anyone see the paid muslim anti-ISIS protestors being bused from place to place by CNN and the BBC?
No. Why, did you see that? Or did you read some disinformation drivel on Breitbart or Infowars or some other right wing performance art site?
'Bused from place to place'; 'multiple locations,' tweets professional troll Katie Hopkins. It was in one single location, as you can clearly see from the screenshots.
Did CNN also stage this? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/more-than-30000-ahmadiyya-muslims-from-across-the-world-meet-in-the-uk-to-reject-isis-and-islamic-a7191306.html
You still haven't explained why you think 'no-one is doing anything about jihadist terrorism because of PC'. Genuinely curious where you get that from; which sites?
6 ( +7 / -1 )
Where are you getting this absurd notion from that no-one is doing anything? The police and intelligence services are working flat out to prevent attacks, and have prevented over a dozen in the last couple years; sadly, a few have slipped through. It seems with both the Manchester bomber and this London attack, the perpetrators were known to police for holding radical jihadist beliefs and the police had received tip-offs from concerned citizens but failed to act.
This is not because they are 'too PC' to act, it's because they prioritised other threats more highly. They have to do this because they're underfunded, and stretched as a result; they need more resources to deal with the increased threat level, but 7 years of Tory government police cuts have made a difficult job even harder.
What we need is not some daft debate about 'PC'; what we need is more funding for our security services, improvements in how known jihadists are dealt with, and above all an end to the war in Syria. Banging on about 'PC' helps exactly nothing.
7 ( +8 / -1 )
Trump really does need to shut his pie hole. Khan is trying to reassure people at a time when many need reassuring, and this Twitter troll is twisting his words instead of supporting a supposed ally. Utterly without class.
Political correctness keeps getting people killed
No, terrorism kills people.
we need to stop hiding behind political correctness
What does this jibberish even mean? What is this fantasy you have that some nebulous force of 'PC' is preventing action from being taken?
7 ( +9 / -2 )
Mate, I'm not presenting Indonesia as the world's leading example of democracy. I was presenting it as SE Asia's leading example of democracy (and it is) as a counter to Sam's black and white claim that Islam is not compatible with democracy. It's not a black and white issue; flawed though they certainly are, there are Muslim democracies. Over half of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims presently live in democracies.
There's no reason why the extremist preachers who inspire such killings shouldn't be put into solitary confinement or deported and have their passports revoked
Sounds simple, but it's rather hard to do that if they're in Libya or Syria and don't have British passports for us to revoke in the first place.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Ok, so you've given a historical reason why Malaysia is more democratic than their ASEAN neighbours (and thrown in a random comment about Indonesia), though of course Myanmar was also a British colony yet somehow the Islamic one turned out more democratic than the Buddhist one (wonder how you explain that?); but anyway this argument shows that you do acknowledge that those two Muslim countries are more democratic than their Buddhist neighbours. Can you square this with the contradiction it creates against your previous statement that Islam is not compatible with democracy?
Hundreds of millions of the world's Muslims are presently living in democracies, in Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and as minorities in India, Europe, the US, etc. The vast, overwhelming majority of them are not terrorists. This doesn't mean there's no problem; but your demonstrably false black and white claim that Islam is incompatible with democracy in no way helps deal with the problem. In fact, that sort of rhetoric only helps those who are the problem.
You talk of hate preachers in mosques as though that's what they all preach, but that's just more damaging rhetoric. Have a gander:
To be sure, Malaysia & Indonesia are flawed, corrupt democracies; but they are democracies. Recent events in Aceh & Jakarta have indeed been troubling; but Indonesia is a Muslim-majority democracy.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Islam is not compatible with democratic society
Then how would you explain Malaysia & Indonesia being the most democratic countries in ASEAN?
-3 ( +4 / -7 )
Thanks for that.
Clearly it's foolish to pretend that this has nothing to do with Islam, as some posters do; it's also foolish to tar all Muslims with the actions of a tiny fraction, as some posters on here do.
Just read this on Twitter (from William Gibson): "Terrorists and fear-mongering conservatives are twin halves of the same two-stroke engine."
2 ( +2 / -0 )
You know, I was going to phrase my original comment "Tony, no one is tolerant of the filth who do this stuff, except the filth themselves" but I figured the last bit was so obvious as to be redundant. Evidently not.
My point to Tony was that no one else, including all but a small fraction of one percent of Muslims who do this stuff, tolerates people who do this stuff.
4 ( +7 / -3 )
Tony, no one is tolerant of the filth who do this stuff.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
you sure can take particular communities to task when extremism is propagated in their communities
Looking at the 2005 bombers, the Lee Rigby murderers, and the recent Westminster & Manchester attackers, of those 8 terrorists fully 4 were born as Christians (2 with Nigerian roots, 2 with Caribbean roots) and later converted to Islam. It's a little more complex than just saying 'take particular communities to task' recognises.
when extremism is propagated in their communities
Give this a watch:
Extremist preaching is despised by British Muslim communities; they are trying to stop it.
6 ( +8 / -2 )
Sounds like the police did a pretty amazing job with this; from the first 999 call (presumably when the van started running people down) to the 3 ****s being shot took 8 minutes. That's a rapid response, and the death toll would've likely been far higher if it hadn't been.
To all those claiming western governments don't take the problem seriously; there's no way an armed police response would've been fast a decade ago.
7 ( +8 / -1 )
Johansson was well-cast imo, but the plot wasn't well re-worked; I'll avoid spoilers, but as a fan of the anime film I found this one to be a bit of a cop out on the big questions GITS asks
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Probably ISIS, in retaliation for Russia helping to liberate Aleppo
Misinformation; ISIS never held Aleppo. It could be ISIS, but not over Aleppo; more likely to be domestic though
4 ( +6 / -2 )
nandaka, it's because the ratings are calculated for the last 12-months
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Awful decision making by whoever was responsible. 30cm overnight in freeze-thaw spring conditions should mean climbing cancelled.
RIP to those lost, thoughts with those bereaved
9 ( +9 / -0 )
Sourpuss, I didn't make that assumption; rather, I meant that one must be good in order to ride the trees at speed, and as I said he may well have been out of his depth, or he may have been good enough but got unlucky. No way to know which from the information we have, but ether way, poor guy and his poor family.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
That is why the areas are flagged off so people do not go there. Except this guy, and we see why
Except him, and me and my mates, and millions of others. Riding off-piste is part of snowboarding, and it's the standout part of snowboarding in Japan. This guy must have been travelling at some speed to sustain fatal chest injuries from a tree, and to be riding at speed through the trees one must be a good rider; either he was out of his depth, or he had an unlucky fall / made a miscalculation. Either way, RIP to him and thoughts with his poor family today
this seems to be news because he was a "foreigner".
Not really. It's news because it happened. Japanese skiers also have accidents, and when fatal they do also get reported.
1 ( +4 / -3 )
Murukami wrote an excellent book on the topic at hand. I would agree that his literature isn't the stuff of Nobel prizes, but what on earth has that got to do with the Aum attack and what on earth does have to do with "an anti-Japan stance"?
1 ( +1 / -0 )
'Underground' by Haruki Murukami is the only book that's ever made me cry (a couple of the interviews it contains with survivors and bereaved are utterly gut wrenching); it's a really good look at what happened that day, and how, and why. Highly recommended reading. RIP to the victims and thoughts with those still living with their injuries psychological and physical
5 ( +6 / -1 )
Trump asks Congress to help find evidence
Yeah, well he should probably not have made the claim without any evidence in the first place. Breitbart is not evidence.
9 ( +10 / -1 )
"Lock her up, lock her up!"
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
I'm actually in agreement with China here and feel the US has no right to get involved in a situation that involves islands taken over by the Japanese and returned to China after the war ended
This interpretation of history - i.e. the Chinese one - relies on being able to prove that the islands were actually theirs before Japan occupied them. No such proof exists, and Vietnam and others make similar claims with similar lacks of proof.
YuriOtani is correct about islands which don't have EEZs only being entitled to 12-mile territorial waters, as defined by UNCLOS, and as also clearly ruled in the recent Philippines vs China ruling on the SCS (which actually ruled that some of China's islands don't even get 12-mile waters because they were below water at high tide before China turned them into airbases). And yes the same applies to any Japanese island which doesn't generate an EEZ (I believe the Senkaku fall into this category and Japan does not appear to claim an EEZ from them - although Japan does make the absurd claim of an EEZ from Okinotorishima)
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Shifting the debate to environmental issues doesn't mask the fact that the data (annoying things, facts, aren't they?) on fertility rates disproves your attempt to blame overpopulation on globalisation. But I'm glad you're shifting the debate, because that means maybe, just maybe, you do actually see something in the data I've shown you, but don't like to admit it. Whatever.
As for the environment, it's worth noting that it's anti-globalists like Trump and Ukip who deny climate change and seek to rip up environmental protection laws for the sake of their own profits (and most certainly not to help "the sufferings of the poor")
Those nasty bogeyman "elitists" you keep invoking are the ones actually trying to do something about climate change, and about birth control in developing countries, etc, so really what are you actually on about?
(Dear moderators - I'm appalled that you removed my post for apparently being vulgar, when the only remotely vulgar thing in it was a direct quote from Fizzbit's previous post, yet Fizzbit's post originally containing it (directed at me) has been allowed to stand. Why can Fizzbit be vulgar to me? I understand that you are very strict on this site, but applying the rules inconsistently is problematic)
0 ( +0 / -0 )
you can't see how this would increase population possibly overpopulation?
What I can see is the data which shows us that improved living standards leads to lower birth rates and decline n population size. This is being seen right now in Japan, Taiwan, and Korea, will very soon be seen in China, and would also be the case throughout Europe without immigration from elsewhere. The birth rate is also at or below replacement in many more recently developed countries like Vietnam, Thailand, Brazil, etc. Here, have some more data:
It clearly shows an inverse correlation between birth rate and economic development.
I'm shaking my head as to why you'd say overpopulation "isn't caused" (I'm guessing you meant "won't be caused") by globalization
No-one has demonstrated any such causal effect, while the data shows that economic development (globalisation) is leading to lower birth rates.
Not even a little? What else would cause overpopulation?
Overpopulation is caused by high birth rates, and high birth rates are seen in poorly developed countries with low levels of education and women's rights. Across the board, when GDP per capita, education levels, and women's rights go up, we see birth rates go down. If 'globalisation' refers to the economic model of the last several decades, we can see that it has gone with a great increase in the global GDP per capita, education level, and women's rights; so I don't think your theory that globalisation causes overpopulation is based on any sound statistics or reasoning.
don't try to be tricky and say all these people lifted out of poverty is not having an impact on the world birth and death rates
I'm not being tricky; according to the data, I'm being correct. All those people lifted out of poverty definitely has an impact on the world birth rate - by reducing it. This isn't a Star Trek fantasy, it's clearly shown in the data.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
It seems you don't fully understand what effect two billion more people on the planet
The question was about globalisation, not overpopulation; and overpopulation isn't caused by globalisation. Furthermore, signs are that population growth is slowing in any case; developed economies across the world are seeing their populations start to age and shrink, and world population is likely to peak during this century and then decline.
it is your type of "eh...everything will be fine" kind of thinking that will bring about massive poverty
Here, have some data:
Note the massive reduction in extreme poverty, especially in the decades post-WWII. How would you fit these data in with your 'globalisation is evil' narrative?
And since you never really offered any concrete answer, Yes or No, as to whether globalization is good or bad for wolds economies, I reckon you're a fence sitter
I thought it was pretty clear that my answer was that globalisation is good for world economies. Have some more data:
Note the massive spike post-WWII. How would you fit these data in with your narrative? Would it be a fair assumption that your contributions to this thread have not been based on any data or solid evidence?
2 ( +2 / -0 )
@Fizzbit et al
Look at the power the globalists have already accumulated
'The globalists'? Globalisation did not create the super rich. The 1% have always been there at the top. The lords and kings and queens of medieval Europe, Chinese imperial courts and the local bigwigs of their tributaries, the Japanese feudal system, etc etc, all saw the majority living as peasants while a lucky few lived the life of riley and did whatever and killed whoever they pleased. This class of people and this gap between haves and have-nots preceded globalisation; if globalisation is now to be destroyed, don't fool yourself for a second that people like Trump, Putin, Abramovich, Murdoch, et al, are going to suddenly stop living it up and start distributing their wealth to the masses.
The fact is that for the non-super rich around the world, on average, life has improved enormously over recent decades, and economies have grown; yes, the 1% still do what they do, but the goal should be to make it harder for them to pull dirty tricks like hiding their money in off-shore havens, not to burn the whole system to the ground in some ridiculous and doomed attempt to redistribute their wealth.
This is no Star Trek fantasy show
Your post reads more like the reasoning of Stalin and Mao right before they caused the deaths of tens of millions of their own people through policies of collectivisation, depopulating the cities, bringing down decadent capitalism, etc.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
To all who declared, implied, or assumed this to be an act of Islamic terror without yet having the evidence for such assumptions: I know you're never going to apologise or admit to being wrong, but I hope this makes you feel sufficiently foolish to in future at least wait until enough facts are publicly known before commenting
1 ( +1 / -0 )
You explain this because he's pm of Canada not chancellor of Germany?
Yes, it's self-evidently obvious that that explains why he said something immediately after this incident in Canada, the country of which he is the Prime Minister, before any other world leaders.
Whereas you explained it as being because "he's always in mosques"?! Is he? Always? Haha, jog on
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Trudeau took days before saying the attack in Berlin was from a terrorist. He was faster today. Is it because he's always in mosquees
It's probably because he's the Canadian PM and not the German Chancellor.
3 ( +4 / -1 )