Hi all, For those that haven't seen it yet, here's a link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiIk14m1EgE David Cameron gave this speach at the Munich Security Conference on the topic of multiculturalism and terrorism. I'm interested in peoples reactions Interesting discussion on The Big Questions here too http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007zpll
he was doing alright up until 9 minutes into it where he blamed terrorist attacks on the fact that they feel like they don't fit in. I don't feel like i fit in sometimes what with all the polish people up town talking extremely loudly in Polish (for the record im not racist, people who talk loudly annoy me in general) but i never once get the urge to go and blow up in Poland. He mentioned all the reasons why terrorist attacks are happening, sadly he downplayed them all and passed them off as minor contributing factors.
I agree, he's identified all the problems, i'm just hoping his answer isn't some conservative rubbish about 'British Identity'. It's interesting that he's waded into such a difficult topic, without having any answers.
That's politicians for you: you never know whether they are being disingenuous or are really the ignorant 'tards they appear to be. I mean, it wouldn't be a complex tapestry of 100 years of Imperialistic Middle East foreign policy that's to blame, would it Dave? No, it's because people "won't fit in". Meanwhile Tony Blair is ****-stirring again ("The Muslim Brotherhood is dangerous! We have to intervene in Egypt... some more!). Because he is a narcissist who can't bear not being at the center of the drama anymore, he has to create his own.
Question is : Is Tony Blair a simple narcissist....or is he a psychopath? Having read his memoirs I conclude the latter. He seemed to view his involvement in the Invasion of Iraq with all the importance a dodgy ebay seller would when listing an auction.
Is there a difference? Psychopaths are just extreme narcissists. But psychopaths are not fussed about trying to justify themselves. I think he is a narcissistic sociopath of the same sort as Radovan Karadzic. He has a Messiah complex: he thinks he is morally above others and can decide over other people's lives.
Re: Cameron Speech - don't forget, he can just say it how it is, even if he agrees completely. Politics could do with more 'plain speakers', but in (international) politics, plain speakers often run into trouble when they inevitably run out of friends. Berlusconi is the exception to this rule - they guy is made of teflon and the more disgusting and corrupt he is, the more support he has. You have got to play the game... Anyway, back to Dave... The points he made were correct, just perhaps with not the right emphasis... but it's a start. I'm totally for the idea of taking the best of what it should mean to be British and focusing on it - to the detriment of extremists at the end of every spectrum. We should be celebrating much of what it means to be British, and everyone wanting to be a permanent citizen should be able to identify and rally around that. We shouldn't be defined, any longer, by the differences between us which is much of what 'multiculturalism' has done for us. As for Blair, I'll leave the psychoanalysis to better qualified people, but I'll admit to being surprised as to how gung-ho he was (albeit with other peoples' lives). For years, I assumed that he'd been hoodwinked by Bush - it was a shock to realise how readily he'd settled into the old regime-change gig. I think it's an equal shock for many, that David Cameron isn't apparently keen on starting wars and sticking-it to some fuzzy wuzzies [sic].
This is something I've wondered about for a while now. As I understand is, psychopaths are defined by an inability to feel empathy, to see others as real and equal people. So, is the condition defined by the behavior or the motivation behind it? We obviously see the badly behaved ones, but are there not many "functional" psychopaths who really don't care if you live or die, but aren't going to kill you because it would not be in their best interests to do so? Also, serial killers are often described as psychopathic, but if you don't view other people as being significant, do you derive pleasure form killing them?
I think that there are a lot of misunderstandings around the labels. First, a 'serial killer' is just a populist label given to someone who killed on more than one occasion. Whether they enjoyed it or just did it to achieve some personal goal is not defined. Psychopaths are people with such a low self-esteem and such messed-up attachment that it is either too threatening to see other people as people (things can't judge you) or they are unable to empathise with them (this is not the same as Autism by the way; autistic people do have attachment; they just can't makes sense of other people for the same cognitive reasons they can't form an overall picture of their environment). Psychopaths basically see people as things to manipulate in the pursuit of their own personal goals. Sociopaths are a bit less far down the scale. They are like psychopaths but are aware that other people are people who will judge them, so it's best to manipulate them in the pursuit of your personal goals with their perceptions in mind. Whereas a psychopath is as egocentric and without morals as a toddler, a sociopath has the egocentrism and moral development of a small child. It's only bad if you get caught... So psychopaths are not fussed about justifying their actions. Sociopaths will to get themselves off the hook. And they will of course lie and twist for this if necessary. It is just another manipulation to achieve a goal. Narcissists overlap with the above in that they have such low self-esteem that they overcompensate with grandiose fantasy, again like little children do. You can see how reducing other people to objects fits within that fantasy nicely, and allows you to maintain it in the face of challenge. Psychopaths and sociopaths are just extreme narcissists who practice what they believe. Tony Blair has all the hallmarks of a narcissist. Not only did he get swayed by Bush, a narcissist higher in the food chain so worthy of complementary narcissism, he also loves the limelight and has delusions of grandeur. Only Tony would think that after the mess he created he could be a peace envoy to the Middle East. Only Tony would argue that during a recession, crippled by two wars we are still fighting that we should wage a third with Iran, a country with nukes. Only Tony would ask the Chilcot inquiry for an opportunity to hold a speech on his views what should be done next in the Middle East --thus hijacking an investigation into his actions to become another stage for him proselitising to the world. Only Tony would advocate intervening in a relatively peaceful revolution in Egypt, labelling an influential moderate and peaceful political movement as dangerous fundies, thus potentially antagonising the people there and steering Egypt in the same political direction as Iran. He is a ****-stirrer. He can't bear not to be at the center of the drama so if necessary, he'll create his own. Re: Cameron's vision: White Brits can't find much to identify with in Britain, so why should immigrants? The day that my local church looks as well-maintained and busy as my local Gurdwara he may have a point.
This. I wish all British politicians would just **** off to a different planet. The British people are a fine society without them, and it's not until you travel to the rest of the world until you realise how successfully multicultural Britain actually is. Yes, there are tensions, but MANY people have elevated ourselves out of the trenches of racism, unlike so many other countries. For example, most of Asia really hates each other (unless it's business and money making, Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese, Chinese, Thai etc won't often deal with one another and the first comment out of MANY people's mouths is "I don't like xxx country, but I have some good friends who are from xxx!") , the Americans still have serious racism issues and are going down the path of Facism, the Middle East is permanently ****ed and most of Europe struggles with some kind of social issue. Compared to that, we look positively inviting.
Yup, but British politicians and media stoke sentiments like this. It's a nice distraction from people realising that the UK is so ****ed up because of their and their government's own actions, not those of them foreigners.
Yup, but how few are those that always see both sides of the story? Mr. Average will only ever see what the BBC/DailyFail writes and believe it. Concerning.
according to the EU's 2010 Terrorism Situation and Trend Report, the total number of terrorist incidents in Europe declined in 2009. Even more important, the overwhelming majority of these incidents had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. The report is produced by Europol, which is the criminal intelligence agency of the European Union. In 2009, there were fewer than 300 terrorist incidents in Europe, a 33 percent decline from the previous year. The vast majority of these incidents (237 out of 294) were conducted by indigenous European separatist groups, with another forty or so attributed to leftists and/or anarchists. According to the report, a grand total of one (1) attack was conducted by Islamists. Put differently, Islamist groups were responsible for a whopping 0.34 percent of all terrorist incidents in Europe in 2009.
[Politics mode] Well... err... you see... err... it means our police are doing much better! It err... means we must continue on our path of err... security and controlling ways... err... [/Politics mode] Impressive, but whats the guessing the UK government will have conflicting figures when 99.95% of terroist attacks are commited by Islamic cells? Governments always right, remember.
