shirleysfc

Hahahaha - are you actually trying to claim that him saying the board should be more diverse is racist?? I guess if he wants more females on the board too it's sexist against men...?

Or not... "There are currently 13 white men on the Transport for London board and just three women. Khan said he would ensure the board better reflected the "diversity" of Londoners if he becomes mayor. "I will reshape TfL's board," he said during a speech in Brixton this morning. "It needs to better reflect London's diversity in the interest of Londoners. Did you know there are 16 people on the board of TfL?" http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/03/30/sadiq-khan-there-are-too-many-white-men-on-transport-for-lon

Because I wrongly assumed it was obvious which parts of the article raised concerns. It appears I gave you too much credit. Just out of interest, what do you think is in the anti-terrorism leaflets?

According the article, both. It clearly states they produce leaflets which are anti-terrorism and non-violence, yes? I think it's fair to assume that Sky News have researched these and they are actually anti-terrorism and non-violence. It also highlights clear issues with some of their teachings/leaflets, which are being investigated etc. Get it?

Nope, I said there is clearly issues with their teachings.

Ok then. You're either on a wind-up or can't read.

I've said, many times, that there is clearly issues with some of their teachings. It also appears that, quite rightly, these are being investigated and dealt with. Which part of this do you struggle to understand? Sky News felt that the anti-terrorism material was worth including in the report. I'm guessing that if it actually encouraged terrorism the report may have mentioned it, no?

No idea. Maybe you should take this up with Sky News who reported on them in the first place.

No, but the article also says "Deobandis believe in a highly orthodox spiritual version of Islam and Mr Dudha also produces leaflets condemning terrorism and advocating non-violence. Dewsbury has a history of disaffected youth becoming radicalised and was home to Britain's youngest suicide bomber, its youngest convicted terrorist, and one of the 7/7 bombers." As I said, there are clearly issues with some of the teachings. These have been identified (and I assume with be dealt with) by the relevant authorities.

And your point is what? I've said repeatedly there are issues with some of the teachings. The article also says the place is (correctly) being investigated.

Admittedly I don't know what level of anti-terrorism teaching there is in standard LEA schools, but Batman's article implies this place is doing extra. In an area such as Dewsbury, which has had its issues in the past, this surely has to be a good thing? However, there are also clearly issues with some of the teachings at this place. These have been identified and are being investigated. I'm not sure how many more times I can say the same thing. The Department for Education told us: "These serious allegations are under investigation. While it would be inappropriate to comment on the specific investigations of these institutions, we are clear that extremism has no place in our society and we are determined to protect children from it."

Ok so you don't believe the guy. That's fair enough, it's your prerogative. If you're trying to claim I don't want to see bad things in other cultures then, like Brett, you can't read. For the FOURTH time, there are CLEARLY issues with some of the teachings at that place. These are being investigated etc by the DoE. Is the fact they are also promoting anti-terrorism and non-violence a good thing?

So the fact that they're trying to teach about anti-terrorism and non-violence to the youths in Dewsbury isn't a good thing? Ok, if you say so. For the third time, there are clearly problems with some of the teachings at that place, and by the sounds of it these are quite rightly being investigated by the relevant authorities. I'm confused by what you're saying about the final sentence and what it has to do with how the crimes were investigated in Rotherham? Surely better integration is a good thing? Everything isn't always black and white. It's possible to condem the negatives whilst encouraging the positives.

How the **** have I excused it?? Reading isn't your strong point is it? As I said, there are clearly issues there that need to be sorted out. These have been identified and by the sounds of that article the DoE are working to do this. This is good, yes? You and others have been squinnying that Muslims don't do enough about teaching against terrorism and promoting integration. From the sounds of YOUR example, the centre have been producing anti-terrorism, non-violence leaflets and the centre head also says "We fully believe in the importance and need of integration whilst being able to practise our faith." Unless you don't believe him?

Bit of a mixed bag that article. Some of it certainly raises concerns and sounds like it is rightly being investigated by the relevant authorities. But they also produce leaflets condemning terrorism and advocating non-violence. They also believe in the importance and need of integration. Surely these are steps in the right direction?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/5917267/british-muslim-youths-voice-outrage-of-isis.html https://m.facebook.com/pages/Muslims-Against-ISIS/1444672609121662 http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Muslim-Scholars-Groups-Against-ISIS-Speal-Out-361309791.html

Did the people attending the meeting choose where to sit or were they forced?

It doesn't matter what I think. If you're "showing or feeling active opposition or hostility towards someone or something" then you're being antagonistic. Unless you're not happy with this dictionary definition?

The definition of antagonistic is "showing or feeling active opposition or hostility towards someone or something". The protest/march was showing active opposition towards terrorism, therefore it was antagonistic.

What do you mean by this?

More Muslims were killed in the Lahore attack, than Christians. http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/lahore-park-bomb-1.3509203 Any loss of life in these attacks, whatever the religion of those that died, is tragic.

Ok - what do you want them to do?

Plenty of Muslims, Muslim organisations and faith leaders spoke out after the atrocities in Paris and Brussels. Maybe they weren't reported on in the websites/papers you read? http://m.euronews.com/en/328098/ http://www.bna.bh/portal/en/news/717832 http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/World/2016/Mar-23/343617-turkey-gulf-arab-states-condemn-brussels-attacks.ashx http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hundreds-muslims-marching-against-terrorism-6977099

So what's the solution?

There were plenty of reports about the Paris/Brussels terrorists that supported what I said. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34849077 http://news.sky.com/story/1667423/who-are-the-brussels-bombers-and-other-suspects So what's your solution based on the report in the Guardian? "It concludes that it is not possible to draw up a typical profile of the "British terrorist" as most are "demographically unremarkable" and simply reflect the communities in which they live The "restricted" MI5 report takes apart many of the common stereotypes about those involved in British terrorism. They are mostly British nationals, not illegal immigrants and, far from being Islamist fundamentalists, most are religious novices. Nor, the analysis says, are they "mad and bad". Those over 30 are just as likely to have a wife and children as to be loners with no ties, the research shows. The security service also plays down the importance of radical extremist clerics, saying their influence in radicalising British terrorists has moved into the background in recent years."