Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

@shaf, you can't help yourself can you? If it doesn't match your opinion , it is silly.

@Zubber, this topic was started to make me see the error of my ways. It's reinforced them if anything.

Bethsmother - As i said before, i admire your strength in dealing with all this onslaught, and im vexed at your participation in the responses rather than just ignoring them.

I think the concept of "having an opinion" can only be understood by people who live in a free society, unlike the middle east where you are shushed constantly for voicing your thoughts which can lead to possible incarceration. One of the reasons why they will remain in dark ages infested with a myriad of problems in every sphere of their society. Which is not only pathetic but downright d1sgusting.

Bethsmum wrote:@shaf, you can't help yourself can you? If it doesn't match your opinion , it is silly.

Nope - I respectfully beg to differ. I don't view all differing opinions are silly. I can have a different opinion with people who think fornication is not wrong, or who drink alcohol and eat pork - and not think their opinion is silly.

I have no problem in acknowledging that people will vote for disagreeable political parties - be they Hitler's national socialists or the BNP. Their opinion on who to vote for is there's - and they are entitled to it.

But singling out Muslims - be it for employment or in terms of security, is indeed silly when one examines the evidence. I can't think of a more appropriate word to describe Singling out a section that only contributes 0.4% of the problem you wish to tackle. Those be the stats, and they are in contradiction to the beliefs.

If you choose to not believe the stats, then you can construct a world view in which the belief is not 'silly' - but that goes for those who believe the world is flat etc.

Cheers,
Shafique

zonker wrote:Thou heapest so much scorn on moi Ms Bora! I but consume Chivas Regal to drown out mine sorrow!
As for my humour going over over your head, all that I can say is next time I shall try to aim a little lower.
And yes, when I said Saudia, I meant the Saudis indeed. I am impressed, I have to admit, with the depth of your wit.
As for BM, yes, I think you are right, she will soon be here to defend the indefensible......with more verbiage.
Peace!

Good to see your humor can slip through your sorrow. Humor? Where were the friggin smilies??? You know the rule zonkers, a smilely means "I'm being funny" or a winkie means "I'm being sarcastic". Now I can see how I was so misunderstood in the past.

shafique wrote:BM - if it is ok with you, I'll stick to the stats from the police. I think it odd that someone who is familiar with the intelligence communityh thinks someone flying a plane into a building in a suicide attack with the intention of killing civilians is NOT a terrorist!

(Stack said in his suicide note that he wanted to increase the body count, and he targeted civilians - ergo he's a suicide bomber terrorist who happens to be white, American and non-Muslim).

But hey - I totally get you guys. Why let facts/evidence get in the way of 'beliefs'?



Cheers,
Shafique

You busted, you did not even read the note , you dont know what you are talking about, and only repeat propaganda, nowhere in his note he said he wanted to increase the body count or that he targeted civilians
Again , this is not terrorism but suicide, you are playing semantic. Timothy Mc Veil was terrorism.
Here is the note
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/ ... aking_news

Did you read the note?

Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.

I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.

I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.

Suicide bomber aims plane at building full of civilians and luckily only injures those he's targetting.

How is this NOT terrorism? Had he just taken some pills - that would be suicide. Flying a plane into a federal building (not military) is suicide bombing. QED.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shaf, you are a little sweetie, I simply cannot argue with a man that says the word 'Fornication' LOL
Who says that in 2010? Fornication. Fornication. I love that word! The verb would be 'to fornicate'. LMAO

Don't you just love the queen's English? LOL

(BTW - speaking of the f word - now on Season 2 of Shameless - loving it)

Ok - now we really must get back on topic! Enough of this silliness.

Cheers,
Shafique

We can debate all day on the definition of terrorism, that is not the topic.
What I am saying is that there is a solution that works, either you take it and save lives, or you dont and people die and in between everybody get un necessarily strip searched.
The solution is profiling, which is a politically correct term for singling out Muslims, the most likely bombers.
So far you have failed to give me one name of a suicide attack on a commercial airliner who was not an Islamist.
Shoe bomber, underwear bomber, mail bomber, whatever, we got lucky because they were inept bombers, but they made it through because there was no profiling. profiling would have pointed them. so profiling can reduce to zero the risk of having a suicide bomber on your plane, like El Al does.
Mc Veil, or the texas suicidee did not board a commercial plane, it is not the same MO, nor it is the same targets.
But I do understand now, that you oppose "profiling" because you belong to this community and do not want to be singled out and be rubber gloved because of that. Too bad, convert to Christianity then if you dont want to be associated with this minority of criminals who stains your community.


oh ........and look who was arrested yesterday trying to blow up an Army center, Mohamed Osman Mohamud,
that does not sound separatist to me, Corsica, Basque, Irish, or white supremacist ?????? NO
Get over it, and accept the fact.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101208/ap_ ... _bomb_plot

Oh thats the story of my life Ms Bora! Never know what the ladies actually want . More smileys, of course! And a wink for sarcasm. Yes, ma'am! Got it!

And Ms BM: I agree with you about 'Fornication'. Lets just say: fornicate the BNP and all its followers; though I have to admit, the Muslims fornicate a lot more, like rabbits, and you see the little products of their fornication all over the place.
I would say, educate more, fornicate less. Both for the BNP as well as the Muslims.
I hope that was all on topic?
Peace!

I particularly like the logic of comparing the worst act in one group against the most benign act in another group. And then the gall to say that the quoting of statistical facts is somehow dishonest! You've got to admire the chutzpah!

7/7 bombings

7/21 bombings (which didn't kill only because of faulty explosives)

Madrid bombings

Metro bombings

Suicide operations inside Europe or involving Muslim Europeans outside of Europe

Countless mass casualty bomb plots, including suicide operations

Hey, as I said, you're free to believe that there isn't a qualitative difference Islamic terrorism (not terrorism carried out by Muslims) to the majority of the terrorist acts in that list, such throwing a lit firecracker in an empty field.

But some people are convinced that they are right to advocate singling out Muslims - despite the evidence and logic. That is silly.

Tell that to El Al airways. I'm sure they could use a few more google experts to tell them how to run things.

Sure - we can analyse to death the 0.4% of terrorist acts committed by Muslims and compare them with the 99.6% of terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims. I've no problem with that.

Another lie? Didn't the Europol look at 'Islamic' terror attacks, not terror attacks carried out by Muslims?

I just hope that we're not being silly and believing the hype. Look what happened when you guys believed there were WMD in Iraq.

And suddenly Herve becomes an American.

LoL.

Or, let me guess, you knew all along what really would have happened. Too bad your own record of changing your story in the middle of a thread doesn't win my vote of confidence.

Believing the hype also means that agencies manufacture threats - just look at all the cases of entrapment.

Those poor Muslims. They were given numerous chances to walk away but those mean FBI guys forced them into wanting to blow up Jews and Christmas shoppers.

As I said in the previous post - I totally agree that there is nothing wrong in tackling the 0.4% of terrorist acts, we should seek to eliminate all forms of terrorism. I'm just pointing out that it would be silly to single out these guys and spend relatively less time on the 99.6%.

Yeah, I couldn't possibly imagine why the government would spend more of its time preventing airplane bombings than garbage fires.

the majority of the 0.4% terrorists who are Muslim are indeed numpties with little training. We should be glad they are not as competent as say Tim McVeigh.

They seem more than competent enough to me:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/200 ... al.450.jpg

Edit: Another confirmed lie.

The list was 'Islamist' terror attacks, not terror attacks carried out by Muslims.

http://www.europol.europa.eu/publicatio ... at2010.pdf

zonker wrote::lol: Oh thats the story of my life Ms Bora! Never know what the ladies actually want . More smileys, of course! And a wink for sarcasm. Yes, ma'am! Got it!

And Ms BM: I agree with you about 'Fornication'. Lets just say: fornicate the BNP and all its followers; though I have to admit, the Muslims fornicate a lot more, like rabbits, and you see the little products of their fornication all over the place.
I would say, educate more, fornicate less. Both for the BNP as well as the Muslims.
I hope that was all on topic?
Peace!

What the hell are you on about? I thought Muslims didn't drink?

-- Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:27 am --

I will share with you what happened today at BM's place of employment in Engerland.
BM was sitting at my desk working away, coffee in hand, when the door to the office opened and in walked a little Asian girl. BM's mind wandered back to DF and BM thought 'you couldn't make this up!'
Here was our first ethnic minority, delivering the post. She looked a bit lost, a little soul dressed in Western style clothes that were slightly too big for her.
Later in the day BM went to the kitchen to make herself yet another cup of coffee, the wine would have to wait till later.
In the kitchen was the little Asian girl, having her lunch. the following conversation took place.
'alright?' says BM
'Yes' says the little girl
'New job?'
'I'm on work experience, I don't get paid'
'Really?'
'The people are really friendly here and I love your houses, they are so pretty'
'where do you come from?'
'Nelson, Lancashire' (BM smiles)
'What you doing round here?'
'I'm a Muslim'
'Really?'
'Yes'
'what are you doing round here?'
'I'm not a very good Muslim'
'Really? Why?'
'I don't know much about Islam'
'Really?
'No'
'How come?'
'I don't practice it'
'What?'
'Being a Muslim'
'Oh'
'I live with my husband'
'oh, good, how old are you?'
'30'
'Really?' (BM is taken aback as she looks about 16)
'it was an arranged marriage'
'Really? How long have you been married?'
'A year'
'How's it going?'
'Alright'
'Only alright?'
'Yes' (very sad face from little Asian girl)
'Oh'
BM makes her escape back to her office. Yes, life is truely a b1tch for some of us women.

@Shaf - completely off topic - glad you are enjoying shameless - it gets better and better and a lot naughtier

Yes Joe, me and Shaf have discussed Shameless on a number of occasions. I always recommend watching from behind a cushion, especially for someone refering to sha&&ing as Fornication. Bless.

@BM - even more off topic - spurs in last 16 and top of group - can't believe redknapp is managing so well - never thought he was up to it

Even more off topic, I rather like Redknapp's son. Jamie could leave his slippers under BM's bed any night
Well done Spurs.
I worry for Newcastle's future with that fat fu&&er at the helm

Bethsmum wrote:Even more off topic, I rather like Redknapp's son. Jamie could leave his slippers under BM's bed any night
Well done Spurs.
I worry for Newcastle's future with that fat fu&&er at the helm

You know I think I am getting to know you a little better BM - as I was typing about spurs success and senior redknapp I was thinking I bet BM will mention Jamie + saucy comment! Jamie is a good looking boy but not too bright nor a particularly good player in his day. The thought in my head now is that you will reply "thats how I like them Joe" or "not that bothered about his footie skills"

Yes Joe, BM is a shallow mott

I guess it takes one to know one.

Nite nite Joe, I'd better go, the Chardonnay is kickin in

herve wrote:We can debate all day on the definition of terrorism, that is not the topic.
What I am saying is that there is a solution that works, either you take it and save lives, or you dont and people die and in between everybody get un necessarily strip searched.
The solution is profiling, which is a politically correct term for singling out Muslims, the most likely bombers.
So far you have failed to give me one name of a suicide attack on a commercial airliner who was not an Islamist.

Let me repeat myself - I have no issues with all the efforts being made to reduce the 0.4% of terrorist acts committed by Muslims (the majority of these acts are by incompetent numpties - such as the shoe and underpants bombers).

I just hope that appropriate resources are being used to address the 99.6% of terrorists.

What concerns me is that the track record of uncovering plots is so bad - all the so-called ricin plots in the UK turned out to be nothing, the FBI is involved in entrapment of Muslims and therefore those 'successes' are artificial.

When we look beyond the hype and the exaggeration, we do find that focusing on the 0.4% of cases and making out that this is the major problem, does appear silly.

You might as well profile eskimos who target cruise ships - and then make up a story about how successful you are because there have been no successful attacks on cruise ships.

But when it comes to terrorism in the EU and USA - you need to IGNORE the stats and evidence to justify profiling Muslims, rather than profiling terrorists in general or young dis-affected youth such as McVeigh and say the Columbine school killers.

Cheers,
Shafique

(the majority of these acts are by incompetent numpties - such as the shoe and underpants bombers).

The shoe bomber was physically tackled before he could light his explosives and the underwear bomber's explosives failed to properly detonate.

In what world does that make them 'incompetent numpties' ? Their explosives were just as real as their dedication to kill themselves and hundreds of others.

Boy, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

the FBI is involved in entrapment of Muslims and therefore those 'successes' are artificial.

Yeah, sure they were. Some loon with his own blog told you so.

When we look beyond the hype and the exaggeration, we do find that focusing on the 0.4% of cases and making out that this is the major problem, does appear silly.

Focusing on those who actually cause mass casualties is silly.

The Muslim apologist told me so.

Got it.

You might as well profile eskimos who target cruise ships - and then make up a story about how successful you are because there have been no successful attacks on cruise ships.

you need to IGNORE the stats and evidence to justify profiling Muslims, rather than profiling terrorists in general or young dis-affected youth such as McVeigh and say the Columbine school killers.

Stats are meaningless and are only cited by fanatics who would want to obscure the reality. Muslims who justify their actions on the texts and teachings of their faith seek to inflict mass casualties - and they have a pretty good track record of it, unlike those Eskimos who hijack ships.

shafique wrote:Thanks for sharing BM - I've yet to meet a prejudiced person who could not justify to themselves and others their prejudices.

No one is saying that Singling out muslims can't be justified in people's minds - we're just point out that it is silly.

Cheers,
Shafique

Nicely put in a nutshell Shaf.

And zonker, people can change their minds after discussion. It has happened to me many times. From having good discussions I have personally reflected on some of my own views and have learned to check alternative sources to try to get a larger perspective on an issue.

Seems that singling out Muslims is official in France. In this secret cable released by Wikileaks, French authorities recommended the suspension of security clearance of 72 Muslims workers from the airport. Wonder why?
Oh They say it is to avoid future attacks
http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2006/11/06PARIS7579.html

You're not arguing that the French authorities are all silly are you

A lot of Americans would agree with you - many still refuse to rename their Freedom Fries!

But seriously, let us know whether the 72 were suspended or not or whether this is yet another example of why it is silly to single out people based on religion.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:You're not arguing that the French authorities are all silly are you

A lot of Americans would agree with you - many still refuse to rename their Freedom Fries!

But seriously, let us know whether the 72 were suspended or not or whether this is yet another example of why it is silly to single out people based on religion.

Cheers,
Shafique

Are you saying it is silly to try to avoid future attacks?

No, quite the opposite - it is silly to focus on hype when trying to do so.

Cheers,
Shafique