Well, I think that ship has already sailed, don't you?

Internment in time of war is one thing, but this is not a time of war- terrorists were around long before Bin Laden. I can see your comparison and I understand it, but you yourself say only a tiny minority are actual terrorists. You'd hold a whole group of people accountable for those few?

I'm arguing against this on the basis that it's ineffective, counter productive and a massive over reaction to a perceived threat, rather than an actual one.[/quote]

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:12 am Post subject: ...

Quote:

Are Muslims more likely to be sympathetic to Islamic radicals? If that is the case, surely it makes sense to err on the side of caution and not put Mohammed Ahmed as Head of Security at Sizewell Nuclear Power Plant, despite the fact that he has no criminal record and no links to Islamic extremists.

In case this hasn't been proven before (which I believe it has ad infinitum) you're calling for a policy of bigotry against Muslims.

Maybe "bigot" is too strong a word. Doesn't matter. Then we're playing a word game. "Discrimination"? Fine.

Is/are______more likely to be sympathetic to _____?

If that's to be taken seriously, then what about the people who are sympathetic to Muslims?

What then about people who are sympathetic to those who are sympathetic to muslims?

Perhaps it does come down to freedom or security.

Personally, I think it's the job of MI5/6 to ensure that nuclear plants are being operated by the right people as opposed to discrimination.

People in favor of discrimination are always pretty clear that it's others we need to discriminate against. Never themselves.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:20 pm Post subject:

Quote:

All muslims can't be trusted, we can't tell good from bad so treat them as though they're all bad - that essentially says, all muslims are terrorists, terrorist sympathisers, or potential terrorists. You don't leave a lot of room for secular muslims, you don't allow for a conception of muslims that isn't associated with terror. I can find the quotes if you want...., but I'm pretty sure you don't.

From the point of view of minimising potential security risks, it is true that it is impossible to tell good from bad. The prime concern of the security services and people who vet potential staff must be security, and if that is the case, the ethnic/religious background of a potential employee should be taken into account in institutions that are key to national security. It isn't my fault that this approach doesn't allow 'for a conception of Muslims that isn't associated with terror', it is the fault of those Muslims who seek to commit mass murder. You seem to be unable to face reality, and that sometimes idealistic notions of equality and fairness cannot be applied in all circumstances and at all times.

Quote:

But no other group in the UK causes nearly as many problems as Muslims. No other group has failed so utterly to integrate. No other group has formed countless organisations with the aim of supporting terrorism or Shariah Law. No other group adheres to a hostile creed whose values are completely incompatible with those of our society. Muslim immigration has been a total failure all across Europe and people are waking up to the disaster it has been. We need to face up honestly to this problem now, or we will face serious strife in the future.

Yes, I do think Muslim immigration should be stopped, for the reasons stated above, and I am quite happy to defend such a measure. I advocated the revoking of UK citizenship for Muslims not born in the UK, and who could not speak the language or who were unemployed or had a criminal record. The kind of people who should never have been given the benefits of UK citizenship in the first place.

Quote:

Increased security is the way to respond to threats, not a wholsale discrimination.

Banning Muslims from working in institutions key to national security would increase security, and for you to ignore this obvious point shows that you are blinded by PC dogma, the facts be damned.

Quote:

They're white, christian and sympathetic. Your ideas wont work. If you're a dedicated terrorist, you want to infiltrate somewhere, but they don't allow muslims...Hey presto. I'm a born again christian, who hates allah!! Let me in boys!

Yes, I agree that it would be hard to spot such people. However, the fact remains that the security threat we face comes from young Asian, Muslim males and banning them from certain sectors would increase our safety, though of course no system is 100% effective. As for the Muslim who 'converts' to Christianity, obviously he would be banned as such a conversion would be obviously suspect.

Quote:

You assume the people running these places are idiots who just don't think of these things?

No I assume they are handicapped by the kind of PC policies you propose, the kind of idiotic policies which dominate many public institutions, including the police, and indeed the security services. That is why one of the suspects had an access-all-areas security pass to Heathrow. We are so concerned about not offending people that we will not take the necessary precautions to protect ourselves.

Quote:

Makes me wonder why you chose to address the smaller concerns over the larger picture

Which would be what exactly?

Quote:

You'd hold a whole group of people accountable for those few?

In order to reduce the threat of people being murdered, yes.

Quote:

a massive over reaction to a perceived threat, rather than an actual one

Right, I must have just dreamt that 4 Muslim men murdered 60 civilians on 7-7.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:35 pm Post subject:

Quote:

You place your liberal ideas of tolerance and non-discrimination above all others. To people like you, they are sacred cows.

Well, when you have a certain section, of a certain community, intent on mass murder, you need to take certain steps to minimise risk. Just because you can't completely reduce such risk (yes, there may be the extremely unlikely case of a non-Muslim 'sympathetic' to Muslims who may engage in terrorism, as you point out), does not mean you should not take the necessary precautions to reduce it, and that would mean banning people from very sensitive institutions who could be judged 'far more likely to be engaged in terrorism (i.e Muslims).

Quote:

I think it's the job of MI5/6 to ensure that nuclear plants are being operated by the right people as opposed to discrimination.

No, it is their job to ensure that such plants are operated by people who pass the most rigorous security checks, and one thing that should be taken into consideration is whether such individuals could be sympathetic to the aims of Islamic terrorists, and it is obvious who such people are.

Quote:

People in favor of discrimination are always pretty clear that it's others we need to discriminate against. Never themselves.

Well done. I thought you would complete a post without a meaningless platitude, but you managed to sneak one in at the end.

stevieg4ever

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Location: London, England

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:57 pm Post subject:

strongly agree with and i know many people in the uk, from a variety of backgrounds, that would concur. Its like living with handicapped aliens imo (no offense to any aliens out there)

what i find disturbing is that immams and mullahs (the equivalent to a rabbi or priest et all) and all the other nutters who are towards the higher echelons of this religion are constantly found sprouting off all these untoward teachings about jews hindues, the smurfs, christians, the simpsons, and non believers when they are supposed to be the ones enlightening and enriching the lives of the youngsters in this faith. Which parodies how the mosques are found to be housing illegal immigrants and weapons (often firearms), recordings of hate filled drivel and lord knows what else ? can someone please tell me WTF all that is about please because it seems very odd indeed that places of worship and leading religious figures should be doing this in a so called 'religion of peace' (if there is such a thing).

the problem is blair's lasting irrevocable legacy of political correctness nobody dares says a word and all the time we all know its only a matter of time before they strike on uk soil again.

Quote:

[/quote]

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 4 of 6

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe