Terrorism

[Rayvin 4964]

no, you're right. we fanned the flames, like i have already said. we didn't create the ideology though. the nutjobs who inspire people to blow themselves up in the name of a religion do so because they're fascists. they hate all non believers, even some other muslims, not just "the west" 

 

Yeah that's true as well, you certainly can't say it's only the West who suffer these people. I'm sure aimaad has pointed out before that Islamic countries suffer far more terrorism than we do (which does make it seem political once again...)

 

Anyway we seem to have concluded this discussion on a point of relative agreement.

[Rayvin 4964]

it was the collective will of the board tbf. the end of his time here was a dark time. imagine living in the calpihate. LM was our very own baghdadi 

 

 

It was just before i started posting actively, so while I have some memory of Leazes, I think I missed the 'final solution' aspect of his time here. One thing you have to say for him though is that he's too stubborn (fortunately) to do a Thompers. He could get back on if he really wanted to - he just won't do it.

 

What was Renton's role in it anyway? The figurehead of the anti-Leazes movement?

[Happy Face 29]

Was it Renton who got Leazes banned?

 

Not specifically, think he was particularly supportive of a ban long before it happened though.  Unsurprisingly, from the freedom hating rights suppressor.

[Dr Gloom 19826]

i take it back, rayvin. i've pasted our exchange from earlier below. you said the west was responsible for homegrown islamist terrorism. you didn't specify suicide bombers, when i followed up. 

 

 

Anyway I basically agree with the caveat that it is actually the West's fault, IMO, that these people are in our countries and blowing us up, and that they'd likely be content to hate us from afar if we weren't meddling.
 

What about home grown suicide bombers? Is that the west's fault?

I think most moderate Muslims would tell you that's bollocks. These are deranged, brainwashed terrorists.

Travelling to Syria to fight for the Isis cause is one thing. If you ask me it's also deranged but you could argue they're fighting a war at least, no matter how twisted the cause to create a caliphate might be.

Detonating a suicide vest on an underground train during rush hour or outside a busy football stadium is something else entirely. Indefensible and in no part the fault of "the west", sorry. The motive here is to massacre as many civilians as possible. Let's not be afraid to call it for what it is.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Dr Gloom

[Park Life 70]

Renton killed Leazes and nicked all his ideas. It was Stalin - Trotsky thing. Also a bit like in voodoo where the soul of the person you kill infiltrates your soul. He's been eating garlic like a fucker under that desk.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Park Life

[Dr Gloom 19826]

Not specifically, think he was particularly supportive of a ban long before it happened though.  Unsurprisingly, from the freedom hating rights suppressor.

 

 

 

you've got to fight for your right to not be able to show your face in public. 

[Dr Gloom 19826]

Renton killed Leazes and nicked all his ideas. It was Stalin - Trotsky thing.

 

i can't remember anyone but stevie saying he shouldn't be banned like - what a tedious bore he was in the end. 

[Rayvin 4964]

i take it back, rayvin. i've pasted our exchange from earlier below. you said the west was responsible for homegrown islamist terrorism. you didn't specify suicide bombers, when i followed up. 

 

 

What about home grown suicide bombers? Is that the west's fault?

 

I think most moderate Muslims would tell you that's bollocks. These are deranged, brainwashed terrorists.

 

Travelling to Syria to fight for the Isis cause is one thing. If you ask me it's also deranged but you could argue they're fighting a war at least, no matter how twisted the cause to create a caliphate might be.

 

Detonating a suicide vest on an underground train during rush hour or outside a busy football stadium is something else entirely. Indefensible and in no part the fault of "the west", sorry. The motive here is to massacre as many civilians as possible. Let's not be afraid to call it for what it is.

 

I don't see how calling it what it is, as you have done, and which I agree with, means we can't also look at the underlying causes though? Let's say they are deranged and brainwashed - because they are - how do people end up in that state? You can't just go up to a sane and well adjusted person and brainwash them. These people will be angry and hateful anyway. HF cited the Pentagon earlier for one thing, and they make points that support the idea that it's more complicated than just ideology. You'd think they'd know what they're talking about.

[Meenzer 14055]

i can't remember anyone but stevie saying he shouldn't be banned like - what a tedious bore he was in the end. 

 

And so was Leazes

[Park Life 70]

i can't remember anyone but stevie saying he shouldn't be banned like - what a tedious bore he was in the end. 

Yeah but we now have to deal with this hybrid Reazes.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Park Life

[Rayvin 4964]

[Dr Gloom 19826]

I don't see how calling it what it is, as you have done, and which I agree with, means we can't also look at the underlying causes though? Let's say they are deranged and brainwashed - because they are - how do people end up in that state? You can't just go up to a sane and well adjusted person and brainwash them. These people will be angry and hateful anyway. HF cited the Pentagon earlier for one thing, and they make points that support the idea that it's more complicated than just ideology. You'd think they'd know what they're talking about.

 

it's easier to brainwash people when they're angry and seeking justice or revenge. but yeah, the point is that jihadism would exist, on a smaller scale, with or without western intervention.

 

it's roots are from the quaran. thie word jihad means different things to different people. to many moderate muslims, it's simply a spiritual duty to spread the word of the religion. sounds fair enough doesn't it? and perfectly acceptable interpretation, regardless of your stance on religion.

 

to others, it's a physical struggle, which can be translated as a holy war, which clearly the likes of isis have taken to new extremes. 

 

so while the west does shoulder some responsibility for exacerbating the latter interpretation, it's roots are religious. 

[Alex 30426]

Eventually all opposition is crushed on here. It's like North Korea

[Dr Gloom 19826]

Yeah but we now have to deal with this hybrid Reazes.

 

a low blow 

[Happy Face 29]

i can't remember anyone but stevie saying he shouldn't be banned like - what a tedious bore he was in the end. 

 

I supported him for ages on the public and moderator board.  It was eventually giving up on him that left me riddled with guilt and redoubled my resolve to defend the fuck heads that least deserve it.

 

Think Tom had/has time for him as well.

 

EDIT: Ironically, he hounded me on Twitter for months about banning him so I ended up blocking him on there.  We liberals don't like it when those we defend bring harm to our own door.

[Kid Dynamite 5924]

And so was Leazes

[Alex 30426]

Leazes was great crack when he was on about Tony Green and the like. In the end that accounted for about 1% of his output (which is probably being generous). He got himself banned really. A quick look at his twitter feed suggests it was best for all concerned.

[ChezGiven 0]

i can't remember anyone but stevie saying he shouldn't be banned like - what a tedious bore he was in the end. 

 

I got absolute pelters for saying he shouldn't be banned. HF and me were standing up for freedom of expression and the right not to be a massive bairn. Was not a popular position. 

[Alex 30426]

I got absolute pelters for saying he shouldn't be banned. HF and me were standing up for freedom of expression and the right not to be a massive bairn. Was not a popular position. 

Aye but that was just you being contrary

[Rayvin 4964]

it's easier to brainwash people when they're angry and seeking justice or revenge. but yeah, the point is that jihadism would exist, on a smaller scale, with or without western intervention.

 

it's roots are from the quaran. thie word jihad means different things to different people. to many moderate muslims, it's simply a spiritual duty to spread the word of the religion. sounds fair enough doesn't it? and perfectly acceptable interpretation, regardless of your stance on religion.

 

to others, it's a physical struggle, which can be translated as a holy war, which clearly the likes of isis have taken to new extremes. 

 

so while the west does shoulder some responsibility for exacerbating the latter interpretation, it's roots are religious. 

 

I fully agree that this stuff is in the Qu'ran. To be honest, as I posted earlier, I'm no defender of Islam. It's hugely right wing, and not in the least bit aligned with modern Western secular democracies. While it will add to our overall culture to a degree, it certainly seems more like something we tolerate rather than embrace.

 

I'm just keen that, as well as acknowledging this, we acknowledge that much of the strife we have in this respect comes from our own ridiculous decision making by *drum roll* an establishment that is more concerned about profits and ensuring its own power than it is about the actual lives of ordinary people.

 

Yes, I did manage to shoehorn anti-establishment sentiments into this post

[ChezGiven 0]

Aye but that was just you being contrary

 

No it wasn't. 

[NJS 3981]

I didn't and don't like to see anyone getting banned but at the end he seemed to be adding in an extra helping of obnoxiousness with the intent of daring Ant to do it.

 

For example he was getting really nasty with his personal attacks on Renton iirc.

[Dr Gloom 19826]

No it wasn't. 

[Dr Gloom 19826]

an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition, it isn't just contradiction

 

no it isn't

[Rayvin 4964]

Never realised the Leazes issue was this divisive... I always had the impression the whole board rose up and smote him.

 

I can't really comment though, other than to say that if someone were to draw up a history of this board, noting key events in a timeline, his banning would be a key event and the following period would be known as the post-Leazes era. It seemed a significant moment.

 

I'd say we're now in the post-CT era though.

 

I like naming time periods

Edited November 3, 2016 by Rayvin