Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Some yank reporter on BBC breakfast this morning was being shown the very missile that delivered the chemical attack, I think he was with the same group of journalists as Robert Fisk was. I think my p

They should sever any alliances with Germany. They didn’t help much on D-Day either

Posted Images

It is the way we're heading. Kind of convenient for those in government who want more control over the populace in general, really. Obviously you could argue that some have a vested interest in keeping this conflict, and terrorism in general, going, by continuing to interfere in the affairs of other countries (and even directly supporting such groups), but that would be tinfoil hat territory, I guess. More left wing craziness.

 

The other really clever thing about it would be that it would mean that those making these decisions had allied themselves to elements of the left who despise religion due to its intolerance, which in turn makes them look more tolerant, and therefore more likely in received public wisdom) that they're acting for the correct reasons. That really is getting into tinfoil hat territory, but at the same time you could argue that something similar happened with multiculturalism, which brought wages crashing down and improved profits at the top. A very left wing ideal with some highly convenient right wing results.

 

I'm not actually saying, for what it's worth, that any of this has happened (although the latter one definitely did happen, just may not have been planned that way) but I think its a bit naive to think that we're entirely victims of fate in this. It's much more likely that this is playing out the way we want it to, than the other way around. Especially considering recent government drives to heighten internet surveillance, etc. And if that's the case, why is it such a stretch to consider that this is something that we have had a hand in causing? Unless this is pure opportunism from our side.

 

I think the key thing for me will be looking at what legislation the government puts through as a result of this new terrorist threat, and what it is then used for aside from terrorism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol:

 

Has the drugs went to your head? Who has been forgiving these horrible bastards?

I've seen plenty of comments around social media blaming the west for the actions of these cunts. It's everywhere man and I'm sick of reading it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that does happen point scoring in here will be what really matters

It's not about scoring points on here. This attitude is everywhere and it boils my piss. I've been trying v hard to stay out of this thread the past week or two so will return to lurking from the sidelines. It's pretty much going around in circles anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about scoring points on here. This attitude is everywhere and it boils my piss. I've been trying v hard to stay out of this thread the past week or two so will return to lurking from the sidelines. It's pretty much going around in circles anyway.

yeah, absolutely everyone wants to forgive the Paris terrorists for what they did.
Link to post
Share on other sites

But I wasn't saying you were excusing the shootings, I was saying you were excusing the role of militant Islam in it, which by implication in your first post, you were. "Just another shooting". Well no, it's not, it's something much more sinister and isn't a US phenomenon, it's a global one.

Nope, never excused militant Islam anything either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, never excused militant Islam anything either.

So I make a post saying this massacre was ISIS inspired (basically relaying news) , and you counter by saying that many other massacres have been committed by non-Muslims, that is relevant how? Because to me it is insinuating that there isn't a specific problem here, which you've admitted elsewhere on this thread or other similar ones anyway. Basically an Islamic act of terrorism happens, and your first thought is, "ahh, but what about x group", with the strong implication all these crimes are morally equivalent and are of equal concern.

 

Gloom's right, the thread is going around in circles. If 9/11 , 7/7, Madrid, Paris, Boston, and not to mention the utter carnage happening in the Middle East isn't enough to persuade you there is something terribly wrong here which isn't comparable to the McVeigh's and Breviech's of this world (solitary lunatics), then nothing is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The utter carnage in the ME may have something to do with external influences as well as local players. Doesn't excuse these zombies killing innocent people whilst off their tits but there's more at play than just religion is, I think, what people are saying. I still don't know the official reason for going into Afghanistan was? We know Iraq Mk II was based on lies, this is not a kop out and a Toontastic pardon for any of those murderers but it is a bigger long term picture being painted which is not as simple as saying they're radical Muslims, they're different, what are we going to do. I know you said you're very iffy about dropping bombs in Syria, why is that? The West has got into bed with some very bad people and it is innocent people being killed all over the ME as well as in Paris, Madrid, Turkey etc.

 

I'd almost say it's too late to not do anything and to finish the absolute abortion of a job that Bush Jr and Blair started in Iraq by backing up airstrikes with real soldiers mopping up behind them but I reckon you'd find these 70,000 moderates aren't as moderate as they're being made out by the NATO countries. We could always follow the money trail but I don't think any lights being shed on this would be welcomed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I make a post saying this massacre was ISIS inspired (basically relaying news) , and you counter by saying that many other massacres have been committed by non-Muslims, that is relevant how? Because to me it is insinuating that there isn't a specific problem here, which you've admitted elsewhere on this thread or other similar ones anyway. Basically an Islamic act of terrorism happens, and your first thought is, "ahh, but what about x group", with the strong implication all these crimes are morally equivalent and are of equal concern.

 

Gloom's right, the thread is going around in circles. If 9/11 , 7/7, Madrid, Paris, Boston, and not to mention the utter carnage happening in the Middle East isn't enough to persuade you there is something terribly wrong here which isn't comparable to the McVeigh's and Breviech's of this world (solitary lunatics), then nothing is.

 

You went on from relaying news and relayed your fears of ISIS cells through the US. The 350 other mass killings that didn't (as yet) lead to extremist cells sprouting up across the US is relevant because people and religions ARE all the same, whatever you might think. Most people of any religion are horrified by any violence perpetrated in the name of that religion. Most people living comfortably, not being bombed, without family being bombed, with freedom to do as they please don't choose to become political/religious mass murderers.

 

My first thought following any act of terrorism is sadness. I wouldn't (and didn't) think of making any comparison. I only responded to you because the fear in your post wasn't one I'd seen presented following similar acts. If you feel discriminating between similar acts is appropriate, worrying that some are worse than others depending on the religion of the individual(s) that committed them, I think it's worth saying I disagree with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The utter carnage in the ME may have something to do with external influences as well as local players. Doesn't excuse these zombies killing innocent people whilst off their tits but there's more at play than just religion is, I think, what people are saying. I still don't know the official reason for going into Afghanistan was? We know Iraq Mk II was based on lies, this is not a kop out and a Toontastic pardon for any of those murderers but it is a bigger long term picture being painted which is not as simple as saying they're radical Muslims, they're different, what are we going to do. I know you said you're very iffy about dropping bombs in Syria, why is that? The West has got into bed with some very bad people and it is innocent people being killed all over the ME as well as in Paris, Madrid, Turkey etc.

 

I'd almost say it's too late to not do anything and to finish the absolute abortion of a job that Bush Jr and Blair started in Iraq by backing up airstrikes with real soldiers mopping up behind them but I reckon you'd find these 70,000 moderates aren't as moderate as they're being made out by the NATO countries. We could always follow the money trail but I don't think any lights being shed on this would be welcomed.

Aye fair enough, but will add one thing that's often overlooked concerning the importance of the religion in this equation, and that's the individual motives of the terrorists involved. They have absolutely certainty they are going to live in an eternal paradise. Whether that's getting sucked off for all eternity or not I don't know. Some acknowledgment of this fact would be welcome as its key to their MO and success. Religion is to blame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You went on from relaying news and relayed your fears of ISIS cells through the US. The 350 other mass killings that didn't (as yet) lead to extremist cells sprouting up across the US is relevant because people and religions ARE all the same, whatever you might think. Most people of any religion are horrified by any violence perpetrated in the name of that religion. Most people living comfortably, not being bombed, without family being bombed, with freedom to do as they please don't choose to become political/religious mass murderers.

 

My first thought following any act of terrorism is sadness. I wouldn't (and didn't) think of making any comparison. I only responded to you because the fear in your post wasn't one I'd seen presented following similar acts. If you feel discriminating between similar acts is appropriate, worrying that some are worse than others depending on the religion of the individual(s) that committed them, I think it's worth saying I disagree with that.

There aren't as yet that many radicalized Muslims liviing in the US, as far as we know, compared to say the UK or France (evidenced by surveys and the hundreds of Muslims that have left European countries to fight jihad in Syria). I think this is fortunate because radicalisation + easy access to weapons of lethal force = disaster. That's why I think this is significant. Although proportionately the Muslim population in the US is much smaller than ours, if significant numbers of them do become radicalized (like this couple) I fear both the direct and indirect consequences.

 

That's why we need to differentiate between these acts.

 

Edit: to add HF, to appreciate my point, see my post above. Very few sane people (and by that I mean without organic mental illnesses) are willing to sacrifice themselves, and that includes the most nutty Christians. Yet this brand of islamic wahabism virtually demands it. And still you don't seem to get the significance of this.

Edited by Renton
Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, absolutely everyone wants to forgive the Paris terrorists for what they did.

You know what I'm on about, man. You just have to read this thread. Instead of calling these cunts out for what they are, the first reaction of many on the left is to blame terrorist attacks on western intervention in the Middle East.

 

Hey, here's another example of radical Islamists fighting back against Western

imperialism and US-UK foreign policy in a dispute that is of our making.

 

Oh hang on, this is in Africa by an Isis affiliate and has zero to do with Western interventionism.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/05/chad-reels-after-suicide-bombers-target-island-markets

Edited by Dr Gloom
Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I'm on about, man. You just have to read this thread. Instead of calling these cunts out for what they are, the first reaction of many on the left is to blame terrorist attacks on western intervention in the Middle East.

Hey, here's another example of radical Islamists fighting back against Western

imperialism and US-UK foreign policy in a dispute that is of our making.

Oh hang on, this is in Africa by an Isis affiliate and has zero to do with Western interventionism.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/05/chad-reels-after-suicide-bombers-target-island-markets

Look, man. If you took actual issue with what people wrote in here that would be one thing. What you actually did was invent a nonexistent point of view to argue against instead because it was easier.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, man. If you took actual issue with what people wrote in here that would be one thing. What you actually did was invent a nonexistent point of view to argue against instead because it was easier.

I've taken issue with plenty of what people have said in this and the Paris thread. The comment you picked up on was a continuation of those ongoing disagreements. I really ought to know better and give it a rest as it's been going round in circles for over a week now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, and you didn't aim it at anyone specific for the very reasons I gave, I.e. you'd look ridiculous trying to pin that accusation on anyone. And it's not a kick up the arse away from Cameron's odious comments on the eve of the vote

Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be obvious who it's aimed at. It's everyone I've been having a ding dong with these last few weeks. Those who have blamed western intervention in the Middle East instead of Islamist radicalisation for the rise of Isis terrorism. KCG, J69, HF and others. Because I think taking that position is being too forgiving of these psychopaths.

 

Regretting posting this already. I promised myself last week I was done with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be obvious who it's aimed at. It's everyone I've been having a ding dong with these last few weeks. Those who have blamed western intervention in the Middle East instead of Islamist radicalisation for the rise of Isis terrorism. KCG, J69, HF and others. Because I think taking that position is being too forgiving of these psychopaths.

 

Regretting posting this already. I promised myself last week I was done with this.

My point has always been that in the vast majority of cases it's both, not one or the other... and that it's radicaisedl Islam, not Islam.

 

You sound very reasonable blaming radical Islam here. I've only argued against the less reasonable view that Muslims are violent because their religion is violent.

 

The interchangeability of both does the discussion no favors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point has always been that in the vast majority of cases it's both, not one or the other... and that it's radicaisedl Islam, not Islam.

 

You sound very reasonable blaming radical Islam here. I've only argued against the less reasonable view that Muslims are violent because their religion is violent.

 

The interchangeability of both does the discussion no favors.

Out of interest, which version of Islam is most true to the source material? Is it the warm fluffy religion pf citizen Khan, or is it the blood thirsty cult of ISIS, or something in between?

 

I'm no expert in Islamic scripture and I've no intention of wasting my time on it. But, I have to say, I find even the moderate tenets pretty unpalatable, such as the treatment of women, non-believers and apostates. The core belief in submission doesn't personally sit well with me. And as I've said quite a bit on this and other threads (but never been satisfactorily answered and definitely made others feel uncomfortable) I'd say there are potentially issues with even how moderate Islam fits into an advanced secular society. It seems to be the only group that has had difficulty integrating to me.

 

You are suggesting that all religions are basically equivalent, so I'm guessing to make that assertion you must be quite knowledgeable on all these religions? Perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me where I'm going wrong?

 

Edit: should add before I get flamed for being an islamaphobe, I perfectly accept that I don't have to like any religion but in a western society I have to respect their beliefs, or rather the people who have these beliefs. That's fine. But if we accept that radicalisation is a problem, then we have to confront why it happens. It seems to be suggested that its due to western interference in Arabic lands and if we stopped this, the problem would resolve. I personally don't buy into this at all and think the problems are deeper.

Edited by Renton
Link to post
Share on other sites

The version of all religions that's described as radical or extreme just happens to be the one truest to the source.

 

Moderate religions exist because even people who believe dilute them based on what I'd call proper human nature.

 

Unfortunately the outliers of humanity can find plenty to hang their nut job hats on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...