CHAPEL END CHARLIE

But Islam and Christianity have had all kinds of both positive and negative impacts on each other over time - you need to more specific before I can possibly reply. In case you have forgotten, the question before you is what do you propose to do about terrorism? You should be aware that any further failure to answer this very simple question will entitle others to draw their own conclusions as to whether you have anything meaningful to say on the matter - or not.

Another nonsensical reply. You have been asked two eminently simple questions and (thus far anyway) refused to answer either of them. I must say this seems rather rude.

The above post makes no sense in context. If you are not going to set out your proposals to reduce the threat of terrorism for some reason can you at least explain WHY you will not comply with this seemingly reasonable request?

Which specific "impact" are you referring to? And please note that you haven't answered the simple question put to you.

I think better now throw this open to the rest of the forum, as it would appear that my interlocutor seems to have forgotten his own opinion. Does anyone else know what Batman's proposed measures to reduce the threat of terrorism are?

You misunderstand - I'm not requesting some mammoth 50,000 word thesis on the subject of International Terrorism and its history. Just a brief summery (or précis) of you thoughts on the subject is not much too ask is it? 'Bullet points' would be quite acceptable old boy.

Well if the likes of you and Batman have anything more to offer than mere condemnation - and we all condemn violence I hope - then it seems perfectly reasonable to request that these ideas should be put forward for consideration. But as he seems to have been struck dumb all of a sudden I will extend the invitation to you - what actual policies do you want to see implemented to help counter the terrorism problem?

Okay then, what search terms do you recommend are most likely to bring me closer to the answer in a 4,600 post thread? I must say it is starting to look like you don't really have much to offer here.

Not really, just a simple question that I would have thought you should be able to answer.

You seem uncharacteristically shy - what is it you want done to address this issue?

Remind us then.

Why don't you tell us all what you want done about terrorism - beyond that which is already happening that is?

If you feel that the research in question is in some way flawed, then you should attempt to construct some kind of of reasoned argument to show why that is so. Obviously, I await this development with some interest.

I saw 'Ghost in the Shell' yesterday - a new science fiction film set in the near future staring Scarlett Johansson. Our star plays 'Major' - a young women who's body has been destroyed but who's brain lives on within the machine body of a cyborg. Using her impressive new powers to the full she is employed to fight the evil 'terrorists' who threaten the (rather grim) future metropolis. But Major soon finds that the enemy she fights may actually have a point and the corporation that supposedly saved her life has its own agenda ... The film is certainly decent enough entertainment overall and visually highly impressive. But like so many other modern sci-fi efforts it is also reminiscent of other films that have gone before it - think 'Robocop' meets 'Blade Runner' and you will get the idea. PS - after buying our tickets me and my friend were wondering why I had been charged less than she had. It turns out that I had been admitted as a Senior - and I'm still a young man of only 54!

My pleasure old bean: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544 Disappointed that you would even THINK that a man of my calibre would go around making stuff up

I think you will find that all we "lefties" have long advocated the reunification of Shanklin with Wallonia. After all, Karl Marx did argue so in 'Das Kapital' do you know Are you also aware I wonder that - statistically speaking - there is a 70% probability that Brexit voters (such as your good self for example) also support the reintroduction of capital punished and the public flogging of criminals. So right wing loons are obviously capable of being utterly wrong about more than one subject then ...

Does anybody really believe that Spain is about to imperil the huge pile of cash British tourists and expats pump into their economy every year? Sent from my old tablet using my fingers.

Yes as I have attempted to explain before, the specific UK/European terrorist situation is indeed my primary focus here. You on the other hand appear to be engaged in 'painting' Muslims everywhere as some kind of cohesive international community who tend to share a similar uncompromising belief system. Even ignoring the Shia/Sunni divide, to me it makes no more sense to see Muslims in that simplistic way than it does to view Christian populations as all alike somehow - does a right wing fundamentalist from somewhere in the US 'Bible Belt' see the world in exactly the same way as your typical home counties Church of England vicar does? Your brush is too broad Sir. For that matter, I never claimed that Masood was just some exceptional "lone idiot" (or rather "violent controlling psychopath") anyway. Clearly men like him are very far from being unique alas - some experts in the field have concluded that as many as 1 in every 100 children show distinct signs of a psychopathic personality disorder. However, if terrorists such as Masood, and the Nice attacker Mohamed Bouhlel, do fall into a recognisable Islamist terrorist 'type' then that hardly minimises the crucial influence their own particular personality disorders played in their appalling crimes I think. All the world's great religious faiths - even Buddhism believe it or not - can be employed to justify violence by those inclined to do so. My response to that regrettable fact of modern life would be that we have little choice but to rely on the law to protect us. We should decline I think to implicate the innocent and sane in the crimes of the guilty and psychotic. One of the supposed 'western values' the extremist minority are seeking to destroy is surely freedom of thought and expression. So you tell me, how do we effectively combat the Islsmist's lilliberal attitudes we both disapprove of without oppressing the very same freedoms we hold so dear for ourselves? Freedom of thought means freedom of thought for everybody does it not - even when some of those 'thoughts' might leave us feeling distinctly uncomfortable. I would suggest that responding to terrorism by resorting to the discriminatory policies of leaders such as Donald Trump, and for that matter those Europeans who believe that legislation into Muslim dress is somehow useful, is likely to only make a bad situation even worse.

I suppose 100% agreement that terrorism is indeed unacceptable would be very nice. But the world is a imperfect place alas, and if you can cite any issue in which the 64 million people of this old and diverse nation all agree about then I'd be fascinated to see it.

I note that all three links you have provided refer to INTERNATIONAL Muslim opinion on the matter at hand. I on the other hand had gone to some trouble to make clear that it was my intent to address the situation here in the UNITED KINGDOM. We are after all discussing this issue now because a citizen of this nation, a man who was even born here by the way, committed a appalling terrorist crime in the very heart of London last week. We can all see WHAT terrorist criminals, such as Masood, do. It is obviously also a easy enough matter to condemn their appalling crimes - that I hope is the one 'given' we can all agree with in this entire debate. But simple condemnation of terrorism only gets us so far and to meaningfully progress further we surely need to make some kind of effort to understand WHY some Muslims despise and reject the secular western world and the values it stands for. That question of course is a deep and highly complex one that is more suited perhaps to a substantial research effort rather that a short post on the internet. But I do wonder is it really so very hard to comprehend where at least some of this hatred comes from when news such as this today passes over us all the time with very little comment or meaningful reaction: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-air-strike-mosul-200-civilians-killed-isis-northern-iraq-pentagon-central-command-islamic-state-a7651451.html. We employ a clear double-standard I think when we place a massively higher value on Human life lost in Europe compared to the Middle East. What I still don't see in any of this is how exactly pointing a (metaphorical) finger at millions of uninvolved British Muslims in any way moves us one step closer to solving this problem.

Edit.

You didn't bother to read the entire post did you?

That was easy. Taking the trouble to read beyond the first paragraph of a post should not prove too difficult either - even for you.

You cite supposed Muslim "support" for terrorism without providing anything in the way of evidence to back that claim up. As far as this country is concerned a 2005 ICM poll (conducted in the aftermath of the notorious 'July 7th' bombing atrocity) showed that some 99% of British Muslims surveyed thought that the criminals responsible for that horrendous deed were in the wrong. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.htm l don't know about you but I would describe 99% as a "significant proportion". I also see no reason to doubt that a similar poll held today would not produce a very similar outcome. To be fair this same survey also indicated strong support for the introduction of Sharia Law in the UK - which is entirely unacceptable I think - and that 20% of those Muslims asked displayed some level of 'sympathy' towards the feelings and motivations of the young terrorists involved. But there again in the English language the word 'sympathy' is not quite synonymous with the nouns 'approval' or 'support' is it? On the other hand different polls have produced widely differing results on this same question - as ever polling evidence is of limited value and always highly depended upon sample size, the selection methodology employed, and the exact wording of the questions asked. In conclusion, the best that can probably be said about the matter this is that evidence supporting any claim that mass Muslim approval for terrorism exists here in the UK is somewhat inconclusive at this time. Naturally the situation may be very different in other parts of the world. Speaking of the international situation, if you seek to bring Canada into this debate then I must wonder why then you have chosen to overlook the relatively recent Québec City mosque shooting, another appalling crime which left six Muslims dead and scores more injured while they were peacefully at worship. But I don't recall any of the usual suspects on here expressing their disgust at that particular crime - not even one of Batman's (oh-so-familiar) "another day in" posts. Back to Masood, I read this morning that the Police have concluded that he was most probably acting alone. I also see no dispute that this individual was indeed a violent and deeply troubled person - more so than your average "petty criminal" I think. Perhaps he was much like the French psychotic responsible for the similar vehicle based attack in Nice last year. Be that as it may, what I'm not seeing here is a explanation as to why millions of uninvolved Muslims in general are to blame for the actions of a few extremists, or indeed any meaningful solution proposed to the problem of Jihadi extremism. Indeed, is it not true that European nations (such as France) that have attempted to bring the Muslim faith under state control have experienced more terrorist crime than we have?

A President who started his reign by immediately engaging in pointless bickering with the press over trivial matters, and followed that by introducing immigration measures that met with rapid judicial reverse, has now somehow descended further from those lows into Congressional humiliation on a substantive policy issue too - and this despite enjoying a clear majority in both houses. Can those more familiar with US presidential history than I am please name any previous POTUS who has made such a mess of the business of government in such a short period of time? I do suppose that the US electorate (in their wisdom) must have voted-in a worse President in the last 200 years or so - I just can't quite think who that might be right now ...