Interesting, in the first half of your post you are trying to explain and justify the policies of appeasement and political correctness, in the second half of your post you blame these policies on the EU and find them disturbing. Anyway, I guess it's quite obvious that in order to be treated nicely by the Brits one has to capture their sailors in neutral waters, kidnap their journalists and attack their civilians in trains and airports. The muslim world does that and gets the words jihad, muslim terrorism and the war on terror banned from the english language together with multiple other favors, concessions and appeasement policies. All of a sudden you treat them with kid's gloves as you don't want to alienate them even further (in reality you're just scared shitless and hoping against hope that if you're nice to the bully the bully will pick on someone else). Of course Israel and the jews don't kidnap and murder British civilians so you don't need to be nice to them and anti-zionism, boycotts, anti-semitic and anti-Israel sentiments are rampant in british society. I guess Israel and the British jews should start kidnapping and killing British civilians, then the word "Zionism" and boycotts against Israel will be banned in no time, maybe they will even start teaching about the Holocaust in British schools. And here is an illustration of how well your policies work: Here is how you treat them: 63% of all Britons had a favourable opinion of Muslims, down slightly from 67% in 2004, suggesting last year's London bombings did not trigger a significant rise in prejudice. Attitudes in Britain were more positive than in the US, Germany and Spain (where the popularity of Muslims has plummeted to 29%), and about the same as in France. and here is what you get in return: By contrast, the poll found that British Muslims represented a "notable exception" in Europe, with far more negative views of westerners than Islamic minorities elsewhere on the continent...Another startling result found that only 32% of Muslims in Britain had a favourable opinion of Jews, compared with 71% of French Muslims. Across the board, Muslim attitudes in Britain more resembled public opinion in Islamic countries in the Middle East and Asia than elsewhere in Europe. http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1804078,00.html
I dont find the policies(which are not appeasement and political correctness) in themselves disturbing, nor am I blaming the EU. I find it disturbing that they were agreed upon at the EU level. That the EU has this level of oversight
appease: PACIFY, CONCILIATE; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles These are not examples of the policies of appeasement and political correctness? This is not the sacrifice of principles? You're kidding, right?
The Brits can deal with their problems any way they see fit. In truth they are probably more experienced in these kinds of things than the US. Appeasement? Who is being appeased? Political correctness? One should first prove that it is detrimental in this case. Sacrifice of principles? What principles are being sacrificed?
Interesting and worrying report. I was reading the report here. http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=253 I wonder if the variance between British muslims and European muslims, is due to that fact that most British muslims have ancestry from South Asia(Bangladesh, India, Pakistan). While European muslims mostly have ancestry from North Africa and Turkey. There may be a cultural difference in the way they view Islamic teachings, that account for the viewpoints of British muslims The aggressors are the terrorists not the Muslim population. How are we attempting to buy off the terrorists? We cant, theyre a lost cause. They shall be put to the sword The conduct of a few teachers, while examples of foolish "political correctness"(or these teachers not having the confidence to teach what to some is emotive history), wasn't/isn't informal or formal government policy or general public opinion. The Daily Mail article also mentioned Christian parents objections in one school. The report actually, is less about Muslims menacing their way through the Uk, but about how do teachers teach "Emotive and Controversial History" and the support they might need. The report the article referenced is below http://www.history.org.uk/ http://www.history.org.uk/news_details.asp?ID=17 Ive already given my answer regarding Brown's instructions.
One of the most amazing lessons in politics for me is seeing Left and Catholic church marching together for common cause. Be it welfare reform or illegal immigration. Remember marches of illegals? Besides Catholic church other organizer was WORLD WORKERS PARTY. Do you know who they are?Commies,outright commies(remember red flags??) If you think they are going to bring FAITH and nothing else you are mistaken. Go read Southamerica's garbage posts. SA is full of people like that.
The Brits can deal with their problems any way they see fit. In truth they are probably more experienced in these kinds of things than the US. I am no longer sure that's the case, I am yet to see any positive results of their "experience". Their conflict with Argentina has never been resolved, they are attacked by muslim terrorists more often than the US, their muslim population is more hostile to the west and more radicalized than muslim population of any other European or North American country, their 3 years of negotiations with Iran have produced absolutely no results as Iran keeps building their nuclear facilities and laughs in their faces, their sailors can be captured in neutral waters and later "pardoned" without any repercussions, Russia refuses to extradite a person accused of having committed a murder on British soil... Don't get me wrong, I've been an anglophile my entire life and it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to criticize the people who have contributed more than any other nation to the Western Civilization and the spreading of western values. But when in response to the hatred of their muslim population, muslim terror attacks against british civilians and kidnappings of their sailors and journalists they blame the west (themselves), accuse the US of being the biggest threat to the world peace and boycott Israel - it becomes a little hard to maintain the same level of respect. Appeasement?...Political correctness? Sacrifice of principles? What principles are being sacrificed? When people who murder civilians for political gains are no longer called terrorists, when people of muslim faith murdering civilians in the name of Allah are not allowed to be called muslim terrorists, when in response to complaints by muslim students the historical fact of the Holocaust is removed from school curriculums, when in response to Mohammed cartoon riots the media starts self-censoring themselves, when the streets of London are infested with extremist Islamic organizations banned anywhere else in the world including all muslim countries...Do I really need to explain what principles are being sacrificed?
You're painfully deep. I mean that. You see nuances that many don't or choose to ignore. I guess I'm saying-you're right.
I didn't hear about this. As far as I know terrorists can still be called terrorists. What I heard is that the new administration is dropping the use of the phrase "war on terror". This actually makes a lot of sense. To portray the level of conflict to the scale of a "war" is to give the terrorists too much respect. Characterizing the conflict as a "war" turns it into a larger than life cause worth dying for. Terrorists should be classified as criminals not warriors. It is already known they are Muslim terrorists, why should their be a need to advertise the cause these terrorists want to draw attention to? Moreover, the intent of the Muslim terrorists is to create friction between non-Muslims and the vast majority of Muslims who are moderate. What purpose does it serve to distinguish the terrorists as Muslim? To do so simply plays into the terrorists' hands. It helps the terrorists achieve their ends. This is a separate issue. But an interesting one too, worthy of its own discussion. I believe the Holocaust has a place in being taught in history but the question does bear asking why is it that the Jewish Holocaust is a staple of the school curriculum but not for example the atrocities the Japanese committed in China? Or why not a more current issue: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The Mohammed cartoons were in poor taste especially during a time of increased tensions. The vehemence of the reaction from the Muslim community is reason for concern but in its own way understandable. I do not think similar depictions of Jesus Christ would go without protest either although probably more muted. As for the presence of extremist Islamic organizations yes they should be banned. The basic thrust of your post seems to suggest that Muslims are being given special privilidges. Truly though I don't think the common Muslim enjoys the special attention and would much rather blend into society without their religion being something that separates them.