Should Ch4 Have Used This Woman In A Hijab

[trt]

to front the news of the Nice massacre?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1459893/why-did-channel-4-have-a-presenter-in-a-hijab-to-front-coverage-of-muslim-terror-in-nice/

[jim360]

It's possible to be disgusted by both -- and it's not a fallacy, either. The video Khandro posted cited a figure as high as 25% -- I don't know how accurate that is, but even if it were it remains no excuse for demonising the other 75%, or however many there are.

The overarching aim of Islamic terrorism is to drive a edge between Muslims, all Muslims, and the West. The principal counter to that aim, therefore, is not to fall for this. That should be common sense, I'd have thought.

[naomi24]

Jim, no one is ‘demonising’ the other 75% - but if people like you expect tolerance towards Muslims, you should expect tolerance to work in the other direction too – but you don’t. It’s all very one-sided. No thought for the victims here – just outrage that this woman has been criticised for failing to consider the sensitivities of others as, in my opinion, she should have done. That would have been 'common sense'.

[anotheoldgit]

AB Editor

Page 24 of 462 posts, and one has to search in 'room 101' to find it, so as to continue debating this obviously popular debate.

Seems to me ED that these popular debates should remain on page one or at least in a separate section, so that they remain highlighted to those wishing to gain access to the thread.

[naomi24]

People who are following a thread can subscribe to it.

[anotheoldgit]

It is often said that "all Muslims are not terrorists" and that is obviously true, but the problem being is how does one differentiate one from another?

If a conflict were to break out between the UK and an Islamic nation, on who's side would one expect the UK's Muslim community to support?

[anotheoldgit]

naomi24

/// People who are following a thread can subscribe to it. ///

And how does that work please?

[naomi24]

Click the 'subscribe' button in the OP box. The thread title will then appear in a grey box to the right of your screen headed 'Subscribed threads' so you can see when ever someone has added a post. Try it with this thread.

[anotheoldgit]

naomi24

Thank you naomi, that's brilliant, all the years I have been a member and I didn't know that.

[naomi24]

You're very welcome. :o)

[vetuste_ennemi]

"The overarching aim of Islamic terrorism is to drive a edge between Muslims, all Muslims, and the West. The principal counter to that aim, therefore, is not to fall for this. That should be common sense, I'd have thought.".

I've seen this point made many times, Jim. In fact it's the stock reaction to these atrocities, isn't it? Here's another even plainer version of the point you're making:

" Whatever twisted motives these people claim to be murdering for, it is quite clear these atrocities are designed to sow division, and create hatred and distance between communities. We cannot let them succeed.".

We get a "twisted" and a "claim" in in the first clause, but an "it is QUITE clear" in the second.

As I know you're far from lazy-minded what makes YOU so sure that driving a wedge between all Muslims and the rest of us is their aim? What do you think is in it for them?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Ten points for that one, Jim. More valuable bonus to follow.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - //It’s all very one-sided. No thought for the victims here – just outrage that this woman has been criticised for failing to consider the sensitivities of others as, in my opinion, she should have done. That would have been 'common sense'.//

I am impressed at the tenacity with which you have held onto this 'sensitivity' angle, and there is no point you and I going further with it because we have no common ground whatsoever - but you have the courage of your convictions, even if I personally cannot share them.

[naomi24]

Andy-hughes, I made it perfectly clear that I have no intention of continuing this discussion with you. You know nothing about the subject.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - //Andy-hughes, I made it perfectly clear that I have no intention of continuing this discussion with you. You know nothing about the subject.

If the subject is being bigoted, rude and patronizing, then you are right, I know nothing about it.

If however, it is about 'sensitivity', then I would suggest that on the basis of your stance in refusing to discuss it with me - and this last brusque and dismissive post, you have a serious amount to learn, and I would conclude that I know considerably more than you, since I would not be so high-handed without considerable provocation.

[naomi24]

Andy-hughes, think what you like. Rudeness from you is nothing new.

[andy-hughes]

I think this thread is running out of steam now.

I for one have very much enjoyed the exchange of views, and the lines of debate it has provoked.

I would like to thank everyone with whom I have exchanged views - with the exception of those who have chosen to take a superior stance, and infer that their knowledge of the subject may be greater than my own - without any particular proof of the lofty assumption.

I never feel the an equality of knowledge is a measure of, or a bar to entering a discussion, and I am delighted that the majority of AB'ers have avoided such an unfortunate need to parade their perceived qualifications on the subject.

On to the next ...

[douglas9401]

We note that Mount Pompouscatepetl has erupted yet again. A major contributor to global squirming.

[andy-hughes]

douglas - //We note that Mount Pompouscatepetl has erupted yet again. A major contributor to global squirming. //

Speaking personally - that's a little too obscure for me? Can you clarifying - are you being insulting, in which case I will report your post, or is it just babble for your own amusement?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Is Erebus about to erupt?

[vetuste_ennemi]

See if he can work that out.