As always, it fills me with sadness and fear for the future when people revel in violence perpetrated on anyone. And the same ignorant and tired use of "liberal" as a catch-all term of abuse for those who prefer not to resort to murder on either side just demonstrates a lack of ability to think beyond the bullet.
The "security forces" - be they military or civilian - of nations play an important role in upholding the rule of law (otherwise, what are they for?) but for those who support them to admonish other members of society for somehow bringing atrocities down on themselves and others is perverse, blinkered, and a dangerous step down a road to totalitarianism.

If it's not liberal thinking then what is it?

Liberal is used in a lazy, derogatory way to describe any person or belief that doesn't espouse right-wing hawkish, undiluted capitalistic thinking.
I have some views that fit into some of those categories, but I reject the label in the sense that it is employed.
To me, it is the people that use the term so loosely, without further discrimination, that are labelling their own ignorance.

They all shouldn't, it should be condemned by clerics and imams as it's done in the name of Islam, didn't realise anyone had asked all Muslims to apologise?

Asking any Muslim to apologise, other than those who have carried out or supported the atrocities, is ridiculous.

I listen to James O brien everyday and hes a knob . He changes the rules to suit himself and makes himself look good as a liberal . If you listen to the whole show yesterday he tried to compare how muslims feel today after the Paris attack and the irish back when the troubles were in full swing . I dont know why he says muslims should apoligise for what . Whos asking them to apoligise ?

I'll admit I've never listened to his show. But if he's such a 'knob' then why do you continue to listen to him?

I've only ever heard him via social media; this phone in and the interview with Farrage.

Simple hes funny sometimes and i can be bothered to change the station . I email him nearly everyday .

Stop reading what isn't posted, I said they should condem it. As leaders of community, in powerful positions in their religion they should condem to hopefully prevent others following.
Are you saying this shouldn't be the case?

A comment I heard on the radio today which I rather liked: if you don't like being ridiculed, don't do ridiculous things.

My apologies, you didn't claim that they should be made to apologise, I misread.

However, I don't see why the leaders of a particular religion should be expected to come out and condemn this kind of violence. It's as if you're saying, "if they don't, then we should assume they're in support of it."

What affiliation is there between the gunmen in Paris and an Imam in, say, Bradford? The only one I can see is that they probably have a skin tone other than white and the gunman claims to believe in the same imaginary deity as the Imam.

If I came to your house and set it on fire, should Richard Dawkins and other prominent aetheists be made to condemn my actions?

A British hate preacher backed the Paris massacres just hours after the bloody events unfolded and told his followers ‘Britain is the enemy of Islam’.

Cleric Mizanur Rahman, of Palmers Green, north London, defended the brutal murder of 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo offices, saying ‘insulting Islam…they can’t expect a different result.’

This guy has already been banged up once and he's still allowed to come out with this tripe.

So, Glenn, that is one person, who is already known to harbour such views. Sounds like the authorities may be onto this one. How about the other hundreds of thousands of ordinary Muslims (the ones not mentioned on your hilarious - and unoriginal - tax return)? Or is it not worth mentioning that they, like virtually everyone else of every race, creed and colour worldwide, condemn the murders?

Jim, takes 1 person to kill not millions.it also takes 1 man to stand up and lead, inspire and create the carnage seen over the last 10+ years. You are acting as this man is a solo nutter, who poses no danger. You are seriously and obviously wrong, why else would he be a known risk?

Big_Muzzie, you are misunderstanding what I'm saying; this nutcase has already been convicted of this kind of incitement, so it should come as no surprise that he continues to spout such nonsense. My point is, therefore, why focus on this and even bother giving him publicity, when he is one person - a clearly deranged, criminal person - when there are so many other, more worthwhile, peace-loving and positive role models to look to. Typical Daily Mail style bollox: "Radical loony welcomes murders". In other news, bear sh1ts in woods.

Ah, fair comment Jim - makes much more sense when you put it like that!

Jim the point is, loony or not, he is a cleric, so his version of Islam is what the impressionable young he preaches to, believes. He doesn't need the media to get his message to his target audience.

spot on, not as though he's preaching to empty houses. One man preaching this crap is bad enough, problem lies when a hundred are listening, then spreading the word to others

Thank goodness we have the self-appointed guardians of our moral good to point this fellow out, otherwise I'm sure the police would have missed him.
What exactly would you expect him to say?

If he breaks the law and is even slightly Muslamic, he will be arrested. In Theresa May's UK, you can at least be sure of that...

Jim if that was aimed at me I'm not sure I get your point. You talk about not giving these people publicity, my point is that they don't need it, they have their audience.

It wasn't aimed at you, RK, it was a generalisation.

Careful Jim, you said you shouldn't generalise!

Did I?

Yes, I'm sure it was you who said don't tar all with one man's brush!

I think you're mistaken. But I've been wrong before.

It becomes tedious when you see well educated and seemingly intelligent people resort to labeling and putting issues into neat little boxes. I can only conclude that such people are either too lazy to apply their minds, or they are simply trolling. Either way it makes any meaningful debate on most any subject totally pointless.

The problem with any forum is that individuals communicate with people they have nothing in common with, and would probably avoid in real life. There are certainly views on here that I would vehemently disagree with, just as others would do the same with mine. It's unlikely that those people would form part of my social circle, we would therefor not have that exchange of views. If we did it would be face to face where the irony and sarcasm detectors would filter some of what is said. More likely we would opt not to touch on the subjects that would cause real contention.



Sounds like someone is putting people in little boxes.

RK - Those are the very reasons why I think internet forums are great! The worst that (usually) can happen is someone calls you a name. I think it opens up proper debate and gets a good mix of people involved. Yes you do lose some of the important parts of communicating through facial and body language but we all just need to try and communicate smarter!