Terrorist attacks in Paris.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Keith,
I understand. neither do I anymore, rhetoric does not get you anywhere, because Hitler and Mussolini were just as good at rhetoric. Allegedly, wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent, and I aspire to be a wise man.
To whom it may concern
“Don't ever mistake my silence for ignorance, or for acceptance”
As I say some will pounce on the last part but to me it is the first part that is important, and is reported by his society as being fatual.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.
After some research, I have fund this single omission but I cannot see how it changes the perspective much? Perhaps you could give me your thoughts on it. It's an odd half sentence to be sure and sounds as if it is out of context.
"Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die:"
I promise I'll be silent after this!
"Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die:"
I promise I'll be silent after this!
Got it now Nick, thanks, but still doesn't change the main thrust.
I have no real opinion and have to rely on others and my own observations but certainly, in my life I do not feel threatened by 'Islamic forces'. It's probably different in big cities or where there are large ethnic minority populations. Personally, I like the 'melting pot' idea as long as it's good natured and secular.
However, I am quite intrigued by the age of this particular piece of rhetoric. If not for the flowery syntax it could have been written yesterday..
I have no real opinion and have to rely on others and my own observations but certainly, in my life I do not feel threatened by 'Islamic forces'. It's probably different in big cities or where there are large ethnic minority populations. Personally, I like the 'melting pot' idea as long as it's good natured and secular.
However, I am quite intrigued by the age of this particular piece of rhetoric. If not for the flowery syntax it could have been written yesterday..
Keith,
Not sure how to explain my thoughts even though they are simple but I will try. It is all about context, maybe this will help.
I believe the original speech you quote was written in around 1899, n his book The River War (1899) – his account of the frontier wars of India and Sudan – he was scathing of the fundamentalist, ultra conservative Mahdiyya form of Islam adopted by the Dervish population of North Africa.
By 1904
But what may come as a surprise is that he was a strong admirer of Islam and the culture of the Orient — such was his regard for the Muslim faith that relatives feared he might convert.
The revelation comes with the discovery of a letter to Churchill from his future sister-in-law, Lady Gwendoline Bertie, written in August 1907, in which she urges him to rein in his enthusiasm.
In the letter, discovered by Warren Dockter, a history research fellow at Cambridge University, she pleads: “Please don’t become converted to Islam; I have noticed in your disposition a tendency to orientalise [fascination with the Orient and Islam], Pasha-like tendencies, I really have.”
By 1940
In October 1940, as Britain faced its darkest hour against Nazi Germany, Churchill approved plans to build a mosque in central London and set aside £100,000 for the project. He continued to back the building of what became the London Central Mosque in Regent’s Park – which he hoped would win support for Britain in the Muslim world at a crucial moment – even in the face of public criticism.
In December 1941, he told the House of Commons: “Many of our friends in Muslim countries all over the East have already expressed great appreciation of this gift.”
The problem is there are those on here the usual protagonists is how they would describe it, who would have used the speech and do outside the forum to prove how Churchill saw Muslims as a threat, for example the Telegraph "Ukip couldn't improve on what Winston Churchill had to say about Muslims" when in reality even in the speech he was only talking about a small minority fundamentalist, ultra conservative Mahdiyya not millions of Muslims sound familiar?
Now as said I must remain silent as I was once advised by a councillor, there are some people you will never change the minds or opinions of so there is no point wasting you time trying.
I should emphasise that is for me but I don't think you should remain silent
Which fact/facts is/are "distorted" in post #106?
I would still like to know what this "robust" vetting process is, with no data, records, or documents for individual Syrian refugees. If 1% of the 10,000 slip by as terrorist, that's 100 terrorist, that's not acceptable. It seems like a great way to infiltrate a country.
I believe one of the main objectives of such terrorism is to disrupt our daily lives and our comfort zone so to speak. There seems to be a fine balance between losing our humanity completely and at the same time defeating an ideologically driven enemy.
The lessons of Vietnam should be studied very closely in my opinion because in our current conflict, all the ingredients of that disastrous campaign are present in today's crisis.
The lessons of Vietnam should be studied very closely in my opinion because in our current conflict, all the ingredients of that disastrous campaign are present in today's crisis.
Sorry Keith old habits.
I was an elected District Councillor many many years ago, they assured me I wouldn't win.
For example
Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
No doubt you will come back with a request to prove it, which I can and so can you if you want to. What would be the point would it change your mind? I doubt it, would it add to the rhetoric? yes, what would it achieve, not a lot, is silence Golden?
I believe what Jack's list there illustrates is the fact that said individuals live side-by-side w/o KILLING each other or burning down/blowing up each other's homes, etc., as can easily be the case when Muslims are thrown into the mix. But, I believe you already knew that...didn't you.
I am not sure what you mean, there are many examples of "said individuals living side by side" and killing each other.
ie Hindus living with Buddists and killing them No Problem?
Hindus living with Christians and killing them No Problem?
Jews living with Christians and threatening to kill them No Problem?
and vice versa No problem?
and of course the most obvious omission Christians living with Christians and killing them, No Problem?
Never have a group of people so adversely changed the way of life in the world. Everything we do is affected by these zealot idiots.
We've had a taste of this before. It seems nothing much has changed but the bonus is that at least the bombers now don't survive..
The Provisional IRA's mainland campaign
I narrowly missed being vapourised by the Waltons restaurant bomb in London. It detonated 30 seconds after I had driven passed it and all the car windows exploded into a million pieces. Apart from a few scratches I was pretty much unharmed but the air pressure did for my hearing and now I am really suffering...
The Provisional IRA's mainland campaign
I narrowly missed being vapourised by the Waltons restaurant bomb in London. It detonated 30 seconds after I had driven passed it and all the car windows exploded into a million pieces. Apart from a few scratches I was pretty much unharmed but the air pressure did for my hearing and now I am really suffering...
Last edited:
Not anywhere near the scale of radical Islam, but that must have been an experience.
