http://www.globalresearch.ca/muslim-leaders-worldwide-condemn-isis/5397364 As someone who has found thoughtful points on both sides of the UK's Islamic/immigration debate (and professes to be neutral), I impart this little article. Mainstream Islam does not condemn terrorism. Your right-wing tabloids just won't cover it.
UK? The article refers to ABC and Fox news, neither of which are UK news services. The article does quote a UK newspaper (The Independent) which identifies Muslim leaders that have condemned ISIS. Have you actually read these UK papers you complain about?
I was using mainstream Islam in a general sense, but making a conclusion about Muslims in the UK. I've been following the whole debacle lately (relatives on the other side of the planet posting incendiary posts from spurious political groups and all that jazz). There's a big overlap between US and UK tabloids in terms of what they state and what they leave out. Respectively, these are instances of Muslims committing atrocities and instances of Muslims being decent people. I just rolled with the first article I found.
No there isn't. It is widely reported in the UK when Muslims condemn these attacks. I am not entirely sure what experience you are talking from, but living in the UK for 34 years has given me a pretty sound knowledge of what is and is not reported here.
I can only agree with @Chinspinner, I don't think this thread has a solid basis. We do have idiots to propitiate religious violence for Islam, people like that Anjem Choudery bloke but it's often pointed out that Islamic groups condemn these people too. Immigration in the UK is more than just Islam, too. You have UKIP to thank for making this whole thing a mountain instead of a mole hill: complaining about EU citizens coming to this country legally, because apparently they don't have the first clue of how the European Union works.
Whoops, my error then. Sorry, It's one-fifteen in the morning where I am and I'm slowly growing more frustrated at staying up looking at news articles and controversies instead of going to sleep and writing (hence the stream-of-consciousness style). Do I take this thread down? Or...?
Speaking as another member from a different region of the UK, I agree with both @Chinspinner and @Lemex. As for taking the article down... you made the comment. Personally, if you deemed it worth saying in the first place, I'd respect you more for standing by it regardless of whether I agree with you or not. It's a bit late to turn tail now.
People do silly things sometimes. This was just one of those times. Now that I've been corrected I want to move on. Is this not what honest people do? (the flippant angel face implies irony but I'm actually serious) Oh well. I guess my stupidity is now broadcast for the world to see! Curse you social media...as well as myself. Okay, I'm going to make a sincere point this time. Lemex, I don't really have a strong enough opinion at all on this whole immigration controversy*, but I'm going to be the devil's advocate anyway. Sure the EU may be legal, but that doesn't mean that English citizens have to agree with it. There, my one lucid point is gone. *I say 'controversy', because I'm not sure whether it is one or not. It seems to be, but what if that's just my newsfeed filled with polemical articles? I may not be getting an accurate litmus of what British people are actually feeling, considering that only the loudest voices are going to spread virally to other countries. There's probably a term for this sort of selective phenomenon, but I've no idea. (I would call this a second lucid point, but that would be arrogant.)
Oh yes, I congratulate you for being this honest. I'll 'like' your post just for this. The EU is primarily an economic union. When the UK joined it, it accepted that it would have to allow the free travel and work rights to anyone within the European community. The only way the British people can not be utter hypocrites is if they either accept EU immigration regardless of their feelings or leave the EU. If they leave the EU they also must accept that all all movement to the EU is going to be much harder. By leaving the EU they will only really make their lives more isolated, and that to me would be a catastrophe. It's honestly hard to gauge to be honest. UKIP are on the rise, but the UK has a long history of liberalism and internationalism. We will need time to see if anti-immigration feeling is really on the rise, or if it's just catchy rhetoric.
The immigration controversy is basically a concern that immigrants may not be economic contributors (research shows they are) or they may be a drain on our finite resources, such as the health and education system. There is a call for a more stringent procedure (like you have) from parties like UKIP, and these arguments seem to be gaining ground. In the EU there is free movement, this applies as much to a polish immigrant looking for work in the UK as someone who is newly retired from the UK going to live out their final years in Spain. It is swings and roundabouts. I think these issues stem from the very foundation of the EU. It was originally conceived as an economic pact, which guaranteed free trade between its members. This is fine. In the 80's Thatcher was anti-EU but our Chancellor was pro-EU and as such he followed the German monetary and fiscal policy, which resulted in the 1991 recession being far deeper than it otherwise would have been. This resulted in a lot of anti-EU sentiment in the UK. Then the EU expanded to incorporate many disparate economies in a single currency with a single economic policy. As has been shown by the 2008 recession this does not work. At times a weaker economy needs to devalue its currency to assist exports, and when they are prevented from doing so you have the sort of fall-out we see in Greece, Spain, Italy (southern European countries basically). For this reason the UK is generally anti the Euro. So the immigration and Europe debate is quite complex and Islam is only one tiny (and largely inconsequential) part of it.
That does make sense. It's not as simple with the UK's pluralistic parliamentary practice (heh, alliteration), but if joining the EU is a matter of democracy, then narrowing it down to two major parties indicate that a good 49% of the population dislikes or does not feel beholden to the EU. Of course as a collective the UK has agreed to the EU, but...that's where it gets murky. Semantics and all of that. Moving on, although I apologise for how incendiary it came off in my first post, I still dislike UK tabloids but for a more personal reason. See, when I still lived over there I spent a good portion of my childhood reading newspapers. Upon growing older I've realised just how pappy a lot of them are, and shiver each time I think about how much I used to absorb their content without question. I was a very dumb child. It's not just political: my dislike also includes things such as the Daily Mail scaremongering about cancer and swine flu, and certain 'tabloids' commodifying women's bodies and perpetuating celebrity gunk. I know the media is flawed everywhere, but the media of my home country leaves a soreness in the back of my throat. EDIT: On another note, I'm marvelling at all of that information you provided, Chinspinner. I consider myself someone who is very interested in both economics and history, but I always find areas that I either haven't heard before or just can't comprehend. I know I'm really tired at this point, but I also know that I know squat about British history. My older brother is the one I consult for all of that, considering he finished high school in the UK before we moved away. Eh.
Heheh, I think I like yes, prime minster/yes, minister's views on why the UK joined the EU. (from wikiquotes) Hacker: Europe is a community of nations, dedicated towards one goal. Sir Humphrey: Oh, ha ha ha. Hacker: May we share the joke, Humphrey? Sir Humphrey: Oh Minister, let's look at this objectively. It is a game played for national interests, and always was. Why do you suppose we went into it? Hacker: To strengthen the brotherhood of free Western nations. Sir Humphrey: Oh really. We went in to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans.
I've never heard of either before in my life, but a quick glance at Wikipedia gave me an interesting factoid. Yes Minister was Margaret Thatcher's favourite television show. Reminds me of President Reagan and Back to the Future.
I came here to valiantly to be a badass critic and then realized this was more economics and politics than I could ever stomach in my GCE's. *scurries away*
Oh, the show doesn't promote Margaret Thatcher's politics in any way—in case you think I'm a conservative. I'm certainly not, and never have been. The eponymous Minister in the show, is actually a left-wing, rather cack-handed Labour politician, but his idealism is put to the test when he's first elected to Westminster. The show revolves around him learning the hard way. And he does learn! And we do as well. Idealism? You have to work hard to preserve it, once you get that high in government. @Lemex ...I think you would love this show. And it's NOT out of date either. In fact, so much that is happening right now can be looked at through the Yes, Minister lens. It's one of the world's greatest TV 'sitcoms.' A term which, while technically accurate, does not do this show justice at all.
I know an English guy (I'm actually not from the UK, my father studied there (during Thatcher's term) and stayed current with British humor for a while) who told me that yes, minister's breakdown of who reads what newspaper is actually quite accurate
I don't know about Yes Minister, but: - Telegraph (or Torygraph)- leaning to the right. Times- slightly to the right. Independent- slightly to the left. Guardian- hippy paper. The Daily Express and Mail- toilet paper read by morons. The Sun- generally read back to front. The Star- soft core pornography. Is that all of them?
I think so, to quote yes, minister from wikiquotes: Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is. Sir Humphrey: Oh and Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun? Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
This was interesting: Media Matters - What Fox Won't Show You: Muslim Leaders Are Condemning The Paris Terror Attack On Fox TV News: But on Fox.com news: The article adds their own list of Muslim spokespersons condemning the attacks.
Over 90% of the victims in the world's so-called "pro-Muslim terrorist attacks" are non-violent Muslims. Funny how American media likes to ignore that too.
Oh no, I wasn't implying that I thought it was a slanted program. I was just pointing out the little detail I noticed on the Wikipedia page. In the same vein, Back to the Future doesn't seem heavily biased in favour of Reaganism. But then again, I haven't watched it in a long time...
