Renton 17719 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 (edited) Well done for wasting my time by being a wum. You're the flip side of Leazes. Edited November 4, 2016 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34314 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Dudes. Let's all chill out and revisit my excellent joke of a couple of pages ago. It's Friday night, there's simply no need for this macho posturing. Any more and I'll strap on a suicide vest of insults and blow the pair of you up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19770 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Not exactly Friday night bantz is it. Shall we get back to discussing the merits of Kim Kardashian's arse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Iceland!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14030 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Kerry Katona is displeased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 She'd never boycott bacon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Of course ISIS are going to target what are in their eyes the worst transgressors where they have the most capacity to harm first. But if they had the capability to strike Iceland, they would. After all, what had Belgium done that was so heinous? What about the Japanese tourists they killed? What about the multitude of nationalities massacred in Nice? I see you've extended your scope to include blasphemy as a genuine motive.Well guess what? We are all blasphemous in their eyes. They indiscriminately kill just about everyone who is not of them. Christians, Jews, shiites, kurds, yazeedis, atheists, gays, the whole lot. Their stated aim is a worldwide caliphate to be achieved through violent conflict. Your denial of this is staggering. Isis don't have limited capacity do they? The attackers they encourage don't work in organised cells with funding and top down planning. They don't await orders. The whole spoint is that Muslims independently attack non believers anywhere in the world. None seem to in countries that have not interfered in the Muslim world though. Belgium is a participant in the ongoing military intervention against ISIL. ISIL stated Belgium was targeted as "a country participating in the international coalition against the Islamic State" Bangladesh was a coalition member in Iraq before the Japanese tourist murder. ISIL stated after the attack "There will continue to be a series of ongoing security operations against nationals of crusader coalition countries" And of Nice, Isis said "He carried out the operation in response to calls to target nationals of states that are part of the coalition fighting Islamic State." My scope was anything outside of the number 1 PRIMARY motive you and Toonotl insisted had to be taken as fact. Blasphemy only came in at number 4 on that list so can't be what radicalised anyone, by your rules. So we still don't have any examples of anyone being radicalised enough to attack a target solely because it's non-muslim. Let alone a majority of them. This suggests to me that non believers aren't what gets them angriest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17719 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Well I guess we should ask an Icelandic ordinary Joe to travel to ISIS controlled Syria to test your laughable theory out then. Agreed? Gemmill's right though, this is getting us nowhere and it's Friday night so fuck it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19770 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Nothing like a serious discussion on a Friday night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26224 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 I've lost track with just who's a racist about here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17719 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Except to say that's another bizarre claim by HF, that Isis do not have limited capacity: that is their capacity is unlimited. If that were true every single member of this board up to, and probably including aimaad, would be dead right now. The possibility radical Muslims are kept in check by the much aligned security forces completely escapes HF. After all though, if this were not the case, surely the US would have suffered more horrors going by his own logic. Right I'm referring to HF in the third person which isn't polite and it really is Friday, so I promise to leave it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5899 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17719 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 The bit about them operating in self autonomous cells is correct though, for clarity. I doubt there ate enough Muslims in Reykjavik to make 10% of a cell though. Lack of capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5899 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Fwiw i don't think he's racist. And I'm pretty sure he knew I was taking the piss telling him to start a message board with Stevie and Leazes ffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17719 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Renton As ever, insightful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17719 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Fwiw i don't think he's racist. And I'm pretty sure he knew I was taking the piss telling him to start a message board with Stevie and Leazes ffs Well I don't understand then why you have previously stated islamophobia is the same as racism then? It's not, is it? Have you changed your mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5899 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 I don't recall saying that. I think I recall you saying you weren't an islamaphobe this morning though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17719 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 I don't recall saying that. I think I recall you saying you weren't an islamaphobe this morning though You actually went to the effort of providing a weblink to back up your definition man. It was the day after the Bataclan massacre. If anyone else can be arsed to find the posts fair enough but I can't. You must be wumming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5899 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 I possibly did say that then. The two aren't that far removed. You might plead that refusing to see a doctor in a hijab is a noble gesture on your behalf to fight Islam's prejudices against women but, in reality, the end product is no different to Barry BNP refusing to see her as well. You won't see her because of her religion or what she's wearing, regardless of how good a doctor she is or how nice a lady. If framing it that way makes it easier on your conscience then that's fine but you can't get upset when people call you on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19770 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 What a load of bollocks man. There's nothing racist about feeling pity or unease at some poor lass who feels obliged to cover her face in public in the name of religion. You can call this out for what it is - cultural misogyny. Doesn't make you an islamophobe or racist ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17719 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 (edited) What a load of bollocks man. There's nothing racist about feeling pity or unease at some poor lass who feels obliged to cover her face in public in the name of religion. You can call this out for what it is - cultural misogyny. Doesn't make you an islamophobe or racist ffs. Thank fuck. And need I remind you J69, and presumably because of your suspect memory I do, the vast majority of UK DOCTORS agree with me too. Full face coverings have no place in a doctors surgery. It isn't the patient's problem, it's the female muslim doctor's. . Edited November 4, 2016 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Incredible to me anyone intelligent enough to be a doctor is so indoctrinated into the community hoodoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4963 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 You get Christian doctors, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5899 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 What a load of bollocks man. There's nothing racist about feeling pity or unease at some poor lass who feels obliged to cover her face in public in the name of religion. You can call this out for what it is - cultural misogyny. Doesn't make you an islamophobe or racist ffs. Some poor lass she would be a postgrad qualified doctor man, not some backwater downtrodden lass who gets kicked in every night off her hubby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26224 Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Are there actually any doctors in the UK who wear a full face veil or are you all arguing about a Daily Mail headline? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now