Sharia law being imposed in London "Muslim areas"

[ymu]

I think the Tamil Tigers were Hindu, you might check on that. Regardless, Buddhism is not a pacifist religion, although pacifism is often encouraged and ignored -- like vegetarianism.

Sorry, you're right. They are primarily Hindu. Poor memory - I should have looked it up first. It's a nationalist fight though, and it does cut right across religious divides.

In looking it up, I discovered that it was the Viet Cong who invented modern suicide bombing.

Here history can help. Martyr missions made their official twentieth-century debut in the Second World War with the Kamikazes; they showed up again in the 1960s, when Viet Cong sympathizers exploded themselves amidst U.S. troops. Their debut in the Islamic world was not until the 1980s, during the Iran-Iraq war. Facing a far superior Iraqi military, Ayatollah Khomeini rounded up children by the tens of thousands and sent them in "human waves" to overrun the enemy. While Persians accrued losses in the war against Iraq, the role of the martyr in defensive jihad was exalted. As in U.S. wars, the dead became heroes.

The Iranian example had seismic effects. Lebanese groups appropriated the notion of a martyr's death almost immediately, employing human bombs against Israeli and international presences in Lebanon as early as 1981. Half of the human bombs in Lebanon were perpetrated by secular organizations. The Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka perfected the tactic, becoming the most professional cadre in the world. Human bombs were also used by the Kurdish PKK against Turkey, the Sikhs in India, and the Palestinians against Israel, to name a few.

www.alternet.org/story/35815/the_hard_truth_about_suicide_bombers

 

[Captain Hurrah]

The NLF was quite diverse on the surface, although its armed wing was with the northern Communists.

There was also Buddhist-based opposition to the Catholic-dominated Diem government through protest (the self-immolation stuff Frank was on about before). Activity became more militant, though, with army help, and peaked after Diem (the Struggle Movement) in 1966.

 

[jelavicroad]

Why would the demographics make any difference? There aren't any areas where this would go down well with the Muslim population. If I'm misunderstanding you, I apologise, but you do seem to be saying that Muslims rather than extremists are the problem.

i'm not saying that at all i agree it's the extremists in every community that's the problem but there are areas in some cities that are completely corrupted by these extremists i'm definitely not tarring everyone with the same brush and i apoligize if thats the way i was coming accross

 

[ViolentPanda]

i stand corrected and i do remember the b and b case with the christians the edl are defo the worst weve seen em before with the national front/bnp whipping up hatred alll im saying is nobody seems to want to acknowledge anybody else doing the same

The EDL are nothing like the BNP or the NF (or the British Movement or any of the other political hard-right movements), they're at best akin to a footie "firm" made up of middle-aged bonehead fatties and politically-unaware under-25s who don't realise that the only place the EDL will take them is to the cleaners. Even at whipping up hatred, the EDL suck, which is why every protest they hold brings them closer to a "2 men and a couple of terriers" outfit at the local level.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't know how you can say that. If you read the link, the precise opposite seems to be true. The media routinely demonise Muslims, whip up hysteria whenever any are arrested but never follow up when the case collapses, yet barely report cases where right-wing extremists have been caught with massive arms caches.

Why would they when it doesn't suit their narrative? Why would they when the media is a tool of the ruling class, staffed almost entirely by a craven middle class keen to secure their own privileges, who'll go along with their masters?

 

[jelavicroad]

The EDL are nothing like the BNP or the NF (or the British Movement or any of the other political hard-right movements), they're at best akin to a footie "firm" made up of middle-aged bonehead fatties and politically-unaware under-25s who don't realise that the only place the EDL will take them is to the cleaners. Even at whipping up hatred, the EDL suck, which is why every protest they hold brings them closer to a "2 men and a couple of terriers" outfit at the local level.

lol same bunch of misguided knuckle heads tho under a different banner

 

[ViolentPanda]

lol same bunch of misguided knuckle heads tho under a different banner

Nope, I disagree. Sure, some of them are the same old bampots with buzzcuts that Griffin got rid off when he tried to do democratic politics with the BNP, but that's overlap. It doesn't mean that it's the same group of people in each case, or anything like that. In fact Griffin's venture into democratic politics should (but apparently doesn't) serve as a warning that there's a constituency of people out there who aren't necessarily boneheads or working class) looking for a hard-right party to vote for, and those aren't people who support the EDL. They're "respectable" Little-Englanders, often lower middle-class, while the EDL is still pretty much a venue for superannuated ruckers who like the occasional weekend "bother".

 

[jelavicroad]

i'm not saying it's the same group of people but the same sort of people i agree the bnp/nf are more organized and cleverer and are now playing on islamophobia and hiding their outright nazi views well trying to griffin didn't come off very well on question time

 

[likesfish]

There not very clever though they couldnt even win the arguement on arrse whose politics tends to being right of atilla hun apprantly squaddies have been brain washed by labour goverment.

 

[DotCommunist]

There not very clever though they couldnt even win the arguement on arrse whose politics tends to being right of atilla hun apprantly squaddies have been brain washed by labour goverment.

that was liam whatsisface, so called security chief and of loyalist background. he got something of a pasting as I recall

 

[likesfish]

Somewhat bnp threads have been banned as excessivly cruel

 

[DotCommunist]

mreery. Leon Mcreery. internecine loyalist violence shoved his family to these shores. loltrivia

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

There not very clever though they couldnt even win the arguement on arrse whose politics tends to being right of atilla hun apprantly squaddies have been brain washed by labour goverment.

arrse is a good forum in my view if you want to float a question to see how it will go down in real life and the fact is real ideological racism doesnt go down that well.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I can't figure why some people are so rude. We all know about self-immolations; there is a big difference between that and setting off bombs to kill people in the market.

The Japanese Kamikaze pilots were Zen buddhists and their actions were justified and rationalized accordingly. Just the same as Islamist suicide bombers.

 

[two sheds]

Yea I noticed that; still it was obvious enough. Just a tad of denial in there, or maybe disingenuous.

Don't be so Marxist-ly naive. ... It's a certain form of envious blindness I guess.

I can't figure why some people are so rude.

 

[Frank Merton]

Yes, I am rather amazed at the level of rudeness.

 

[Frank Merton]

The Japanese Kamikaze pilots were Zen buddhists and their actions were justified and rationalized accordingly. Just the same as Islamist suicide bombers.

The Kamikaze targeted combatants. You might look up "Shinto" to deepen your understanding.

Buddhists have the same problem with wars as does every religion, and do not dictate to individuals how to react. Buddhists will join everyone else in the defense of their country.

 

[ymu]

Yes, I am rather amazed at the level of rudeness.

This is not a forum for delicate flowers. The content of your posts is more important than the words you choose to use. You've been extremely rude to several people on a number of occasions in a remarkably short space of time, and you didn't need to use insults to do it (although you did that too).

If you find robust language ruder than asking people questions and then not bothering to read the answers before repeating the question ad infinitum, fuck off somewhere else. Or prepare to be sworn at a lot.

 

[Frank Merton]

This is not a forum for delicate flowers. The content of your posts is more important than the words you choose to use. You've been extremely rude to several people on a number of occasions in a remarkably short space of time, and you didn't need to use insults to do it (although you did that too).

If you find robust language ruder than asking people questions and then not bothering to read the answers before repeating the question ad infinitum, fuck off somewhere else. Or prepare to be sworn at a lot.

The examples of my "rudeness" are underwhelming. Accusations are easy, you know. In the meantime I've had quite a few obscenities thrown at me.

I get the feeling people don't like being disagreed with, and when all I get back are things like what you just posted, I get the further feeling that maybe this is because there is a subconscious fear that what I said might be correct. Just a possibility.

 

[ymu]

Coming from the guy who refused to read Krugman on Argentina because he's an unreliable source, then on Japan because he's an unreliable source, and then on austerity because he's an unreliable source, and then on what's gone wrong in macro because he's an unreliable source ... and then expressed surprise that I thought he dismissed Keynes' ideas ... that's more than a tad rich, Frank.

And, as I have already told you, and you have once again ignored, obscenities are common here. It's what you're saying that matters, not how you say it.

I'm well aware that there may be culture clash going on here rather than you simply being an obstinate and hypocritical fool. But you have entered our house, and so it is you that needs to learn how we behave around here.

 

[Frank Merton]

I'm well aware that there may be culture clash going on here rather than you simply being an obstinate and hypocritical fool. But you have entered our house, and so it is you that needs to learn how we behave around here.

I've entered a house with different customs, but I don't see on it any stamp that it's your rules and behavior I have to emulate.

I use my fair share of obscenities, but refrain from aiming them at people. This is fairly normal around the world. I also don't engage in quotation wars with people: this is the standard behavior of ideologues, who always have a library of carefully selected quotes handy. It proves nothing except that they are ideologues without a willingness to allow others to think for themselves.

Western missionaries do that sort of thing a lot, to the extent that it is called "Bible thumping." The Buddhist "scripture" (a word I use reluctantly as it is not really comparable) would fill a library, so one can imagine it is possible to "prove" pretty much anything if one uses them that way. It is better to use them as the writings of intelligent, well-meaning men and women, and not as authority figures.

 

[ymu]

Dissembling again. Is this a face thing?

 

[Frank Merton]

Dissembling again. Is this a face thing?

I suppose I have my ego to protect, but I don't see a connection.

One of the worst characteristics of ideology (and Communist ideology is one of the worst offenders, constantly quoting the Writings) is what I saw almost first-off in the threads here that deal with politics. I don't know that I could or would have reacted differently knowing then what I know now -- probably not.

 

[ymu]

IdeologyInformation is bad, you approve of Keynes, it's not worth listening to people who have spent their lives working on the problem you are interested in, much better to pull the facts out of your arse and repeatedly assert them as true regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Have you met our Johnny?

 

[Fez909]

You two gonna follow each other around arguing on every thread?

Get a room

 

[Frank Merton]

IdeologyInformation is bad, you approve of Keynes, it's not worth listening to people who have spent their lives working on the problem you are interested in, much better to pull the facts out of your arse and repeatedly assert them as true regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Have you met our Johnny?

What is there to approve or disapprove of with Keynes; the only reason I was asked about him was to see what I really knew or if I was completely ignorant. I think I disappointed a few people there. Keynes had some important insights, but he didn't get it entirely right. Actually I think economic prescriptions are much like controlling the weather -- you make it rain one place and the farmers in the next county sue because of the drought you cause there. Government activity to "help" almost always has bad consequences no one thought of.

 

[Frank Merton]

You two gonna follow each other around arguing on every thread?

Get a room

Likely that's because we are both argumentative and on at the same times. My experience, though, is that we don't argue over everything -- just a couple of things.

 

[Fez909]

What is there to approve or disapprove of with Keynes; the only reason I was asked about him was to see what I really knew or if I was completely ignorant. I think I disappointed a few people there. Keynes had some important insights, but he didn't get it entirely right. Actually I think economic prescriptions are much like controlling the weather -- you make it rain one place and the farmers in the next county sue because of the drought you cause there. Government activity to "help" almost always has bad consequences no one thought of.

But the alternative is trusting the market, surely?

 

[ymu]

What is there to approve or disapprove of with Keynes; the only reason I was asked about him was to see what I really knew or if I was completely ignorant. I think I disappointed a few people there. Keynes had some important insights, but he didn't get it entirely right. Actually I think economic prescriptions are much like controlling the weather -- you make it rain one place and the farmers in the next county sue because of the drought you cause there. Government activity to "help" almost always has bad consequences no one thought of.

That isn't true. I stated that you rejected Keynes because I assumed you did, on the basis that you had repeatedly rejected Krugman, who is one of the foremost Keynesian economists around.

He didn't get it entirely right, no. Oddly enough, his ideas have been developed a bit over the last 80 years and have been put to the test many times over. We don't set academic texts on a pedestal and refuse to improve on them ever again. Science is not ideology (however difficult it is to keep ideology out of some sciences).

How well Keynesian ideas work depends on the skill, intentions and sincerity of those implementing Keynesian policies. Investing in public works is effective, but less so if channelled through the private sector. Raising wages (and therefore social security), investing in education and training, public housing to reduce the amount siphoned out of the productive economy by rentiers ... you can achieve loads. If you want to.

It's by no means a solution to the contradictions of capitalism, but in the absence of an angry mob large enough to kick these cunts out of office, it is the best we have.

Government activity often has bad consequences because they are busy robbing the state, often with the assistance of corrupt academics who will say whatever absurd thing someone is paying them to say. Check out Niall Ferguson (the celebrity historian), on the evils of Obama and the virtues of austerity (and don't forget to look up the takedowns too).

 

[Frank Merton]

But the alternative is trusting the market, surely?

Markets can't be trusted because of greed and corruption; government can't be trusted because of greed and corruption.