General Chit Chat

[Jedi]

Taking action against suspected people instead of just saying they're suspected after an attack might be a nice start.....

They were talking about this on CNN and an ex-CIA director said that the problem is that they don't have the resources to monitor everyone that is a potential extremist. They pick around 10% of them that they think are 'most promising' and monitor them at all times. I don't understand why they just don't deport these people?

[GoonerAlexandre]

I have one issue with the whole theory of it being because of the Iraq war. There are almost zero locals in ISIS, most of their fighters, and all of its bombers are British/US born Muslims.

There is zero chance that all of them were inspired by ISIS from the internet. There has to be some other connection, some place that is radicalising native born Muslims.

It's not immigrant Muslims that are joining ISIS.....

Old article
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 54062.html

Radicalised Muslims in UK more likely to be born in Britain, rich and depressed

This is where the problem is. If it's because of the Iraq war, why aren't Iraqis doing it? It's British born teens. Not immigrant Muslims.

[GoonerAlexandre]

[snip]

We can kick and scream and demand justice till we're blue in the face, but when we're responsible for going to someone else's country and having thousands upon thousands of innocent deaths on our heads (Thanks Tony Blair etc) then what right do we have to justice exactly?

All good points.

But I have to ask, then what? Is it coming to the point where I have to say "well, it's me or mine, or them and theirs?". Is this what it is devolving into?

I cannot sit by and just accept this is the way it's going to be now. I will not.

As to the point you're making about people deliberately using the Qu'ran to further their goals, well I am in agreement. But, the literal versus in the Qu'ran are quite clear.

I'll let this apostate explain it. She's does it so much better than I can.

There can be no denying there are verses in the Quran that do call for attacks on non-Muslims, within the right context.

However, there is no verse that justifies attacking a concert where the only target are likely to be women......... attacking females is strictly forbidden. Iirc, you can't even attack them if they're attacking you.

[GoonerAlexandre]

The only real way to tackle this is to ensure that all funding to fundamentalist Muslim groups is stopped.

Groups like Shariah for Britain etc serve as the gateway drug for ISIS. The idea of wanting Islamic law in a non-Muslim majority country is the start of the descent into radicalisation. I was amazed to see Anjem Chaudhary being allowed to spit his venom for so many years, some of what he said would have him in jail in the Middle East for "inciting rebellion". He was never loyal to the UK.

These are the sort of people that have been allowed to stay in the UK for too long, allowing them to radicalise native Muslims and converts. It is because of these people that most ISIS members are native Brits/Americans and not immigrants.....

[DiamondGooner]

All good points.

But I have to ask, then what? Is it coming to the point where I have to say "well, it's me or mine, or them and theirs?". Is this what it is devolving into?

I cannot sit by and just accept this is the way it's going to be now. I will not.

Your broad stroking it too much "Me or them"?

You and who? Muslims?

So white Muslims, black Muslims, practically the whole of Asia etc etc, Muslims in America, Muslims in France, Muslims in China, what?

When the Irish were committing bombings did you say "Right its us or the Irish"?

Your issue is that you are not the one making the decisions here, the decisions on these issues lies in Washington and Downing Street.

Their policies dictate "your" foreign policy as a Britain.

So yes your a bit screwed, they've engaged you in a war you don't want to be in, because WMD's innit, because forced Democracy innit, we could of really just let them get on with it themselves right? would that have been so hard? Iraq actually had an economy and infrastructure before we destroyed the place.

They've gone out thousands of miles away and picked a fight we are now paying the price for, we kill them, they kill us .......... how do we opt out of that?

......... also considering they were so happy to claim the attack, why are we not beating 7 shades out of ISIS, they are a completely illegal force breaking every human rights law in the UN book, but then our Gov wants them active to take out Assad.

You have to look a lot closer to home to see where the problem lies.

[Luzh 22]

All good points.

But I have to ask, then what? Is it coming to the point where I have to say "well, it's me or mine, or them and theirs?". Is this what it is devolving into?

I cannot sit by and just accept this is the way it's going to be now. I will not.

Your broad stroking it too much "Me or them"?

You and who? Muslims?

So white Muslims, black Muslims, practically the whole of Asia etc etc, Muslims in America, Muslims in France, Muslims in China, what?

When the Irish were committing bombings did you say "Right its us or the Irish"?

Your issue is that you are not the one making the decisions here, the decisions on these issues lies in Washington and Downing Street.

Their policies dictate "your" foreign policy as a Britain.

So yes your a bit screwed, they've engaged you in a war you don't want to be in, because WMD's innit, because forced Democracy innit, we could of really just let them get on with it themselves right? would that have been so hard? Iraq actually had an economy and infrastructure before we destroyed the place.

They've gone out thousands of miles away and picked a fight we are now paying the price for, we kill them, they kill us .......... how do we opt out of that?

......... also considering they were so happy to claim the attack, why are we not beating 7 shades out of ISIS, they are a completely illegal force breaking every human rights law in the UN book, but then our Gov wants them active to take out Assad.

You have to look a lot closer to home to see where the problem lies.

I have no doubt about governments and successive governments in the west involvement and continued involvement in the exploitation of events to further their own interests, usually financial ones.

All I can do is cast my vote.

As for the broad strokes, well, like I said, is this what it is devolving into? Devolution in this context is a bad thing. But, what am I, a simple man to do? Do I just sit back and let it happen?

As I addressed in my original post, I can see no sensible solution this problem. We're all aware of the problem, we know its roots. If there is to be no reconciliation, then yes, it will devolve, eventually, into the "us or them" scenario. There is no other way.

[DiamondGooner]

As I addressed in my original post, I can see no sensible solution this problem. We're all aware of the problem, we know its roots. If there is to be no reconciliation, then yes, it will devolve, eventually, into the "us or them" scenario. There is no other way.

Your shouting for peace while the Gov who represents you is offering death, so yes your in a position of no reconciliation with ISIS and their followers, which also on your own back you're including all Muslims in general.

So do you now stop speaking to Cripps as he is one of "them"? Massa even, not sure if he's Muslim but he's a bit brown?

I'm half brown / half white so are you only going to speak to me half the time?

Where is the line?

[Yago]

Outlawing Islam isn't exactly going to stop this "war" either.... On the contrary.

And frankly your whole post is bullshit. The bible is open to interpretation too, that's how contemporary christians try to wiggle out of it being sexist and homophobic.

And what are you talking about when you suggest something "very drastic and very sad" has to happen? Do you want to outlaw a religion? Can you be that stupid? Or am I just reading all this the wrong way?

You can pick apart my post if you like, but don't forget to include the words "I'm not really advocating this". I'm not really sure what Christians and the bible have to do with this. But you are right, it is open to interpretation. I've not seen any Christians bombing a load of children in the name of their religion though.

To both you and UFGN, If you can offer up a better solution, I am all ears. I literally am out of ideas of how to deal with it.

The point was you said the problem with Islam was the Quran being open to interpretation. I was simply refuting that claim by telling you the bible's just as open to interpretation. And you haven't seen loads of christians bombing children, but rest assured in the knowledgde have done tons of heinous things in the name of their religion too.

[Luzh 22]

Outlawing Islam isn't exactly going to stop this "war" either.... On the contrary.

And frankly your whole post is bullshit. The bible is open to interpretation too, that's how contemporary christians try to wiggle out of it being sexist and homophobic.

And what are you talking about when you suggest something "very drastic and very sad" has to happen? Do you want to outlaw a religion? Can you be that stupid? Or am I just reading all this the wrong way?

You can pick apart my post if you like, but don't forget to include the words "I'm not really advocating this". I'm not really sure what Christians and the bible have to do with this. But you are right, it is open to interpretation. I've not seen any Christians bombing a load of children in the name of their religion though.

To both you and UFGN, If you can offer up a better solution, I am all ears. I literally am out of ideas of how to deal with it.

The point was you said the problem with Islam was the Quran being open to interpretation. I was simply refuting that claim by telling you the bible's just as open to interpretation. And you haven't seen loads of christians bombing children, but rest assured in the knowledgde have done tons of heinous things in the name of their religion too.

This post isn't about point scoring and comparing one crime with another. Yes, that is the nub of the problem. Particular verses in the Qu'ran are open to interpretation, and how they are applied by the reader.

Surely this goes without saying? I did say I didn't want to go into the details. You can watch that video I posted above by an apostate, you can read this:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran ... 2.html#191

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous - the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) - and oppression are not used instead of fitna. Fitna can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. A strict translation is 'sedition,' meaning rebellion against authority (the authority being Allah). This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

or carry on doing whatever it is you're doing.

You also haven't proffered up an alternative way to combat the issues, never mind one that is sensible.

[Yago]

Ah yes, I need to offer up an alternative to "lets outlaw this huge religion" before I can criticise it. Right... The truth is there is no simple way to solve this problem, and I can't think of a solution.

[Royal Gooner]

Ah yes, I need to offer up an alternative to "lets outlaw this huge religion" before I can criticise it. Right... The truth is there is no simple way to solve this problem, and I can't think of a solution.

Unlike Trump, Parliament does have the power to do that but that would be a government-ending move to say the least.

[Luzh 22]

Ah yes, I need to offer up an alternative to "lets outlaw this huge religion" before I can criticise it. Right... The truth is there is no simple way to solve this problem, and I can't think of a solution.

Exactly. Like I said, I wasn't really offering that up as a reasonable solution to the problems. I staed this clearly in my post. It was offered up in the same way as I offered up the "do nothing" leftist view, as a counter point to the "hardline" rightist view.

You didn't get that though, and immediately jumped down my throat, because the inconvenient truths offended you in some way.

And here we all are, stuck in this shit storm, with no way out.


Like I said to DG, eventually something has to give, because both the left and rights "solutions" are not solutions at all. It will go to shit, it's only a matter of time.

[Yago]

Ah yes, I need to offer up an alternative to "lets outlaw this huge religion" before I can criticise it. Right... The truth is there is no simple way to solve this problem, and I can't think of a solution.

Exactly. Like I said, I wasn't really offering that up as a reasonable solution to the problems. I staed this clearly in my post. It was offered up in the same way as I offered up the "do nothing" leftist view, as a counter point to the "hardline" rightist view.

You didn't get that though, and immediately jumped down my throat, because the inconvenient truths offended you in some way.

And here we all are, stuck in this shit storm, with no way out.


Like I said to DG, eventually something has to give, because both the left and rights "solutions" are not solutions at all. It will go to shit, it's only a matter of time.

Inconvenient truths? lol. Yours was no solution, if anything it would make things a million times worse.

[Luzh 22]

Ah yes, I need to offer up an alternative to "lets outlaw this huge religion" before I can criticise it. Right... The truth is there is no simple way to solve this problem, and I can't think of a solution.

Exactly. Like I said, I wasn't really offering that up as a reasonable solution to the problems. I staed this clearly in my post. It was offered up in the same way as I offered up the "do nothing" leftist view, as a counter point to the "hardline" rightist view.

You didn't get that though, and immediately jumped down my throat, because the inconvenient truths offended you in some way.

And here we all are, stuck in this shit storm, with no way out.


Like I said to DG, eventually something has to give, because both the left and rights "solutions" are not solutions at all. It will go to shit, it's only a matter of time.

Inconvenient truths? lol. Yours was no solution, if anything it would make things a million times worse.

This is the 3rd and final time I will say this:

I clearly stated in my post it was not a serious solution. Far from it in fact. I was highlighting the futility of the left (do nothing) and the right (hard line).


Comprehend?

[Slick]

Its been on the boil for centuries, sadly inbred now.

I wouldn't go that far, don't let the "Muslim vs Crusaders" UKIP stance cloud the actual truth.

The seeds for this were planted when we started meddling in the Middle East in the 1st WW, at that time we were loved as we helped the Arabs defeat the Ottoman Turks and actually gave them a country.
Unfortunately (depending on if your pro Israel or not) what we did since then is what's caused this.

We started off by funding and aiding the Jews to forcibly take Palestinian lands and they've been expanding ever since, then America aided the Iranian rebels to take out the Shah of Persia, then America helped prop up Saddam Hussien, CIA funded Osama and his Muhajadin boyz, then there was Desert Storm and Desert Storm MkII, Gaddafi, Afghanistan and now Syria ........ after apparently funding ISIS.

That's a lot of fkery to forgive for any one region and it has bollox all to do with religion, if anything and the reason why they find it so easy to recruit is because its easy to sell the fact that its actually the West who are on the Crusade ........ especially considering we only act within the Middle East while Muggabe can have a head hacking party and we just shrug.

These types of reprisals actually started with the Munich hostage attack which was ......... in protest about Israeli attacks on Palestinians.

Interesting that you bring up Munich.

The Israelis showed the world how to fight terrorists back then. It isn't with large armies or by raining drone strikes. You go at them slowly, methodically and avoid civilian causalities at all costs.

If you could tell ISIS to meet you at longitude:x and latitude:y and we'll settle this once and for all then by all means but that's just not how they work.

As an American, I'd like to see the US completely abandon the theater, beef up security at the ports, borders and airports back home and let the Muslims take out their own trash in the Middle East.