Well I'm glad your answer was not in the least patronising Larry and thank you for clearing that up.
Quick question: Please describe a "radical Muslim" for me? Or perhaps, for thickos like me, how do I tell a radical Muslim from a non radical Muslim?
I'm not being disingenuous but trying to imagine what would happen, for example, if someone said that "radical Christians" were on the rampage and we should all be watchful..
Do you see my dilemma?
One way of doing it I suppose is to say that "We are raising the terrorist alert status to Severe because radical Muslims are planning something nasty. You can tell a radical Muslim because he wears a skull cap and has a beard."
That is what you are asking political leaders to do; it's an untenable situation, and it's not political correctness at all that prevents them from announcing exactly that. Supposing he's a "white" convert? There's plenty of them that look just like you... What if they shave off their beards and wear a baseball cap?
Surely it's best to raise people's awareness to the possibility of an impending attack and then people will (hopefully) focus on "suspicious activity" rather than nationality or garb.
I rather suspect that there is a move to paint all Islam as radical and therefore a threat, but have the people that think that way got any answers? I would think, no.
I'll try one last time...being as specific as I can: If Al-Shabaab posts a terrorist threat on the net and signs it for all intents and purposes...or "chatter" regarding an attack is picked up via whatever media and Al-Shabaab is I.D.ed as the 'source' of it...announce the fact a threat has been made by the terrorist group Al-Shabaab.
If some yo-yo beheads a fellow worker at a business somewhere repeatedly yelling 'Allaua Akbar!' - call it an apparent Muslim terrorist attack...not "workplace violence"...or a "hate crime"...or a murder case.
You're on your own from here, Keith...
Perhaps we expect far more info than is good for us Larry, when these arseholes kick off with their threats 99.99999% or more are not going to be affected even if they do get to carry out the threat. Thats one hell of a lot of unnecessarily scared folk, the terrorist also get way to much glorifying media coverage in the deal. We are far better off with a gagged press and leave our security forces to carry out their good work, they will do a better job of suppressing terrorism than a population of trigger happy Rambo`s .
Bob
Perhaps we expect far more info than is good for us Larry, when these arseholes kick off with their threats 99.99999% or more are not going to be affected even if they do get to carry out the threat. Thats one hell of a lot of unnecessarily scared folk, the terrorist also get way to much glorifying media coverage in the deal. We are far better off with a gagged press and leave our security forces to carry out their good work, they will do a better job of suppressing terrorism than a population of trigger happy Rambo`s .
Bob
Larry,
Hobbits and similar nonsense do not really figure in my psyche.
Dave M
Okay, one last time and then I'm bagging it: The simple point I'm trying/been trying to make is, let's knock off reporting (by both the govt and the media) purposely vague, 'p.c.-so-as-not-to-offend', watered down, 'happy face' versions of news events when the known facts tell any rational person the truth is very obviously, or, very likely to be something else.
I just can't boil it down any further than that, guys...:sad:
(BTW, I fully agree with "leave our security forces to carry out their good work.")
I completely see where you're coming from. You call it "Political Correctness" I call it pragmatism.