Breaking news of an "explosion" at Manchester Arena

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qccfc

There is a clear history, they both knew each other. Some of the language coming out of the car was inflammatory. I imagine if i called someone a pedophile in my car they might hit me.

I personally think all people should be treated equally, in law and in practice. However if i was talking like that guy in the car to someone who is the same color and religion as me, id expect trouble.

---

The guy in the car said he "doesn't stand for pedophillic practices", which sounds more than reasonable to me and yet he got hit in the face for it.

This is the quandary of the politically correct these days, the PC have found themselves having to stick up for a group with pretty messed-up beliefs, but defending them has become just a knee-jerk reaction.

If they stopped for a moment to really scrutinise what they're defending they'd surprise themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qccfc

Someone twisted a situation, made him believe and ideology and persuaded him to act on it. I would have imagined they would have used numerous methods.

---

You're really going round the houses to avoid blaming a bonkers religion. Stop for a second and ask yourself why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Cærdiffi

The guy in the car said he "doesn't stand for pedophillic practices", which sounds more than reasonable to me and yet he got hit in the face for it.

This is the quandary of the politically correct these days, the PC have found themselves having to stick up for a group with pretty messed-up beliefs, but defending them has become just a knee-jerk reaction.

If they stopped for a moment to really scrutinise what they're defending they'd surprise themselves.

---

The guy in the car is Tommy Robinson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Cærdiffi

The guy in the car said he "doesn't stand for pedophillic practices", which sounds more than reasonable to me and yet he got hit in the face for it.

This is the quandary of the politically correct these days, the PC have found themselves having to stick up for a group with pretty messed-up beliefs, but defending them has become just a knee-jerk reaction.

If they stopped for a moment to really scrutinise what they're defending they'd surprise themselves.

---

You know who's in the car right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Cærdiffi

The guy in the car said he "doesn't stand for pedophillic practices", which sounds more than reasonable to me and yet he got hit in the face for it.

This is the quandary of the politically correct these days, the PC have found themselves having to stick up for a group with pretty messed-up beliefs, but defending them has become just a knee-jerk reaction.

If they stopped for a moment to really scrutinise what they're defending they'd surprise themselves.

---

I would imagine no one stands up for pedophile practices. I think both of these people are in the wrong here, i think the behavior of both leaves a lot to be desired.

I wouldn't say i was politically correct, i have views that transcend both divides. I always think if i was that guy in the car saying that stuff in a pub, in the valleys, to other white males, i would more than likely get in a fight. By shouting at someone you dont support pedophile practices you suggest that the other person does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

The guy in the car is Tommy Robinson.

---

Well I have no idea who that is, I just saw the video clip yesterday and took it at face value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Cærdiffi

Well I have no idea who that is, I just saw the video clip yesterday and took it at face value.

---

He's the guy who founded the EDL so it's safe to say there is more to their encounter than that clip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

He's the guy who founded the EDL so it's safe to say there is more to their encounter than that clip.

---

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richyrich

It's because they are told the Quran IS THE WORD OF GOD by the people they trust most in this world... Their parents. They teach them the good parts then as young adults they look on the net and get told the other half of the Quran, the real Quran and because their head is full of pixies from there parents they are radicalised. Simples.

---

That's a silly argument. There are billions of Muslims who all had a similar teaching that don't go around blowing people up. This bomber had three siblings who would have been taught the same stuff by the same people and unless there's more to come out of this, they don't appear to have blown anyone up either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Cærdiffi

Well I agree with you in principle, but lets take a look at which religion just blew up a bunch of children at a concert based on the beliefs garnered from their holy book and try to get some real-world perspective on who is the worst threat right now.

EDIT: Besides, how can someone seriously believe in the teachings of a holy book from which they've had to pick their own parts to believe in because the other bits are evil? The whole concept is a joke.

---

The problem with all of it, in all religions, is that children are being taught the passages & teachings of their 'holy books', by their fathers, imams etc, who are telling them that God is all powerful and that the teachings are all his words and he needs to be worshipped at all times. They then add in the caveat that whilst God's word is above all, they shouldn't actually rape women & pay off their father to make it ok, like God's word says. They shouldn't actually kill all who won't convert, like God's word says. They won't actually go to hell for wearing clothing of two different materials, like God's word says.

Books that have to be interpreted like that by children, just to stop them learning that a desire to behead all those kuffar bastards is all ok, should have no place in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

It's a thread on a football messageboard ffs not a funeral.

---

Cheers Croesy, I knew you were always a kind soul deep down, one of the best. X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ainsley Harriott

The problem with all of it, in all religions, is that children are being taught the passages & teachings of their 'holy books', by their fathers, imams etc, who are telling them that God is all powerful and that the teachings are all his words and he needs to be worshipped at all times. They then add in the caveat that whilst God's word is above all, they shouldn't actually rape women & pay off their father to make it ok, like God's word says. They shouldn't actually kill all who won't convert, like God's word says. They won't actually go to hell for wearing clothing of two different materials, like God's word says.

Books that have to be interpreted like that by children, just to stop them learning that a desire to behead all those kuffar bastards is all ok, should have no place in the world.

---

I agree. It's messed up. Not to forget, there are many parts of the world where the adults don't even have the educational level equivalent of children so they go through life with this confusing drivel floating around in their heads just waiting for the day they can be put to good use by anyone looking to manipulate them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TH63

That's a silly argument. There are billions of Muslims who all had a similar teaching that don't go around blowing people up. This bomber had three siblings who would have been taught the same stuff by the same people and unless there's more to come out of this, they don't appear to have blown anyone up either.

---

Yours is a silly argument. So it has to be a 100% radicalise rate to be true then? News for you, people are different, even siblings, some will be inclined that way some won't. Still don't change the reason why they are radicalised. What do all these bombers have in common? ...Islam!!

Let's put 100% in some sort of camp then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninianclark

"I would imagine no one stands up for pedophile practices."

You are aware of the age of the Prophet Mohammeds wife Aisha was 9 years old when they consummated the marriage.

No doubt someone will point out soon - that was the way things were done back them...

ps there are 1.8 billion muslims worldwide (25% of the global population) , a 1% radicalisation rate is more than enough to cause carnage.

---

Just googled and found this article about it:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ad-aisha-truth

Seems it's not quite so clearcut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

I think isn't that simple though, there are many other factors that come into it you can't blame it solely on the religion even if it is a big factor. There are so many socioeconomic factors that come into it.

If religion didn't exist there would still be terrorist acts committed by those on the fringes of society, there would just be another pathetic reason for it.

---

Missed this post sorry. Bollocks mate. Where are the Christian Arabs blowing them self up then? The atheist Arabs? Druze Arabs? yazidi Arabs? Where are they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richyrich

Missed this post sorry. Bollocks mate. Where are the Christian Arabs blowing them self up then? The atheist Arabs? Druze Arabs? yazidi Arabs? Where are they?

---

Are you saying there are no mass murders in the world committed by non muslims? They might not be blowing themselves up but there are plenty of heinous big attacks carried out by non muslims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Just googled and found this article about it:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ad-aisha-truth

Seems it's not quite so clearcut.

---

Times were different then weren't they.

You see in Roman Italy men would be partnered with young boys.

The ancient greeks. Those manly Spartans used to be some of the worst for it. Sure I read sodomy was legal so as to keep the youngsters virgins for marriage.

It is easy for us to look back and find it abhorrent but times change.

Boys in Christian & Islamic nations have it ingrained in them from birth that a marriage is between a man and women. Anything else is sinful now.

I guarantee men would have different opinions on the subject if not for that. As much as they'd deny it. It is all about circumstance and up bringing.

This probably needs a different thread.

I don't think anything should be read into it other than modern day muslims should modernise and realise it is no longer acceptable. As many of them do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

Are you saying there are no mass murders in the world committed by non muslims? They might not be blowing themselves up but there are plenty of heinous big attacks carried out by non muslims.

---

452 suicide bombings in 2016. 450 were Muslims. Why do Western people defend this shit for?

Who's defending it I think it's disgusting that there have been that many suicide bombings. What I won't do is blame a whole huge group of people for the actions of very few. Because that is exactly what the people committing the suicide bombings want.

There are 1.8billion muslims. 450 have carried out a suicide bombing. Segregating and castigating people based on their religion will make things worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Just googled and found this article about it:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ad-aisha-truth

Seems it's not quite so clearcut.

---

That article is so full of "what about this, though?" it's ridiculous, and such a desperate, wet attempt at deflection and muddying the waters that I can only assume you haven't read it yourself since I know you're a reasonable person.

The complaint is that Mohammed was married to Aisha when she was 6 and he was in his 50's, and the marriage was consummated when she was 9, as written by Aisha herself.

the explanations in that article range from:

"she must have entered puberty early"
"what if the book was wrong and it meant 19 instead of 9?"
"King John of England married a 12 year old anyway"
"some Muslims doubt she was that young"
"she was engaged to someone else before she got married"
"they probably married just to unite tribes and 'caring for widows and orphans'(?)"
"she was no wallflower, to paint her as a victim is at odds with her persona"


Probably the worst thing about that article is how on one hand they say "it was the norm at the time for these marriages to occur" whilst simultaneously sort of saying "no of course it didn't happen, that would be terrible".

It's just plainly dangerous for people to be able to revise history to edit out the unsavoury bits, nobody learns anything and progress becomes stifled.

History was fvcked up, that's why most educated people no longer live their lives by the "truths" in books written back then.

Now other people might be cool about allowing some ambiguity on this topic but for me, this is one where we need to be very clear about what is right and wrong, regardless of whose feelings might get hurt by pointing it out.

From accusations of pedophilia from the prophet who started the religion, right up to the modern day throwing gay people off buildings, stoning people in the street and blowing up children in concerts... can someone tell me why are people so keen to jump to the defence of this stuff?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue

Who's defending it I think it's disgusting that there have been that many suicide bombings. What I won't do is blame a whole huge group of people for the actions of very few. Because that is exactly what the people committing the suicide bombings want.

There are 1.8billion muslims. 450 have carried out a suicide bombing. Segregating and castigating people based on their religion will make things worse.

---

Who's blaming all Muslims. I'm blaming the ideology. Why is it wrong to say Islam is f**ked up?

Maybe in the past you could control what Muslims in your community learnt from the Quran but those days are long gone with the birth of the internet.

Until islam as a whole declines there will always be extremists. This will go on for centuries. People can bury their head in the sand if they want but this is not going to go away any time soon.

I agree the ideology is ****ed up, as is most religions but you are right that the others don't seem to have the same issue of a minority believing every word of the text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Cærdiffi

That article is so full of "what about this, though?" it's ridiculous, and such a desperate, wet attempt at deflection and muddying the waters that I can only assume you haven't read it yourself since I know you're a reasonable person.

The complaint is that Mohammed was married to Aisha when she was 6 and he was in his 50's, and the marriage was consummated when she was 9, as written by Aisha herself.

the explanations in that article range from:

"she must have entered puberty early"
"what if the book was wrong and it meant 19 instead of 9?"
"King John of England married a 12 year old anyway"
"some Muslims doubt she was that young"
"she was engaged to someone else before she got married"
"they probably married just to unite tribes and 'caring for widows and orphans'(?)"
"she was no wallflower, to paint her as a victim is at odds with her persona"


Probably the worst thing about that article is how on one hand they say "it was the norm at the time for these marriages to occur" whilst simultaneously sort of saying "no of course it didn't happen, that would be terrible".

It's just plainly dangerous for people to be able to revise history to edit out the unsavoury bits, nobody learns anything and progress becomes stifled.

History was fvcked up, that's why most educated people no longer live their lives by the "truths" in books written back then.

Now other people might be cool about allowing some ambiguity on this topic but for me, this is one where we need to be very clear about what is right and wrong, regardless of whose feelings might get hurt by pointing it out.

From accusations of pedophilia from the prophet who started the religion, right up to the modern day throwing gay people off buildings, stoning people in the street and blowing up children in concerts... can someone tell me why are people so keen to jump to the defence of this stuff?

---

I did read it before posting, and what I took from it is that the waters are already muddy. I know nothing about Mohammed's life, but I keep seeing ninianclark posting about him marrying a nine year old so I decided to look into it further.

If from this, you think I'm defending paedophilia or something then shit, I'm out of this debate now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

I did read it before posting, and what I took from it is that the waters are already muddy. I know nothing about Mohammed's life, but I keep seeing ninianclark posting about him marrying a nine year old so I decided to look into it further.

If from this, you think I'm defending paedophilia or something then shit, I'm out of this debate now.

---

No, I certainly wouldn't think that of you lardy, but it does strike me as odd that more people don't have that sudden moment of wondering what murky stuff they're defending when they stick up for this religion.

People of good morals feel obliged to stand up for the rights of the minorities but sometimes the minorities are into things that aren't as wholesome as we'd like to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richyrich

Why did Salman Abedi do it? Can you tell me why please.

---

Mentally unwell.

Qccfc's post earlier is the best you will read on it. Those up the chain prey on those looking for longing and acceptance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Cærdiffi

No, I certainly wouldn't think that of you lardy, but it does strike me as odd that more people don't have that sudden moment of wondering what murky stuff they're defending when they stick up for this religion.

People of good morals feel obliged to stand up for the rights of the minorities but sometimes the minorities are into things that aren't as wholesome as we'd like to believe.

---

I wouldn't say I'm defending the religion. I'm no fan of religion and I'm not in any way religious, and while I do think that religion has inspired some of humankind's most incredible achievements (music, buildings, art) we'd all be better off today without it. But that's unrealistic.

When this one religion is seen as the sole cause of all this tragedy, and I don't think that's the case, then I make my point. It's not meant to be defending a religion I know little about, but defending the people. Islam's been going for centuries but this is a recent problem. So this tells me that looking in the Quran is probably going to be a red herring.

The 9 year old thing is unsettling, but as said above by Kenwyne, that's what used to happen. I'm reading Bernard Cornwell's Saxon series at the moment, set in about 900AD in England. The lords there are marrying pre-pubescent girls and consumating when they become pubescent, and that's our country in the more recent past. Far be it that I'm defending what we now would call underage sex, I just don't see it as being relevant to the shitstorm that's going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordKenwyne

The inability to separate a government from people.

He may have despised the UK because of our part of the Libya invasion. I say "our", but it wasn't. It was not my decision or yours or the people in Manchester.

That country is now complete destroyed. We'll never know what that feels like.

Yet he targeted innocent children as an attack on the UK as a whole.

I don't think our leaders take enough blame. May banging on about unity then the coalition will carry on killing people in the middle east.

---

Absolutely right. It is a lot easier to say yes to the US and join them in bombing raids than say no.The likes of Blair,Cameron and May have a lot to answer for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

I wouldn't say I'm defending the religion. I'm no fan of religion and I'm not in any way religious, and while I do think that religion has inspired some of humankind's most incredible achievements (music, buildings, art) we'd all be better off today without it. But that's unrealistic.

When this one religion is seen as the sole cause of all this tragedy, and I don't think that's the case, then I make my point. It's not meant to be defending a religion I know little about, but defending the people. Islam's been going for centuries but this is a recent problem. So this tells me that looking in the Quran is probably going to be a red herring.

The 9 year old thing is unsettling, but as said above by Kenwyne, that's what used to happen. I'm reading Bernard Cornwell's Saxon series at the moment, set in about 900AD in England. The lords there are marrying pre-pubescent girls and consumating when they become pubescent, and that's our country in the more recent past. Far be it that I'm defending what we now would call underage sex, I just don't see it as being relevant to the shitstorm that's going on.

---

The Pederasty in Ancient Greece is also a bit of an eye-opener. All about consent, not age. This was a civilisation often considered the foundation of Western Culture. Hard to understand of course looking back from our standpoint today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

I wouldn't say I'm defending the religion. I'm no fan of religion and I'm not in any way religious, and while I do think that religion has inspired some of humankind's most incredible achievements (music, buildings, art) we'd all be better off today without it. But that's unrealistic.

When this one religion is seen as the sole cause of all this tragedy, and I don't think that's the case, then I make my point. It's not meant to be defending a religion I know little about, but defending the people. Islam's been going for centuries but this is a recent problem. So this tells me that looking in the Quran is probably going to be a red herring.

The 9 year old thing is unsettling, but as said above by Kenwyne, that's what used to happen. I'm reading Bernard Cornwell's Saxon series at the moment, set in about 900AD in England. The lords there are marrying pre-pubescent girls and consumating when they become pubescent, and that's our country in the more recent past. Far be it that I'm defending what we now would call underage sex, I just don't see it as being relevant to the shitstorm that's going on.

---

:hehe: Suggest you read a bit of history or the Quran, It's a book about conquest.

The bible spurned the crusades, isn't there a theory that since the western world developed differently we got our religious murder out the way a lot earlier when it was a lot more acceptable?

This isn't a defence for any scum bag terrorist but it's not like many religions are all about peace and love.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Cærdiffi

No, I certainly wouldn't think that of you lardy, but it does strike me as odd that more people don't have that sudden moment of wondering what murky stuff they're defending when they stick up for this religion.

People of good morals feel obliged to stand up for the rights of the minorities but sometimes the minorities are into things that aren't as wholesome as we'd like to believe.

---

Who is sticking up for it though? As far as I can see the majority of people who come under that category are just saying that we shouldn't persecute innocent people to catch a few (there has to be a better way). Rash decision's (such as sending people to prison based on profiling and not actually committing a crime) end up exacerbating the problem and furthering the divide. My sister was at the dentist today and claims to have heard someone say 'round them all up and shoot them' which in fairness is at least a strategy (sarcasm). Do you want us to blame the book rather than the people who do these things? It feels like it and is something I disagree with (I am definitely not a religion apologist, I would end it all right now if I could). People are responsible for their actions.

I see what you getting at though, we shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and allow terrorism to become part of everyday life but short of doing things that you specifically don't want them to do (increased surveillance, invading privacy further) I can't really see what 'we' can do to stop 'them'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richyrich

Who's blaming all Muslims. I'm blaming the ideology. Why is it wrong to say Islam is f**ked up?

Maybe in the past you could control what Muslims in your community learnt from the Quran but those days are long gone with the birth of the internet.

Until islam as a whole declines there will always be extremists. This will go on for centuries. People can bury their head in the sand if they want but this is not going to go away any time soon.

---

Word War 3 will be fought between Sunni and Shia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

Who is sticking up for it though? As far as I can see the majority of people who come under that category are just saying that we shouldn't persecute innocent people to catch a few (there has to be a better way). Rash decision's (such as sending people to prison based on profiling and not actually committing a crime) end up exacerbating the problem and furthering the divide. My sister was at the dentist today and claims to have heard someone say 'round them all up and shoot them' which in fairness is at least a strategy (sarcasm). Do you want us to blame the book rather than the people who do these things? It feels like it and is something I disagree with (I am definitely not a religion apologist, I would end it all right now if I could). People are responsible for their actions.

I see what you getting at though, we shouldn't bury our heads in the sand and allow terrorism to become part of everyday life but short of doing things that you specifically don't want them to do (increased surveillance, invading privacy further) I can't really see what 'we' can do to stop 'them'.

---

My point was that we shouldn't automatically leap to the defence of someone's religion, specifically when it's one of the more bonkers ones (they're all pretty bonkers though)

Having said that, I've spent a fair portion of yesterday and today talking straight out of my barely-informed arse so I really shouldn't be taken all that seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Cærdiffi

My point was that we shouldn't automatically leap to the defence of someone's religion, specifically when it's one of the more bonkers ones (they're all pretty bonkers though)

Having said that, I've spent a fair portion of yesterday and today talking straight out of my barely-informed arse so I really shouldn't be taken all that seriously.

---

We are all just pretending we know what we are talking about so I wouldn't worry about it. I tend to glance at wiki for 5 minutes and then write/speak about things as if I did a doctoral thesis on it, if people notice I just call them names and try to remember not to go in that thread again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

We are all just pretending we know what we are talking about so I wouldn't worry about it. I tend to glance at wiki for 5 minutes and then write/speak about things as if I did a doctoral thesis on it, if people notice I just call them names and try to remember not to go in that thread again.

---

It's a strong and time-proven Internet debating strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colonel Cærdiffi

It's a strong and time-proven Internet debating strategy.

---

An honest admission fellas. Well done.

Reality bites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

We are all just pretending we know what we are talking about so I wouldn't worry about it. I tend to glance at wiki for 5 minutes and then write/speak about things as if I did a doctoral thesis on it, if people notice I just call them names and try to remember not to go in that thread again.

---

Fair observation mate

I see the US are doing their best to undermine the investigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

We are all just pretending we know what we are talking about so I wouldn't worry about it. I tend to glance at wiki for 5 minutes and then write/speak about things as if I did a doctoral thesis on it, if people notice I just call them names and try to remember not to go in that thread again.

---

You are feedback and I claim my five pounds