Crosswords4 mins ago
Why the silence?
68 Answers
The problem of some Muslim men absconding young white girls has been headline news for several days and has been widely discussed on many phone-in radio shows.
But what is strange is the fact that I myself have entered two questions on AB, concerning this issue and both have attracted very little interest , and others have not thought the matter serious enough to enter their own questions on the subject.
This excerpt from Melanie Phillips column on the subject says it all,
/// Muslim women are often treated abominably within their communities. But to their suffering, feminists and other right-on liberals are almost totally silent. The only sound from that lobby is the cry of ‘racist’ or ‘bigot’ hurled at anyone who dares protest at such religious slavery.///
http://tinyurl.com/2d5gxsv
But what is strange is the fact that I myself have entered two questions on AB, concerning this issue and both have attracted very little interest , and others have not thought the matter serious enough to enter their own questions on the subject.
This excerpt from Melanie Phillips column on the subject says it all,
/// Muslim women are often treated abominably within their communities. But to their suffering, feminists and other right-on liberals are almost totally silent. The only sound from that lobby is the cry of ‘racist’ or ‘bigot’ hurled at anyone who dares protest at such religious slavery.///
http://tinyurl.com/2d5gxsv
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Thank you murraymints, it seems that only you are adult enough to join in a perfectly legitimate debate.
I am not just saying this because you agree that there is cause for concern, but because others can't come up with an intelligent and adult reverse opinion, if indeed these monsters deserve any defence whatsoever.
I can understand to a certain extent that there are some who would rather remain anonymous by not contributing due to their liberal left attachments, but those who have contributed (but only to criticise me personally) are obviously those who rather than condemn these savages, will go to the trouble of entering silly posts to divert from the subject in hand, which in it's self is rather frightening.
If they can condone what these Pakistani gangs have been jailed for doing, they themselves can not be very nice people to know.
I am not just saying this because you agree that there is cause for concern, but because others can't come up with an intelligent and adult reverse opinion, if indeed these monsters deserve any defence whatsoever.
I can understand to a certain extent that there are some who would rather remain anonymous by not contributing due to their liberal left attachments, but those who have contributed (but only to criticise me personally) are obviously those who rather than condemn these savages, will go to the trouble of entering silly posts to divert from the subject in hand, which in it's self is rather frightening.
If they can condone what these Pakistani gangs have been jailed for doing, they themselves can not be very nice people to know.
AP: I know you mean well, but AOG will now claim that people are trying to silence him - which also appears to be the implication in his 'sweeping under the carpet' comment to Jack.
Of course, if people -are- trying to silence AOG, then ignoring his questions is a really really lame way of doing it...
Of course, if people -are- trying to silence AOG, then ignoring his questions is a really really lame way of doing it...
AOG: Has it ever occured to you that maybe people just don't have anything to say, so prefer not to say it? Combined with lack of time, that's certainly the reason I don't comment on AB much (but I read it every day).
Just because people are liberals, it doesn't mean they're going to leap to the defence of the people you're attacking just because you seem to want them to.
"but those who have contributed (but only to criticise me personally) are obviously those who rather than condemn these savages, will go to the trouble of entering silly posts to divert from the subject in hand, "
This thread has NOTHING to do with the abductors. This thread is about you. It's about why people haven't responded to your questions. That is the question in the OP.
Just because people are liberals, it doesn't mean they're going to leap to the defence of the people you're attacking just because you seem to want them to.
"but those who have contributed (but only to criticise me personally) are obviously those who rather than condemn these savages, will go to the trouble of entering silly posts to divert from the subject in hand, "
This thread has NOTHING to do with the abductors. This thread is about you. It's about why people haven't responded to your questions. That is the question in the OP.
Kromovaracun
I will try to answer your criticisms, since you seem to be able to enter into debate in an adult fashion.
jackthehat never has any specific contribution to make ie why she disagrees with my posts etc, she will only post snide remarks towards me.
So therefore I could only assume that she would rather me not enter a question on a particular news item, therefore I could only answer her in the way that I did.
If anyone thought that that particular subject matter was not up for discussion they should come right out and say so.
But please look at it reasonably, the headline news item was about gangs abducting children off our streets, and subjecting them to despicable sexual acts that will scar them for life.second to this, was the fact that there had been a reported initial cover-up by the various authorities, because of certain sensitivities.
All this would normally be open for discussion and I hope (instead of 'me expecting a given answer' as you put it), to any sane person there would be only one answer, one of total repulsion and condemnation against these monsters.
Now can you tell me why my questions on the subject were a no-go and why I am being criticised?
Perhaps now if I add that these gangs were Pakistanis, (a true fact, not thought up by the Daily Mail or any other right-wing think tank) is that the real problem?
I will try to answer your criticisms, since you seem to be able to enter into debate in an adult fashion.
jackthehat never has any specific contribution to make ie why she disagrees with my posts etc, she will only post snide remarks towards me.
So therefore I could only assume that she would rather me not enter a question on a particular news item, therefore I could only answer her in the way that I did.
If anyone thought that that particular subject matter was not up for discussion they should come right out and say so.
But please look at it reasonably, the headline news item was about gangs abducting children off our streets, and subjecting them to despicable sexual acts that will scar them for life.second to this, was the fact that there had been a reported initial cover-up by the various authorities, because of certain sensitivities.
All this would normally be open for discussion and I hope (instead of 'me expecting a given answer' as you put it), to any sane person there would be only one answer, one of total repulsion and condemnation against these monsters.
Now can you tell me why my questions on the subject were a no-go and why I am being criticised?
Perhaps now if I add that these gangs were Pakistanis, (a true fact, not thought up by the Daily Mail or any other right-wing think tank) is that the real problem?
Answerprancer
/// Intelligent people repeatedly reply to and debate about your anti-Muslim rants but it always seems to come to the same conclusion and you apear not to be able to handle it. ///
So we are now at the real reason (my anti-Muslim rants)
No I cannot handle it, when some people will defend paedophile child abductors just because they happento to follow the Muslim faith.
If some do prefer to defend them, then it is them who have a problem, not myself.
/// Intelligent people repeatedly reply to and debate about your anti-Muslim rants but it always seems to come to the same conclusion and you apear not to be able to handle it. ///
So we are now at the real reason (my anti-Muslim rants)
No I cannot handle it, when some people will defend paedophile child abductors just because they happento to follow the Muslim faith.
If some do prefer to defend them, then it is them who have a problem, not myself.
The fact is AOG that you incessantly seem to scan the papers for crimes committed by muslims before jumping up and down yelling "Look they're at it again!"
You never draw any parallels with crimes committed by white British people.
If this Bristol Case turns out to have been a Muslim you will be on it for weeks but will be silent as the grave if it turns out to be a born and bred Briton.
It is this selective behaviour which is why people accuse you of being racist
You never draw any parallels with crimes committed by white British people.
If this Bristol Case turns out to have been a Muslim you will be on it for weeks but will be silent as the grave if it turns out to be a born and bred Briton.
It is this selective behaviour which is why people accuse you of being racist
"jackthehat never has any specific contribution to make ie why she disagrees with my posts etc, she will only post snide remarks towards me. "
To be quite honest, what did you expect when you started this thread?
As I said earlier, this thread isn't about the abduction story - it's about your posts. If you set out a thread specifically asking people why they haven't replied to you, you can't really complain when they tell you.
"So therefore I could only assume that she would rather me not enter a question on a particular news item, therefore I could only answer her in the way that I did. "
I'm sure JTH is able to defend herself, but I'll answer this seeing as it's directed at something I said:
That's not logical. What JTH said is that she didn't respond to your questions because she finds the way you argue unstimulating. That's got nothing to do with wanting to sweep anything under anything else - what she said to you didn't indicate any reluctance about discussion itself, just about the people she discusses things with. I know that's not something nice to hear, but it's her reason for not responding to you before - which is exactly what you asked for.
---
Regarding the rest, to be perfectly honest I haven't really had the time to follow the news story (plus I think it's on-record that my patience for the press is particularly thin which doesn't help things), but nevertheless:
"to any sane person there would be only one answer, one of total repulsion and condemnation against these monsters. "
Well, this kind of proves my point.
Revulsion and horror are standard reactions to this kind of crime - which people express on your thread already. Perhaps people just don't have anything else to add - I know I certainly think about that before I post. Or if they do, maybe they feel it's unwelcome - particularly wh
To be quite honest, what did you expect when you started this thread?
As I said earlier, this thread isn't about the abduction story - it's about your posts. If you set out a thread specifically asking people why they haven't replied to you, you can't really complain when they tell you.
"So therefore I could only assume that she would rather me not enter a question on a particular news item, therefore I could only answer her in the way that I did. "
I'm sure JTH is able to defend herself, but I'll answer this seeing as it's directed at something I said:
That's not logical. What JTH said is that she didn't respond to your questions because she finds the way you argue unstimulating. That's got nothing to do with wanting to sweep anything under anything else - what she said to you didn't indicate any reluctance about discussion itself, just about the people she discusses things with. I know that's not something nice to hear, but it's her reason for not responding to you before - which is exactly what you asked for.
---
Regarding the rest, to be perfectly honest I haven't really had the time to follow the news story (plus I think it's on-record that my patience for the press is particularly thin which doesn't help things), but nevertheless:
"to any sane person there would be only one answer, one of total repulsion and condemnation against these monsters. "
Well, this kind of proves my point.
Revulsion and horror are standard reactions to this kind of crime - which people express on your thread already. Perhaps people just don't have anything else to add - I know I certainly think about that before I post. Or if they do, maybe they feel it's unwelcome - particularly wh
Contd
Particularly when they're aware that you've set out a question that quite clearly sees only one response as the 'only sane one'. Perhaps they pick up on the fact that you expect one response as 'the sane response' and so don't bother.
Regarding your last question - ""jackthehat never has any specific contribution to make ie why she disagrees with my posts etc, she will only post snide remarks towards me. "
To be quite honest, what did you expect when you started this thread?
As I said earlier, this thread isn't about the abduction story - it's about your posts. If you set out a thread specifically asking people why they haven't replied to you, you can't really complain when they tell you.
"So therefore I could only assume that she would rather me not enter a question on a particular news item, therefore I could only answer her in the way that I did. "
I'm sure JTH is able to defend herself, but I'll answer this seeing as it's directed at something I said:
That's not logical. What JTH said is that she didn't respond to your questions because she finds the way you argue unstimulating. That's got nothing to do with wanting to sweep anything under anything else - what she said to you didn't indicate any reluctance about discussion itself, just about the people she discusses things with. I know that's not something nice to hear, but it's her reason for not responding to you before - which is exactly what you asked for.
---
Regarding the rest, to be perfectly honest I haven't really had the time to follow the news story (plus I think it's on-record that my patience for the press is particularly thin which doesn't help things), but nevertheless:
"to any sane person there would be only one answer, one of total repulsion and condemnation against these monsters. "
Well, this kind of proves m
Particularly when they're aware that you've set out a question that quite clearly sees only one response as the 'only sane one'. Perhaps they pick up on the fact that you expect one response as 'the sane response' and so don't bother.
Regarding your last question - ""jackthehat never has any specific contribution to make ie why she disagrees with my posts etc, she will only post snide remarks towards me. "
To be quite honest, what did you expect when you started this thread?
As I said earlier, this thread isn't about the abduction story - it's about your posts. If you set out a thread specifically asking people why they haven't replied to you, you can't really complain when they tell you.
"So therefore I could only assume that she would rather me not enter a question on a particular news item, therefore I could only answer her in the way that I did. "
I'm sure JTH is able to defend herself, but I'll answer this seeing as it's directed at something I said:
That's not logical. What JTH said is that she didn't respond to your questions because she finds the way you argue unstimulating. That's got nothing to do with wanting to sweep anything under anything else - what she said to you didn't indicate any reluctance about discussion itself, just about the people she discusses things with. I know that's not something nice to hear, but it's her reason for not responding to you before - which is exactly what you asked for.
---
Regarding the rest, to be perfectly honest I haven't really had the time to follow the news story (plus I think it's on-record that my patience for the press is particularly thin which doesn't help things), but nevertheless:
"to any sane person there would be only one answer, one of total repulsion and condemnation against these monsters. "
Well, this kind of proves m
I don't think your posts on the subject are going to prompt "questions in the House" somehow?
No matter how you view your subject, and I agree the topic is indeed a serious one, but I'm sure I'm not the only one to get hacked off by your constant and unrelenting attack on the same group, i.e. Muslims.
As an old saying goes: "Change the record".
No matter how you view your subject, and I agree the topic is indeed a serious one, but I'm sure I'm not the only one to get hacked off by your constant and unrelenting attack on the same group, i.e. Muslims.
As an old saying goes: "Change the record".
<<jackthehat never has any specific contribution to make ie why she disagrees with my posts etc, she will only post snide remarks towards me. >>
I explained in my very first post and then followed it up with further expansion.
<<If anyone thought that that particular subject matter was not up for discussion they should come right out and say so. >>
All subjects are up for discussion, it's just that *some* topics attract the same old cant from the same old suspects time after time after time after time...........
You have a couple of hobby-horses that you regularly like to trot out........that you approach from a different directions doesn't disguise what they are.
<<So we are now at the real reason (my anti-Muslim rants) >>
Horses mouth..........straight from, etc.
I explained in my very first post and then followed it up with further expansion.
<<If anyone thought that that particular subject matter was not up for discussion they should come right out and say so. >>
All subjects are up for discussion, it's just that *some* topics attract the same old cant from the same old suspects time after time after time after time...........
You have a couple of hobby-horses that you regularly like to trot out........that you approach from a different directions doesn't disguise what they are.
<<So we are now at the real reason (my anti-Muslim rants) >>
Horses mouth..........straight from, etc.
Revulsion and horror are standard reactions to this kind of crime - which people express on your thread already. Perhaps people just don't have anything else to add - I know I certainly think about that before I post. Or if they do, maybe they feel it's unwelcome - particularly when you set out a question that assumes revulsion and horror to be 'the only sane reaction'. Maybe people pick up that's what your expectation is, and decide not to put anything else.
Regarding your last question - "Now can you tell me why my questions on the subject were a no-go and why I am being criticised?" - I can't really speak for anyone else, but you've set out this thread to ask them and don't seem particularly receptive when they answer you.
Regarding your last question - "Now can you tell me why my questions on the subject were a no-go and why I am being criticised?" - I can't really speak for anyone else, but you've set out this thread to ask them and don't seem particularly receptive when they answer you.
jake-the-peg
That is totally untrue and well you know it.
After all this was a national, if not world wide reported crime and as such deserved a place on AnswerBank's news section.
You give an example of the Bristol murder, as yet nothing has emerged to constitute a response and you are being totally unfair to state that I would only respond, if the killer was Asian or black.
Although a tragic affair this was a solitary murder committed by someone as yet unknown, so therefore would not attract as much news interest as a multi-murder case, whether committed by someone black or white.
Through past experience some ABers have shown without any doubt, that one should not in any way criticise a crime no matter how savage or disgusting, if the perpatrators have a different skin colour from white.
In fact one is not allowed to call it a 'Savage' crime.
That is totally untrue and well you know it.
After all this was a national, if not world wide reported crime and as such deserved a place on AnswerBank's news section.
You give an example of the Bristol murder, as yet nothing has emerged to constitute a response and you are being totally unfair to state that I would only respond, if the killer was Asian or black.
Although a tragic affair this was a solitary murder committed by someone as yet unknown, so therefore would not attract as much news interest as a multi-murder case, whether committed by someone black or white.
Through past experience some ABers have shown without any doubt, that one should not in any way criticise a crime no matter how savage or disgusting, if the perpatrators have a different skin colour from white.
In fact one is not allowed to call it a 'Savage' crime.
Latest Posts
Climber Needs To *** Into Runny Paste
Crosswords11 mins ago
Editor's Blog26 mins ago
Is What I Experienced Called...
Body & Soul27 mins ago
ChatterBank47 mins ago
