Another major (presumably terrorist) incident. Now in Manchester.

[Dynamics]

I don't think it's a discussion id ever get bored about, the one about what causes terrorism and what can be done, but lots of things are being talked about in this thread going over into politics. It's not boring because I think we have to think about these things in depth, to get a proper public mood so that powers that be do something about it. I bet the people who have lost loved ones don't e.g. Jim Swire, Lockerbie bombing.But one of the biggest issues with these types of debates is that most don't really have a view. I think this is a problem.

[Marco]

But one of the biggest issues with these types of debates is that most don't really have a view. I think this is a problem.

Indeed, and ALL views in that respect here are welcome, as long as during a debate they're both politely expressed and don't (directly or indirectly) demean the contrary views of one's 'opponent', or make unqualified judgements on their apparent level of 'ignorance', as that constitutes as a personal remark, and won't be permitted.

In terms of boredom, well that's subjective. You can't *make* someone be interested in something that they're not, no matter how different you feel to the contrary, so if they're bored they're bored.

I don't study politics in any serious way (or get geeky about it), as it doesn't sufficiently interest me to do so, therefore when discussions become too 'deep' and involve examining the minutiae of political or religious history, etc, and stuff I know nothing about, my eyes glaze over, in a similar way to when hi-fi discussions revolve around science and measurements. Just not my bag.

I'm the type who simply comments on *my experiences* and what I see happening around me in everyday life, or in the world in general, and form my opinions (rightly or wrongly) on that basis, but of course at the same time am always willing to learn from people who know much more about politics than me, especially those with diametrically opposing views, as the only way you truly learn in these matters is to know how the 'enemy' thinks....

In truth though, opposing views from your own, no matter how unpalatable (as long as they're not racially offensive or threatening), should *always* be examined and considered, as it forces you out of your comfort zone to think differently, and with anything in life, that's often how one gets to the truth!

As someone said during the discussion on pfm, in reference to the Manchester bombing:

"Let's be frank here. It's 98% certain that one of the positions that you will not hear voiced has an element of truth and should be open for discussion - 2% likely that it's a mentally ill loner with a drug problem."

That [the bit in bold] is bang on, and why such will be allowed to be discussed here, regardless of how 'difficult' some may find it. We're not interested in being 'politically correct', simply in allowing everyone to have their fair say, on an unquestionably emotive issue, within the guidelines set.

Marco.

[walpurgis]

The politics of greed will scupper any good intentions and there will never be peace in the middle east until the oil runs out (and probably not afterwards either)!

[Dynamics]

In truth though, opposing views from your own, no matter how unpalatable (as long as they're not racially offensive or threatening), should *always* be examined and considered, as it forces you out of your comfort zone to think differently, and with anything in life, that's often how one gets to the truth!

Marco.

Well I think you've made my point for me (as above) and I agree with you above totally, because if one isn't willing to have a proper discussion on the matter and gets bored it's clear one can't have the discussion to force people into thinking or out of their comfort zone, and I'd rather get to that than other matters if that's what the thread is about, as it is. But if I say I think someone is ignorant on the issue, then that's a view and it is not a personal insult. It means I think they are ignorant on that issue, they may not be so in eyes of others. Especially if I qualify what I've said.

The thing is I think British people get upset if they are challenged, as being personal. It's different in other cultures. I actually have no problems with my views challenged or debated or critisised, otherwise I wouldn't challenge others. But when you do so, people seem to make it personal. I think that's probably what the guy on the message is doing, and to be honest, having it highlighted. So if that's the case, and Ive got that right, it's not an opinion but a personal insult. And that's very different and someone should take offence at it. And I just have if I'm right on these aforementioned comments in the message. But I'm not going to use mental health against him in a derogatory sense.

[Dynamics]

The politics of greed will scupper any good intentions and there will never be peace in the middle east until the oil runs out (and probably not afterwards either)!

But how has that got to do with Manchester Geoff, and a British born person bombing his own citizens.

[Marco]

But if I say I think someone is ignorant on the issue, then that's a view and it is not a personal insult. It means I think they are ignorant on that issue, they may not be so in eyes of others. Especially if I qualify what I've said.

Sorry, Simon, no. It's effectively a personal insult because no-one likes to be judged in that way by someone who is to all intents and purposes a complete stranger, and so in reality knows virtually nothing about them or their apparent knowledge or experience.

Although i understand where you're coming from, that's not how we conduct ourselves here, simply from the point of view that neither you nor I are qualified to judge someone else's 'level of ignorance', because said 'ignorance' could simply be wrongly perceived, as a result of the person concerned not expressing themselves properly (maybe they're not the most eloquent of writers), or perhaps simply from not having enough time to sit and type out exactly what they mean, and so for the sake of quickness, merely post some immediate thoughts.

That and the fact that not everyone is into 'immersing themselves' in a debate, and spending the time needed to do so, which is why no-one here is judged on their level of ignorance or otherwise, especially when they may *actually* know more than you (although initially it might not seem that way)...

Furthermore, and most importantly, you can put your point across just as well without judging folk like that, so there is simply no need for it. At the end of the day, it only gets peoples backs up, then they respond in a similar vein, and the whole thing gets out of hand, thus is completely counterproductive to having a friendly debate, which is what happened here yesterday.

Therefore please bear that in mind in future, during discussions on AoS, no matter the topic in question. The very same principle also applies on hi-fi discussions. The fact is, you have little chance of realistically ascertaining someone's true knowledge [thus their level of ignorance], on any subject, simply through conversing with them briefly on a forum.

The thing is I think British people get upset if they are challenged, as being personal. It's different in other cultures. I actually have no problems with my views challenged or debated or critisised...

That's good, as free speech (within reason) is what's promoted on AoS, but it must always be carried out within the framework and guidelines we've set, in terms of how we insist that members here conduct themselves

Marco.

[struth]

But how has that got to do with Manchester Geoff, and a British born person bombing his own citizens.

The family were all a bit dubious as far as is told. Father was a anti Brit. Notice most fled back ti homeland before he struck suggesting they knew full well . Just because your born in a country doesnt make you truly a national. Thats in the heart.

[Joe]

But one of the biggest issues with these types of debates is that most don't really have a view. I think this is a problem.

Often it's best to start out without a view, because it enables one to keep an open mind whilst weighing up different/opposing opinions, and on some issues, the arguments are so finely balanced that, as the saying goes, a feather will go to tip the scales. The problem more often is that people have fixed viewpoints and will not only not consider alternatives, but will ascribe the worst motives to those who differ from them.

There's a risk in this, of course, of ending up in a state of indecision, forever wavering from one side to another, but that's less risky IMO than an excess of certainty.

[Dynamics]

The family were all a bit dubious as far as is told. Father was a anti Brit. Notice most fled back ti homeland before he struck suggesting they knew full well . Just because your born in a country doesnt make you truly a national. Thats in the heart.

I was talking about your previous point and how it is relevant. Oil had nothing to do with him bombing.

[Dynamics]

Often it's best to start out without a view, because it enables one to keep an open mind whilst weighing up different/opposing opinions, and on some issues, the arguments are so finely balanced that, as the saying goes, a feather will go to tip the scales. The problem more often is that people have fixed viewpoints and will not only not consider alternatives, but will ascribe the worst motives to those who differ from them.

There's a risk in this, of course, of ending up in a state of indecision, forever wavering from one side to another, but that's less risky IMO than an excess of certainty.

Ive had more than enough time now to weigh up my views on terrorism reading a lot on the subject, and I'd guess this is the same for most uk citizens who have lived here since at least 7/7. but with respect to this site and people opinions, I got my views from reading various sources and books and not believing one media outlet, and not from a forum. But balancing it up so when the article presents a man being killed by an elephant, I ask was he actually hunting an elephant, was it an accident, was he a conservationalist. When you dig deeper you find out the reality and different from the paper sound bite. More than someone taking a view he is some sort of monster trophy hunter. But I don't need to know a paper are talking bs when someone blows themselves up and I see the pictures from the New York Times or tv footage. I can see the propoganda leaflets as one man highlighted on question time if you watched it. Sadly people take these sound bites, aren't inquisitive to know if the news is true and try and find out the best they can, and form a view around the credibility of it. It is very sad of our society.

There are very limited reasons for terrorism, sadly not those our government want to tackle head on.