Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why isn't there a 'Unite Against Islamic Extremism'? watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    To be fair the BNP didn't blow up 50 people on buses and underground trains nor did they plot to kill thousands by hijacking planes.
    Nor did homophobes. Yet we still have gay rights groups? That's neither scandalous nor wrong. The argument used by the OP (and, doubtlessly, the BNP) is entirely weak in that respect. Hating the BNP and hating Islamic extremists is not mutually exclusive - much like hating sexism and hating racism is not mutually exclusive. Organisations merely concentrate their efforts.

    I'll repeat what you've quoted:

    "Furthermore, whilst the BNP is a fairly stable and coherent political party, young Muslim extremists don't seem to operate in the same way (or, certainly, not to the same extent).. "

    In context:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    I'm sure that many people in the UAF are against both the BNP and Islamic extremism. The two aren't mutually exclusive - if you dislike one you don't necessarily like the other. If you think about it, if the UAF did make it their aim to tackle young Muslims, then it wouldn't really be the UAF. Why don't gay rights groups attack sexists? Well, I'm sure they're against sexism as well, but they're first and foremost gay rights groups so they're ill-equipped to attack the latter [added: unlike Muslim leaders in Mosques, for example].

    Furthermore, whilst the BNP is a fairly stable and coherent political party, young Muslim extremists don't seem to operate in the same way (or, certainly, not to the same extent). They also probably chose the word "fascist" on a rather lazy afternoon in a nonchalant fashion. They're probably really mean the socially-right winged, race-pre-occupied, economic protectionist, liberty-curbing bigots.

    And yeah, their methods are a bit naff.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Actually, I'll explore this for you. Regardless of their actual motivation, you can't deny that the reason given for going to war is to "tackle terror" or "fight Islamic Extremism". So the Western governments (including our own), do actually take the banner of "Unite Against Islamic Extremism", regardless of their true motives/intentions (which, incidently, I could question for virtually every organisation). Furthermore, it's questionable whether that would be the soldier's (or even the British government's) prime motivation, in any case.
    I thought it was about WMD's and a nuclear middle east first, and 'killing the towel heads who did 9/11' second. And since they couldn't justify it with WMD's, they've changed it to 'tackling terror' now.

    Well I couldn't guess why Britiain went to war with America. I suppose it has to do with the 'special relationship'.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    I thought it was about WMD's and a nuclear middle east first, and 'killing the towel heads who did 9/11' second. And since they couldn't justify it with WMD's, they've changed it to 'tackling terror' now.
    Why does it matter what banner they were under in the past when we were using the present tense? The army (or, rather, the British government) are currently acting under the banner of "Unite against Islamic Extremism". That said, you could even go further to relate the attack on WMDs - right after a terrorist attack (LOL) - and attacks on Middle-Eastern rogue dictators to a 'war on terror/Islamic extremism'.

    I can't possibly see what point you're trying to make here. (And no, they didn't use the term "towel head" ).
    Well I couldn't guess why Britiain went to war with America. I suppose it has to do with the 'special relationship'.
    There's an element of truth in that, but I invite you to deal with my points.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    To be fair the BNP didn't blow up 50 people on buses and underground trains nor did they plot to kill thousands by hijacking planes.
    No but neo-nazis have (planned and committed terrorist acts).

    Admittedly not in the BNP, but then there are "Islamists" and "fundamentalists" with what I would call extreme views who don't necessarily plan or carry out terrorist acts either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Why does it matter what banner they were under in the past when we were using the present tense? The army (or, rather, the British government) are currently acting under the banner of "Unite against Islamic Extremism". That said, you could even go further to relate the attack on WMDs - right after a terrorist attack (LOL) - and attacks on Middle-Eastern rogue dictators as a 'war on terror/Islamic extremism'.
    I don't think they care about Islam, and I don't think concerns about terrorism are large enough to warrant a war on this scale. Wether they say that is the idea or not.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    I don't think they care about Islam, and I don't think concerns about terrorism are large enough to warrant a war on this scale. Wether they say that is the idea or not.
    If you're on about the UAF: Your opinion can possibly only be as informed as anyone elses' opinion on whether a gay rights group cares about Islam or racism. The UAF (their members) haven't released a statement saying that they support Islamic extremism, to my knowledge. Until they do, you'll have to provide some implicit evidence - and I doubt whether even that much exists. Yet you're right to say that they don't advertise a "war against Islamic extremism" as their main aim. But it's not the main aim of a lot of organisations - it doesn't mean they don't care about Islamic extremism.

    If you're talking about the government: Again, my point had nothing to do with the government's actual intentions (on which no falsifiable statement can be made) but rather about what banner they currently and explicitly hold (i.e. "uniting against Islamic extremism" ).

    As for whether I support the war on terror, I don't fully support it. That wasn't the point I was making. Rather, the government already acts (or, at least, pretends to act/wants to act) under a "Unite Against Islamic Extremism".

    I don't think everyone needs to carry that banner, or carry that card, or be explicit in their disapproval of terrorist atrocities.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think the UAF is both ridiculous, stupid and wholly hypocritical. If the BNP get voted into power (which I could never see happening in any case) then they will have democratically earned the right to lead. It shouldn't have to come down to a public pressure group throwing eggs at people to prevent the BNP getting power. Who are we to say that the BNP is wrong. Certainly its wrong IMO, and that'll be the view of most on TSR I'm sure. However, you can't just have democracy some of the time, and attempt to ban (or slander) parties simply because of their negative connotations.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shalarmay)
    Hardly comparable. We're talking about internal extremists and protest groups (not states) who may or may not be backed by the government.

    How predictable that you attempt to subtly defend a repulsive man like Choudary.

    Okay, let us talk about extremists.

    Extremist |Ik'streemist|: Noun ~ A person who holds extreme or fanatical views.
    Example: A political extremist.

    Tell me, that removing a people due to their faith is not extremism. I think this is what they call a catch 22 situation. If you say it, then you are a liar. If you do not, then you will be admitting that you are wrong, and it is clear for most people to see so. However, I believe that you are too arrogant to admit your fault and will come back with a retort only worthy of a fascist supporting a totalitarian regime.

    How predictable that you attempt to defend a racist people rather than a group who's only crime was that they believed in Allah and his Messenger.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mozzy1411)
    Okay, let us talk about extremists.

    Extremist |Ik'streemist|: Noun ~ A person who holds extreme or fanatical views.
    Example: A political extremist.

    Tell me, that removing a people due to their faith is not extremism. I think this is what they call a catch 22 situation. If you say it, then you are a liar. If you do not, then you will be admitting that you are wrong, and it is clear for most people to see so. However, I believe that you are too arrogant to admit your fault and will come back with a retort only worthy of a fascist supporting a totalitarian regime.

    How predictable that you attempt to defend a racist people rather than a group who's only crime was that they believed in Allah and his Messenger.
    The foundations of this facile argument are fundamentally flawed, as I clearly labeled the BNP's views as 'repugnant' and 'fascist'.

    Nice straw man, by the way, I don't think anyone advocated that extremists should be 'removed' (what a vague term to use, removed from the street, country, rational discourse?), thus your infantile argument collapses once more.

    I find it utterly vomit inducing that you sympathise with such an abhorrent individual and his cronies. You've clearly failed to alleviate the stereotype that Muslims support extremists and their backward, medieval views.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The key word is "against". It was like with the Anti Nazil League - the key word was "anti" - and so wide was their "umbrella" that it was never really clear what they were for

    The BNP have evolved as an organisation and have started developing policies outside of the narrow "round 'em up, kick 'em out, hang 'em, flog 'em" core that they had - and still have. As a result, they can still say to their core vote that they've not changed, while to everyone else those core messages get lost in everything else.

    As for the anti-Islamic extremism, the nature of some Muslim communities is that they are polarised from other communities - hence why the Government has spent a lot of money trying to tackle this polarisation with varying levels of success.

    The "organised" far left who have run the anti-BNP groupings have been less willing to take on Islamist extremists because it runs the risk of alienating one of the groups of people who would otherwise support them - a la the Respect Unity Coalition model.

    The problem I see is this:
    1) A person is smart, an angry mob is stupid. How do you get a group of individuals from a cross-section of a community to take on Islamist extremists without turning into an angry mob, when there are so many factors waiting to turn said group of people into an angry mob - be it the far right to the local and national press?
    2) How do you break the link between protesting against the extremists vs nationalists protesting against Muslims in general?
    3) How do you persuade the far-left (who whether we like it or not will jump on any non-racist protest bandwagon) that Islamist extremists are a threat to them too, and that while bad stuff happened in the past during the Cold War (us supporting the rebels in Afghanistan etc) we are where we are and we have to deal with the problems on our doorsteps rather than going over theoretical what-might-have-beens...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Personally I quite like the sound of 'Unite Against Judiasm'. Perhaps we can organise some rallies or something.
    Be fair, it would be 'Unite against extremist Judiasm'. Thats not so bad.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    To some people on these forums they support facism so maybe these people can start a unite against islam organisation. I don't blame the muslim extremists for their views, i blame the the gorvernment for turning them into extremists with wars in Iraq, Afgainistan, Palestine, Chechynya, Phillipines, Kashmir, Xinjiang, South Thailand, tortue in Gunatanamo bay, Abu gharaib, i could go on and on of things thats happening to muslims but people couldn't give a monkeys whats happening in these countries. I for one i'm surprised world war 3 hasn't started yet.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajtiesto)
    To some people on these forums they support facism so maybe these people can start a unite against islam organisation. I don't blame the muslim extremists for their views, i blame the the gorvernment for turning them into extremists with wars in Iraq, Afgainistan, Palestine, Chechynya, Phillipines, Kashmir, Xinjiang, South Thailand, tortue in Gunatanamo bay, Abu gharaib, i could go on and on of things thats happening to muslims but people couldn't give a monkeys whats happening in these countries. I for one i'm surprised world war 3 hasn't started yet.
    Ironically many of your examples are not in fact examples of violence against Muslims but examples of violence by Muslims.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Ironically many of your examples are not in fact examples of violence against Muslims but examples of violence by Muslims.
    Oh, so Americans, British and Nato forces haven't killed any muslims in Iraq and Afganista. What about the Israelis who indiscriminantly killed hundreds of palestinians, Russian forces completely destroying Chechans, the opression of the Chinese government on the Uighurs people. Who committed those vile acts in those prisions in Iraq and Gunatanamo bay?????
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajtiesto)
    Oh, so Americans, British and Nato forces haven't killed any muslims in Iraq and Afganista. What about the Israelis who indiscriminantly killed hundreds of palestinians, Russian forces completely destroying Chechans, the opression of the Chinese government on the Uighurs people. Who committed those vile acts in those prisions in Iraq and Gunatanamo bay?????
    I was mainly talking about the situation in the Philippines but a lot of the other situations are less one-sided than you think.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    I was mainly talking about the situation in the Philippines but a lot of the other situations are less one-sided than you think.
    Just imagine if the tide was turned around. Forces from muslim contries were occupying the UK , parts of the US and Europe? Imagine the daily bombings and having to live in fear. Just imagine moment how you would feel if you were living in a war torn country? Do you know the conditions the people are living in those muslim countries? This is more than war on terror and i understand why some muslims have turned to extremism, but i don't agree with their views.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because the UAF believe that the only people with the ability to be racist or extremeist are white people. Muslim households are consistantly being raided on suspicion of bomb making and terror planning, yet it is always only a "minority", however, when a minority of right-wing supporters act in a violent manner, it is always the majority who are then labled racist thugs.

    The far left in this country just tend to be ignorant idiots.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajtiesto)
    Just imagine if the tide was turned around. Forces from muslim contries were occupying the UK , parts of the US and Europe? Imagine the daily bombings and having to live in fear.
    Would it be rude of me to suggest you've not been following the news too closely over the last 5 years or so?

    Remember 7/7? 21/7? Glasgow Airport? Or The Archbishop put under police protection after death threats for daring to suggest some areas of Britain had become no-go areas for non-Muslims, not long after some guy had shouted at the home secretary "how dare you come to a Muslim area"?

    As for "living in fear", check out our current terror alert level. Think about what you have to do each time you get on a plane now. And check this:

    "Today, my officers and the police are working to contend with some 200 groupings or networks, totalling over 1,600 identified individuals - and there will be many we don't know - who are actively engaged in plotting, or facilitating, terrorist acts here and overseas," she said.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    No but neo-nazis have (planned and committed terrorist acts).
    I remember

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/781097.stm
    and
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/781755.stm

    happening while I was at university, which concerned a lot of people at the time. (This was before 9/11).
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.