| Author |
Message |
Robin Bignall
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:13 am
Post subject: Re: Bombers v. terrorists |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:03:27 +0100, Mickwick <groups@reply-to.domain>
wrote:
| Quote: | In alt.usage.english, jerry_friedman@yahoo.com wrote:
John Dean wrote:
[...]
Even more interesting. No longer Slough or Reading, the school is now
"Home Counties."
The fact that it was later identified as being in Slough suggests that
someone followed up the original allegations, no? (I reckon that if the
celebrations happened - and I still think they probably did - they
happened at Slough and Eton Church of England School. It's the right
size, it's the right type of school - non-selective secondary - and 85%
of its pupils are Muslim. It is also in the most deprived area of
Slough. And it has a history of being associated with, er, strident
expressions of Islamic identity. See:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/l
drelof/95/2112706.htm>.)
No more "C. Wilstead" but someone who "asked not to be named"
I find this very puzzling. Perhaps someone else from the school - a C.
Wilstead? - wrote a letter commenting on the original article.
And I'm still puzzled by that reference to letters being sent to several
newspapers.
There's at least one missing link somewhere.
I don't remember any letters but I do recall some mention of Muslims |
cheering after 9/11 in some printed material. It could only have been
in The Times or The Independent, but neither has an archive that can
be searched without paying a fee. In fact, the latter no longer seems
to have an online search engine by subject at all. The search by date
for 9/10/11/12/13 Sept, 2001 gives a possibility:
"In Bradford, the Muslim anger is directed at the United States
British Mosque
By Ian Herbert
The Independent, Published: 13 September 2001
It was not by design that 17-year-old Zaroon Hussain knelt down to
afternoon prayers in Bradford ..."
You have to pay to see any more. Maybe it's unrelated.
--
Robin
Hoddesdon, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ranolki
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 7:04 am
Post subject: Re: Bombers v. terrorists |
|
|
"John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:db6rjb$qnk$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
| Quote: |
Really? And what about the people who can't, won't or daren't answer a
straight question? Like you.
|
What question would that be, John?
Please repeat it in words of as few syllables as possible.
And remember, John, before you settle down with you smugness...
"Il n'y a pas une Verité, mais il y a autant de verités que de
consciences."
| Quote: | And tell me, why the obsession with what people wear on their heads?
|
I *could* say that it's down to my penchant for interesting head(s)...In
fact, I *will* say that.
(and every time I fuck one of the ample Arab whores at my local
"puticlub" for the pricely sum of 40 euros, I have to admit that the
only reason I don't pay another 20 and get in amongst those fat halal
lips, is that I don't quite trust the teeth...nor the rather suspect
rucksack that she keeps her douche in (oh yes, it's quite a buzz doing
the "aids-risk-game", especially if you bear in mind that 1 in five of
her bi-sexual brothers are HIV positive...but...we do all need a little
excitement in life, John. Some of us like to rail against the
"anti-Islam package"..and some of us like to imagine a world without the
invasive medieval fucking tribes who'll have your nice white daughters
cleaning up their shit before you can say "Allah")
saludos
ranolki |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 7:16 am
Post subject: Re: Bombers v. terrorists |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:05:20 +0000 (UTC), Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Sara Lorimer wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:
When my son told me a plane had flown into the WTC I thought it was one of
those "private pilot lost in the fog" things.
But it wasn't particularly good telly -- a camera focused on a talking head on
top of a high building with another high building in the background with some
broken windows with smoke coming out.
And my first thought was "When are the helicopters going to come to get the
people who are above the fire off the roof?"
[snip]
But not only did they fail, they didn't even try. And, as far as I am aware,
nobody has even questioned it. Where were the cavalry, or in this case the
USAF? Were they so poorly trained that they were paralysed in the face of an
emergency?
It most certainly was questioned. I can't remember the specifics, but I
recall reading that helicopters were ordered by the Port Authority and
the Fire Department not to land on the roof and, additionally, that the
doors to the roofs were locked. Trust me -- this was newsworthy in New
York City, even if it wasn't in South Africa.
Steve's been talking about this particular issue on and off since Sept.
11th, 2001. I think it's like when Donna says I have a bee in my bonnet
or something.
|
And que sara sara is the first person since then to provide a reasonable
answer to my questions about it.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 7:16 am
Post subject: Re: Bombers v. terrorists |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:11:35 +0100, Mickwick
<groups@reply-to.domain> wrote:
| Quote: | In alt.usage.english, Sir Ron wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:23:27 +0100, Mickwick
I suspect that there was a certain amount of public 'whooping and
cheering' right here in AUE. (But I haven't checked.)
What 9/11 did was to bring a pretty acrimonious
discussion of the IRA phenomenon into the mix.
Then, as now, there was some fox-trotting round
the real issue, which, of course, is the rule of
law.
The rule of law?
Yes.
Or did you mean to type 'the rule of usenet'?
No. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:02 pm
Post subject: Re: Bombers v. terrorists |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Mark Browne wrote:
It's what I've always experienced. The idea, which is widely held abroad
and which led to international sympathy for the IRA, that Northern
Ireland is kept as part of the UK because the "British people" would
not let it go is as false as any false idea could ever be.
| Quote: | The only problem is that most people in Northern Ireland don't.
Hardly anyone in Britain has any sympathy or feeling for the
Northen Ireland Unionists - we find them a completely incomprehensible
bunch. This was not a "British v. Irish" conflict.
Agreed, but that doesn't mean that we have no sympathy for Unionists.
|
I've seen opinion polls on this which suggest that most British people
hardly know what side is what in Northern Ireland, let alone have any
sort of sympathy with Unionism. Perhaps I should say "English" here,
as I understand there is more of a feeling about it in Scotland.
All my experience suggests that nearly every English person would agree
with Charles Riggs that a united Ireland is obviously sensible. I would
say the majority of those who are well informed enough to have some
knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland would regard the Unionists
as a rather nasty loud-mouthed sort.
It is a pity for the Unionists that they seem to be so disasterously
bad at public relations, while the Republicans are masters at it.
Who but Northern Ireland Unionists would think it a good way to draw
attention to their grievances by throwing stones at little girls going
to school? Gerry Adams and co are two-faced slimy gits, but they are
briliant at putting across a reasonable public image. The public image
of the Unionists is dominated by Ian Paisley - a man who is seen as
a wild bigotted ranter whose life has been dominated by stirring up
hatred - even though he has always stopped short of endorsing terrorism
while Gerry Adams actively supported it and has never recanted from
that position.
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Bombers v. terrorists |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:34:58 +0100, Matthew Huntbach
<mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Anyone who expresses any sort of admiration for Gerry Adams
today might as well put money in the collecting box for
Al-Qaeda.
|
If you think the several million Irish people who have a high regard
for Gerry Adams's integrity would want to do that, I'd say you're
quite mistaken. They may not be particularly pro-American just now or
were ever all that pro-British, but they are not pro-Al-Qaeda,
needless to say.
When I don't vote Labour, I vote Sinn Fein, the two parties that make
most sense for the country, in my opinion, but then I'm a leftie. Both
are moving up in popularity, although not as fast as some of us would
like. (I might vote Green if there weren't so many screwballs with
only one agenda in that group.)
| Quote: | They are saying "terrorism works - so long as you are the
big guy at the top, not one of the little guys sent out as a suicide
bomber or a suicide starver - just hold tight, and reap your rewards
at the end when the violence-lovers of the world have made you
a hero and the peace-lovers you trampled on have been pushed to
obscurity".
|
Gerry Adams is one of the chief proponents for peace in Northern
Ireland. He's no terrorist. He may have been at one time, but people
are capable of change.
| Quote: | Many people still feel a united Ireland makes better sense than a
divided one, but I don't get the impression the Irish in these parts
want that if it means British people will be hurt; Wexford though is
considerably more pro-British than the western part of Ireland I used
to live in. Dublin too, needless to say.
Most people in Britain feel a united Ireland makes sense as well.
The only problem is that most people in Northern Ireland don't.
Hardly anyone in Britain has any sympathy or feeling for the
Northen Ireland Unionists - we find them a completely incomprehensible
bunch. This was not a "British v. Irish" conflict.
|
I find it incomprehensible that so many NI people support that madman
Ian Paisley, now not supporting a reasonable man like David Trimble.
As for unification, I stand with most Dubliners: let the divide remain
before incorporating their problems with ours, the feeling being there
is a lawless element up there that will remain even if unification
took place.
| Quote: | The IRA, not that Mr Adams has much effect on its policies, doesn't
have anything like the support it once had, it now generally being
viewed as a group of thugs, murderers, and drug dealers.
Or as Mr Adams called them "brave soldiers".
|
When did he say that? Was he not among the first to call for
retribution against the IRA thugs responsible for the recent murder
outside a Belfast pub? Hasn't he said it is past time the IRA disband,
or am I thinking of someone else in the news?
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Bombers v. terrorists |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:02:32 +0100, Matthew Huntbach
<mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Mark Browne wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, In message
Pine.LNX.4.61.0507141219580.8523@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk>, Matthew Huntbach
mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> writes
Most people in Britain feel a united Ireland makes sense as well.
We do?
It's what I've always experienced. The idea, which is widely held abroad
and which led to international sympathy for the IRA, that Northern
Ireland is kept as part of the UK because the "British people" would
not let it go is as false as any false idea could ever be.
|
I'm sure Matthew is right if you restrict British people to those
outside Northern Ireland, since a number of NI people don't want the
change, often for economic reasons. I doubt it most British people
enjoy having the problems NI brings them, much as most Dubliners would
prefer not to be more involved with them. We all have our selfish
interests; that's only human.
| Quote: | The only problem is that most people in Northern Ireland don't.
Hardly anyone in Britain has any sympathy or feeling for the
Northen Ireland Unionists - we find them a completely incomprehensible
bunch. This was not a "British v. Irish" conflict.
Agreed, but that doesn't mean that we have no sympathy for Unionists.
I've seen opinion polls on this which suggest that most British people
hardly know what side is what in Northern Ireland, let alone have any
sort of sympathy with Unionism. Perhaps I should say "English" here,
as I understand there is more of a feeling about it in Scotland.
All my experience suggests that nearly every English person would agree
with Charles Riggs that a united Ireland is obviously sensible. I would
say the majority of those who are well informed enough to have some
knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland would regard the Unionists
as a rather nasty loud-mouthed sort.
It is a pity for the Unionists that they seem to be so disasterously
bad at public relations, while the Republicans are masters at it.
Who but Northern Ireland Unionists would think it a good way to draw
attention to their grievances by throwing stones at little girls going
to school? Gerry Adams and co are two-faced slimy gits, but they are
briliant at putting across a reasonable public image. The public image
of the Unionists is dominated by Ian Paisley - a man who is seen as
a wild bigotted ranter whose life has been dominated by stirring up
hatred - even though he has always stopped short of endorsing terrorism
while Gerry Adams actively supported it and has never recanted from
that position.
|
I think his words and actions have demonstrated he no longer supports
terrorism. I don't see Gerry Adams as Britain's enemy, but you already
knew I thought that way.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:53 pm
Post subject: Re: Bombers v. terrorists |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:02:32 +0100, Matthew Huntbach
mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
It is a pity for the Unionists that they seem to be so disasterously
bad at public relations, while the Republicans are masters at it.
Who but Northern Ireland Unionists would think it a good way to draw
attention to their grievances by throwing stones at little girls going
to school? Gerry Adams and co are two-faced slimy gits, but they are
briliant at putting across a reasonable public image. The public image
of the Unionists is dominated by Ian Paisley - a man who is seen as
a wild bigotted ranter whose life has been dominated by stirring up
hatred - even though he has always stopped short of endorsing terrorism
while Gerry Adams actively supported it and has never recanted from
that position.
I think his words and actions have demonstrated he no longer supports
terrorism. I don't see Gerry Adams as Britain's enemy, but you already
knew I thought that way.
|
As I said, he's a master at public relations. The political party he's leader
of is stuffed full of people with convictions for terrorist offences. He
grew to fame as the public face of terrorism - whenever a terrorist atrocity
happened, up popped Gerry Adams to give us the justification for it. Adams
praised IRA terrorists as heroes, and always attended their funerals when
these evil bastards were buried with full "military honours". It was
essentially a "good cop / bad cop" act - the two worked hand-in-hand and
knew precisely the game they were playing, Adams was the reasonable one
"look I don't mean you any harm, but my friend here is maybe not so easy ...".
Since then he has never apologised for supporting terrorism or suggested he
was in any way mistaken rather he has continued to suggest it was justified
even though its only effect was to deepen community hatred and delay the
sort of solution he has now accepted (which was on the table in 1973).
Yes, I know his latest line is "I supported terrorism only so that I could
reach the top and try and end it, and I have to pretend there was nothing
wrong with it in order to keep the hotheads at bay". But, as I said, he's
a master at public relations. No other leader of a political party which
keeps an armed wing which inflicts punishment by mutilation on naughty
kids would be treated with anmything like the lenience Adams is.
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Bombers v. terrorists |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:34:58 +0100, Matthew Huntbach
mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
Anyone who expresses any sort of admiration for Gerry Adams
today might as well put money in the collecting box for
Al-Qaeda.
If you think the several million Irish people who have a high regard
for Gerry Adams's integrity would want to do that, I'd say you're
quite mistaken. They may not be particularly pro-American just now or
were ever all that pro-British, but they are not pro-Al-Qaeda,
needless to say.
|
I'm not saying they would *consciously* support Al-Qaeda, I am just saying
that by giving support to a man who rose to prominence through being the
spokesperson for terrorism and through giving it his full and unconditional
support, they are sending a message to the world "terrorism works" and
to any who think they might follow a similar career path "Go on, do it,
send your boys to bomb today, and tomorrow you'll be sitting at the top
table, a respected politician".
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No Spam
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:07 pm
Post subject: Re: Bombers v. terrorists |
|
|
"Tony Cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eq2le19133jdemfhcv3u3odglhs08gs7i6@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:41:45 +0100, "John Dean"
john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
troysteadman@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
ranolki wrote:
I note that the BBC will now substitute the worb "bomber" for the
word "terrorist".
This is presumably to avoid any offence to the said
"terrorist"...er, sorry, "bomber".
ranolki
It is said that when 9/11 came on the BBC that moslem children in
schools in Reading (W of London) and by implication elsewhere in the
uk were *cheering*.
|
Yes. I saw the film of "Palestinians dancing in the streets"
as well. Then I saw the other film, that showed that only
the four people in the imediate view of one camera were
celebrating, that otherwise the street was calm and unexceptional,
and that there was no evidence at all as to why the four people
were so animated and smiling.
I also saw and heard several dozen Americans start cheering
when they saw a new report about Baghdad's neighborhoods
being bombed. So what exactly is the difference between
"Shock and awe" and "terror"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Bombers v. terrorists |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:07:39 GMT, "No Spam" <nospam@hormel.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Tony Cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eq2le19133jdemfhcv3u3odglhs08gs7i6@4ax.com...
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:41:45 +0100, "John Dean"
john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
troysteadman@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
ranolki wrote:
I note that the BBC will now substitute the worb "bomber" for the
word "terrorist".
This is presumably to avoid any offence to the said
"terrorist"...er, sorry, "bomber".
ranolki
It is said that when 9/11 came on the BBC that moslem children in
schools in Reading (W of London) and by implication elsewhere in the
uk were *cheering*.
Yes. I saw the film of "Palestinians dancing in the streets"
as well. Then I saw the other film, that showed that only
the four people in the imediate view of one camera were
celebrating, that otherwise the street was calm and unexceptional,
and that there was no evidence at all as to why the four people
were so animated and smiling.
I also saw and heard several dozen Americans start cheering
when they saw a new report about Baghdad's neighborhoods
being bombed. So what exactly is the difference between
"Shock and awe" and "terror"?
|
Nothing in the above post was written or posted by me.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mickwick
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 7:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Bombers v. terrorists |
|
|
In alt.usage.english, John Dean wrote:
| Quote: | Mickwick wrote:
And it has a history of being associated with, er, strident
expressions of Islamic identity. See: <http://www.parliament.the-
stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203
/ldselect/ldrelof/95/2112706.htm>.)
"Associated with" because someone (and no-one seems to have any idea
who) circulates a racist pamphlet targeting non-Muslims?
If the BNP sent a similar pamphlet to Muslim parents, would the school
be "associated with it"?
|
Yes.
| Quote: | The "Chalvey Muslim Boys" sound like an organised gang. But I can't find
any reference to them on-line except in your URL and on other cites
which use the contents of that site. Not to say the Chalvey Muslim Boys
*don't* exist, and certainly not to say the sentiments quoted aren't
found among young Muslims in the UK.
Even if I abandoned any pretence at rigour (and I'm not going to) one
incident in 1995, six years prior to the incident under discussion,
doesn't make a "history".
|
Maybe not, but that school serves Chalvey and Chalvey definitely has a
'history'. The gang violence - mostly Muslim versus Sikh - is said to
have died down (see www.aiksaath.com, the website of a reconciliation
centre set up after the 1997 fighting) but it is fondly remembered on
various South Asian message-boards. Some of the language is probably
illegal. Here are some repeatable examples:
1997 The chalvey boys (and gals) of Slough have kicked the backsides
of others (indians, (hindus and sikhs) as well as the whites)
for many a years and will continue to do so for many a years. A
few cars and windows damaged by these so called rioters (sikhs)
is not exactly a sign of valour is it now, but then again may be
in your little mind this is very courageous!!!!!!!
2002 Which idiot would suffer Turban envy. The S.P [Shere-e-Punjab -
a Sikh gang from Southall with connections to the BNP] did
nothing but break a few windows when they came to chalvey. The
Chalvey Boyz rule..
2004 chalvey boys hav proper shooked up ne sikhs eva known 2 cum 2
chalvey territory let alone u cumin, bwoy out of experience
yehh! u'll get killed.im a sikh myself n i went there with 40
strong. theyve got 40 juniors n 40 older lot (as they r called)
n about 60 original bigtimers called chalvey bowyz. u go there
givin large they'll actually make sure u dnt leave alive. u n ur
manz will probably get killed. my best friend was in da SP he
runned it. wen we went there he was gnna have a 1 on 1 fite wiv
da hardest lad in chalvey called AMJAD a.k.a bummy. my friend
lost an arm and his ear was ripped of coz amjad rip his earing.
out of experience dnt go! trust ders no chance u'll win. now its
cooled dwn but all da chalvey boys r still livin cumin 2
southall now n den. WE CNT DO SHIT! GIVE UP DA CHALVEY BOYS
WON!!!
2004 looks At Us Guys Da Chalvey Boys..wen We Go Out N Get In To Fite
We Bust Dem Mans Up Cos We Got Da Heart To Fite....but In Away
Ur Right If U Do Any Sort If Martial Arts Its A Bonus...but U
Got To Av Da Balls....
2004 CHALVEY BOYS, OIYYYYYY ITS ALL ABT CHALVEY.....NON OF U MANS CAN
FUKK WIV US
2004 Right now Sikhs United has 30 soldiers, when we get to 50 or
more we will launch a full assault on chalvey boyz.
2005 prinz riz is a puff. dnt big up nxt mans u kno nuttin about. yo
cum chalvey and the chalvey boys will show u how pakis run the
show. big up to biggy.
In '97, The Big Issue interviewed a former member of Shere-e-Punjab, who
said: '"The fighting is about 'atta' and who's got the best religion."'
The BI explained: 'Atta is the Punjabi word for the fine flour which is
kneaded with water to make chapattis. It looks like heroin and has
become the street word for the drug.'
It probably has/had something to do with crack cocaine too - the Home
Office has designated Slough a 'high Crack area' (?) and Chalvey is at
the centre of Slough's drug trade.
Others say that the fighting had a lot to do with sex - and in
particular with Muslim boasts about the 'horizontal conversion' of Sikh
girls.
Then there's unemployment, which is high in both Chalvey and Southall.
After the fighting in 1997, an older Slough Muslim said: 'The situation
is very volatile. The madness of idle youth on both sides has meant both
communities are afraid.' Poverty might not cause terrorism but it does
cause gangs, innit.
An older Southall man said: 'I really thought these differences had
become secondary. As I grew up we all fought against racism. Now these
post-pubescent kids, wearing bandanas like something out of the LA
riots, are making us the object of derision in a society in which we're
still not that welcome.'
*
What has any of this got to do with whether or not Muslim pupils
celebrated 9/11 at a school in Slough, or Berkshire, or the Home
Counties?
Well, see, it shows that da yoof of Chalvey has long been fond of
asserting its allegiance to a (perhaps not very religious) 'Muslim'
identity. It also shows that the Chalvey Boyz were a real drug-dealing
gang of violent thugs in 1997 and probably for several years after that,
and that da yoof of Chalvey still likes to talk about itself as the
Chalvey Boyz. We already know that the Chalvey Boyz had a presence in
the Slough and Eton School in 1995. Given that the school serves Chalvey
and that the Chalvey Boyz came from Chalvey and that Chalvey still goes
on about the Chalvey Boys it is almost certain that some of the pupils
at the school in September 2001 identified themselves with the Chalvey
Boyz or even claimed to be Chalvey Boyz themselves.
So - is it the right school? I think so. It's an overwhelmingly Muslim
non-selective secondary school in Slough, Berkshire, the Home Counties
(not Reading, but hey ...) with about 600 pupils and a history - yes, a
history: some proven, some surmised - of inter-faith violence and
intimidation. It is just as the librarian described it.
So - is it likely that the Chalvey Boyz or their followers would have
embraced 9/11 as an opportunity for a bit of 'Muslim' posturing? I think
so. Why wouldn't they? They're rough, tough, callous and aggressively
'Muslim'. The Friend of Israel gets a bloody nose. Hooray!
What more do you want? You and Tony started out by saying that the most
notable thing about the 'rumour' was that someone could think of
believing it. (Tony, bless him, went a lot further than that.) Well,
you've now got a contemporary first-hand account in a major newspaper,
you've got the school, you've got a local yoof culture that would revel
in such crass displays ... There are a few loose ends and minor
contradictions, yes, but so what? Such is life.
In my view:
(a) The cheering was never a very big deal. They're children. Children
are horrible.
(b) Casting doubt on an unsubstantiated story that made a vulnerable
minority look bad was a decent thing to do in the week of the London
bombings; insisting on proving every last aspect of the story is getting
a bit Orwellian (and poncing on about flat-worlders and
Holocaust-deniers is just plain dishonest, Tony).
(b) No matter what the librarian said about sinister foreign
fundamentalism being foisted on young innocents, I reckon the cheering
had more to do with a fatuous, far from innocent, home-grown yoof
culture - the real Staines Massive, if you like. Not a vulnerable
minority religion but a load of yobs. The fuss was unnecessary.
--
Mickwick
An irrelevant resource:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cath/congress/2002/programme/paper_index.shtml |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 7:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Bombers v. terrorists |
|
|
ranolki wrote:
| Quote: | "John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:db6rjb$qnk$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Really? And what about the people who can't, won't or daren't answer
a straight question? Like you.
What question would that be, John?
|
The one I asked. You too dim to understand it or too addled to remember?
| Quote: |
And tell me, why the obsession with what people wear on their heads?
I *could* say that it's down to my penchant for interesting
head(s)...
|
If you were pursuing your attempt to sound like PG Wodehouse I'm sure
you would. I realise you think your style with its attempts at wit and
what you probably imagine is an endearing form of broken English somehow
conveys an air of sophistication. The reality is that you appear here as
witty, engaging and interesting as a turd in a swimming pool. But,
obviously, without the charisma.
If you're ashamed to reveal your name and too scared to let anyone know
your email address you should go back to playing with the racist
children.
You want to debate in an adult forum? Learn adult rules.
| Quote: | and every time I fuck one of the ample Arab whores
|
Funnily enough, I find it possible to believe you really *do* wish you
dared to do the things like this over which you fantasize so
relentlessly.
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:41 pm
Post subject: Re: Bombers v. terrorists |
|
|
Mickwick wrote:
| Quote: | In alt.usage.english, John Dean wrote:
Mickwick wrote:
And it has a history of being associated with, er, strident
expressions of Islamic identity. See: <http://www.parliament.the-
stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203
/ldselect/ldrelof/95/2112706.htm>.)
"Associated with" because someone (and no-one seems to have any idea
who) circulates a racist pamphlet targeting non-Muslims?
If the BNP sent a similar pamphlet to Muslim parents, would the
school be "associated with it"?
Yes.
|
Really? So I send you an offensive, racist pamphlet and subsequently
post that "Mickwick has a history of being associated with offensive
expressions of racism and racist violence" you'd be fine with that?
| Quote: |
Even if I abandoned any pretence at rigour (and I'm not going to) one
incident in 1995, six years prior to the incident under discussion,
doesn't make a "history".
Maybe not, but that school serves Chalvey and Chalvey definitely has a
'history'.
|
So we're agreed the school *doesn't* have a history? That's progress.
The area does? OK.
The school my wife taught it in Oxford serves the area of Barton and
Barton has a history of violence. Does that mean my wife's school has a
history of violence?
| Quote: | The gang violence - mostly Muslim versus Sikh - is said to
have died down (see www.aiksaath.com, the website of a reconciliation
centre set up after the 1997 fighting)
|
If you want to switch from the question of expressions anti-American
sentiment to tensions and violence between Muslims and Sikhs you could
start a new thread (which I won't join, thank you, since my interest is
not in that area)
I've never disputed that you will find members of any given race or
religion opposed, often through violence, to members of other races and
religions. I don't dispute that it's quite possible that pupils in
Slough supported and applauded the 9/11 attacks. I don't dispute people
throughout the world did. It won't be hard to find people in the UK,
mainly Muslims, who support and cheer on suicide bombers like those who
committed the 7/7 murders.
None of this is new. What I am *not* content to accept is specific
statements about specific behaviour of specific people unless there is
some credible basis for accepting them. And that is what I don't find in
the accounts of what may or may not have happened in Slough in 2001.
| Quote: |
What has any of this got to do with whether or not Muslim pupils
celebrated 9/11 at a school in Slough, or Berkshire, or the Home
Counties?
|
Nothing, obviously. It shows it was *possible*, which I have never
disputed.
| Quote: |
We already know that the Chalvey Boyz had a
presence in the Slough and Eton School in 1995.
|
I seem to have turned over two pages at once. How exactly do we *know*
they had a presence at the school at that time?
(You note, BTW, the difference between the name you found and the name
presented to the House of Lords in evidence?)
| Quote: |
What more do you want? You and Tony started out by saying that the
most notable thing about the 'rumour' was that someone could think of
believing it.
|
Well, Tony said "The notable thing about this rumor is not that the
children really
cheered, but that people were willing to believe they did and to repeat
the rumor."
And I said "Indeed. All the more reason, in my view, to try to track
down the
reality."
Which, IMHO, is not what you said I said. But hey-ho.
| Quote: |
(b) ,,, insisting on proving every last aspect of the story is
getting a bit Orwellian
|
One person makes an unsupported assertion (even though, by her own
account, there were others there who *could* have supported it). In that
account she also makes claims which are patently false. I'm not inclined
to believe such a person. I don't want to prove every last aspect. I
don't care too much about the details, except in so far as the details
given detract seriously from the credibility.
I don't think it's Orwellian to look for truth. You've spent a lot of
energy showing such a thing *could* have happened. I agree
wholeheartedly it could. I agree wholeheartedly it probably did
somewhere. You then seem to suggest that it must have happened because
it's credible not to say probable that it did. We part company there.
There's much in human history that is credible and probable and asserted
by some people in the face of doubt. In some cases, the assertions are
correct and the doubters put to scorn. In other cases vice versa.
I'm not ready to assent to the statement that certain young Muslims
behaved in a certain way on a certain day when I see no convincing
evidence that they did, only the statement of an alleged eyewitness who
shows elsewhere in her account that she has taken on board several of
the more popular myths about Muslims.
You believe that there probably *were* Muslims, in the UK and elsewhere,
who cheered 9/11? So do I.
You believe that it's no big deal if kids behave like that? Me too.
You believe *these* guys behaved that way on the day stated? Then we
differ.
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:19 pm
Post subject: Re: Bombers v. terrorists |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:56:39 +0100, "John Dean"
<john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
| Quote: | ranolki wrote:
"John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:db6rjb$qnk$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Really? And what about the people who can't, won't or daren't answer
a straight question? Like you.
What question would that be, John?
The one I asked. You too dim to understand it or too addled to remember?
And tell me, why the obsession with what people wear on their heads?
I *could* say that it's down to my penchant for interesting
head(s)...
If you were pursuing your attempt to sound like PG Wodehouse I'm sure
you would. I realise you think your style with its attempts at wit and
what you probably imagine is an endearing form of broken English somehow
conveys an air of sophistication. The reality is that you appear here as
witty, engaging and interesting as a turd in a swimming pool. But,
obviously, without the charisma.
If you're ashamed to reveal your name and too scared to let anyone know
your email address you should go back to playing with the racist
children.
You want to debate in an adult forum? Learn adult rules.
and every time I fuck one of the ample Arab whores
Funnily enough, I find it possible to believe you really *do* wish you
dared to do the things like this over which you fantasize so
relentlessly.
|
Tut! He is not the first, I am sure, Dearie, to
detect a certain sexual oddity in your behaviour
and to taunt you into this 'funny' stuff. As I
have already told you you really must shake off
those memories of your unhappy childhood if you
are ever to grow up strong and whole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in