Horley CTFC Saint Posted 8 September, 2015 Share Posted 8 September, 2015 how many argentine terrorists did the sun create in 1982? What the hell have Argentine terrorists got to do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 8 September, 2015 Share Posted 8 September, 2015 The Argentinians. You mean a government who invaded a territory in which the population was almost unanimously opposed to their sovereignty, leading to the deaths of over 900 people in an utterly pointless conflict, over a piece of land they have no legitimate need for. All in a vain effort to drum up national pride and distract their own citizens from the awful state of the economy back home. Were we mean to them? Oh boo hoo. Nevertheless, Argentinians...anyway who created the environment for an exponential growth in Islamic fundamentalist terrorism?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 8 September, 2015 Share Posted 8 September, 2015 What the hell have Argentine terrorists got to do with anything? Because in the same way that the gotcha headline didn't create any terrorists, this one has also failed to create Islamic ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 8 September, 2015 Share Posted 8 September, 2015 Nevertheless, Argentinians...anyway who created the environment for an exponential growth in Islamic fundamentalist terrorism?! Hard line Imams, brutal dictators and ancient conflicts between various caliphates of Sunni and Shia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAndWhite91 Posted 8 September, 2015 Share Posted 8 September, 2015 We were at war with Germany. This conflict is a lot less black and white. We may be at war with terrorists but they don't wear convenient uniforms and they don't come from just one country. The rules of engagement are a lot more cloudy than they used to be. Of course. But when your intelligence tells you that these chaps are ISIS terrorists from the UK, are you not supposed to engage because this conflict is different than previous conflicts? The uniforms may be different, but there are many similarities. Not forgetting the Middle Ages where we sent thousands of God fearing Christians to the Middle East to butcher those nasty Muslims. Good to know we have the moral higher ground. Not quite as simple as that is it... For example, calls for First Crusade caused the massacre of thousands of Jews in France and Germany... The last crusade was what, 800 years ago? I can't see how this is a legitimate reason for Islamist aggression. It'd be like us kicking off with Norway for their "Viking" raids and the murder of Christians on British soil over 1000 years ago...! The WMD thing I can understand, a lie and I think Blair et al should be held accountable. I just think the Crusades are largely irrelevant these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 8 September, 2015 Share Posted 8 September, 2015 how many argentine terrorists did the sun create in 1982? I assumed that Horley etc was referring to the groups that have been upset by Sun headlines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 8 September, 2015 Share Posted 8 September, 2015 Hard line Imams, brutal dictators and ancient conflicts between various caliphates of Sunni and Shia. Saudi petro-dollars funding and exporting their perverse version of Islam followed by the perfect storm of a f**ked up war leaving a power vacuum and ancient hatreds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 8 September, 2015 Share Posted 8 September, 2015 Not quite as simple as that is it... For example, calls for First Crusade caused the massacre of thousands of Jews in France and Germany... The last crusade was what, 800 years ago? I can't see how this is a legitimate reason for Islamist aggression. It'd be like us kicking off with Norway for their "Viking" raids and the murder of Christians on British soil over 1000 years ago...! The WMD thing I can understand, a lie and I think Blair et al should be held accountable. I just think the Crusades are largely irrelevant these days. Wrong. The word crusade in itself causes outrage as they have long memories. Bush made the mistake as referring to US actions in the region as a crusade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 8 September, 2015 Share Posted 8 September, 2015 Wrong. The word crusade in itself causes outrage as they have long memories. Bush made the mistake as referring to US actions in the region as a crusade. Don't be so ridiculous. Long memories??? It's 800 years ago ffs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 8 September, 2015 Share Posted 8 September, 2015 (edited) Don't be so ridiculous. Long memories??? It's 800 years ago ffs... A quick google of how the Arab world reacted to Bush calling it a crusade should educate you. They are raised on stories of Saladin. Edited 8 September, 2015 by View From The Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAndWhite91 Posted 8 September, 2015 Share Posted 8 September, 2015 Bloody ridiculous then. I was interested in Second World War stuff growing up, doesn't mean I now want to wage war with Germany. Imagine actually holding an 800 year old grudge!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 8 September, 2015 Share Posted 8 September, 2015 Bloody ridiculous then. I was interested in Second World War stuff growing up, doesn't mean I now want to wage war with Germany. Imagine actually holding an 800 year old grudge!! Precisely. Any animosity is due to brainwashing and indoctrination and can't be blamed on the crusades in the slightest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 8 September, 2015 Share Posted 8 September, 2015 ISIS will never negotiate and agree to anything that they think will weaken their religion in even the smallest, tiniest way. They do not think "give and take" like normal people, they only take. They look upon The West as being weak and stupid and alas judging by some comments on here they are totally correct. Yes they will never be defeated in a conventional sense and their expansion can only be slowed down by not acting in a huggy fluffy goody two shoes way but by brute force. Anyone who cannot accept this are deluding themselves big time and making matters much, much worse for everyone else in the future. If you don't care about yourself for goodness sake stop being so selfish and start to think of future generations and the millions yet to be born. Do you really want them to be slaves to an ISIS controlled stone age religion? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 8 September, 2015 Share Posted 8 September, 2015 Precisely. Any animosity is due to brainwashing and indoctrination and can't be blamed on the crusades in the slightest. I know. No culture would be influenced by events 800 years or even 2000 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 8 September, 2015 Share Posted 8 September, 2015 Well, well, well even V. Putin says "We must aim to destroy IS at all costs" http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/vladimir-putin-is-right-we-must-aim-to-destroy-is-at-all-costs/ar-AAe3wpJ Read it and weep huggy fluffy appeasers :lol: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 If Clinton had given the go ahead to do the same to Bin Laden when he had the chance well before 9/11 the world would be a lot different now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 The situation with Brooks is just sticking the finger up by Murdoch. He has been talking the p*ss out of us for years and this is just another example of how he does it his way and doesn't give a sh*t about anything else. Sadly most of his customers don't get it until he comes out and trashes them directly, as he did with the population of Liverpool. Your hypocrisy here is outstanding, take a bow fella. 4 minutes before in post #18 you say: "in this country there is a basic rule - innocent until proven guilty. Were these "terrorists" given a fair trial and found guilty?". Then you say Murdoch re-hiring Brooks is Murdoch sticking his finger up. Yes, the same Rebekah Brooks found not guilty of any wrongdoing what so ever in a UK Court. Brilliant. I also don't like with your patronising attitude to Sun readers, also do you have something against male white van drivers (whatever that job is?). Wether you like it or not The Sun is by a long way the most popular newspaper in the UK, and the Newspaper industry in the UK is the most competitive in the World (which is a great thing). It is also read by more AB's & ABC1's than the Guardian and Independent combined. Also, Sun sales in Merseyside are pretty strong, plenty of retailers stock it and plenty of people buy it. According to focus groups there it's mainly because of a perceived excellent sports section (ironic I know). May I add that I think MacKenzie's coverage of Hillsborough was disgusting. May I also add there are no more than half a dozen staffers still on the Sun's team that were there when KM was there. My stance on this is as soon as anyone from the UK boards a flight/ ferry/ bus/ donkey to Syria to join IS they are no longer British, they see us as the enemy and hate our way of life. Good. Enjoy living an oppressive in a cave with all the comfort and trappings of the Stone Age, looking up into the sky worried the next drone over head is going to take you out. Scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Your hypocrisy here is outstanding, take a bow fella. 4 minutes before in post #18 you say: "in this country there is a basic rule - innocent until proven guilty. Were these "terrorists" given a fair trial and found guilty?". Then you say Murdoch re-hiring Brooks is Murdoch sticking his finger up. Yes, the same Rebekah Brooks found not guilty of any wrongdoing what so ever in a UK Court. Brilliant. I also don't like with your patronising attitude to Sun readers, also do you have something against male white van drivers (whatever that job is?). Wether you like it or not The Sun is by a long way the most popular newspaper in the UK, and the Newspaper industry in the UK is the most competitive in the World (which is a great thing). It is also read by more AB's & ABC1's than the Guardian and Independent combined. Also, Sun sales in Merseyside are pretty strong, plenty of retailers stock it and plenty of people buy it. According to focus groups there it's mainly because of a perceived excellent sports section (ironic I know). May I add that I think MacKenzie's coverage of Hillsborough was disgusting. May I also add there are no more than half a dozen staffers still on the Sun's team that were there when KM was there. My stance on this is as soon as anyone from the UK boards a flight/ ferry/ bus/ donkey to Syria to join IS they are no longer British, they see us as the enemy and hate our way of life. Good. Enjoy living an oppressive in a cave with all the comfort and trappings of the Stone Age, looking up into the sky worried the next drone over head is going to take you out. Scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Your hypocrisy here is outstanding, take a bow fella. 4 minutes before in post #18 you say: "in this country there is a basic rule - innocent until proven guilty. Were these "terrorists" given a fair trial and found guilty?". Then you say Murdoch re-hiring Brooks is Murdoch sticking his finger up. Yes, the same Rebekah Brooks found not guilty of any wrongdoing what so ever in a UK Court. Brilliant. I also don't like with your patronising attitude to Sun readers, also do you have something against male white van drivers (whatever that job is?). Wether you like it or not The Sun is by a long way the most popular newspaper in the UK, and the Newspaper industry in the UK is the most competitive in the World (which is a great thing). It is also read by more AB's & ABC1's than the Guardian and Independent combined. Also, Sun sales in Merseyside are pretty strong, plenty of retailers stock it and plenty of people buy it. According to focus groups there it's mainly because of a perceived excellent sports section (ironic I know). May I add that I think MacKenzie's coverage of Hillsborough was disgusting. May I also add there are no more than half a dozen staffers still on the Sun's team that were there when KM was there. My stance on this is as soon as anyone from the UK boards a flight/ ferry/ bus/ donkey to Syria to join IS they are no longer British, they see us as the enemy and hate our way of life. Good. Enjoy living an oppressive in a cave with all the comfort and trappings of the Stone Age, looking up into the sky worried the next drone over head is going to take you out. Scum. As you worked for The Sun I can understand why you always support it, but please do not use their tactics on me. Where did I say that Brooks was found guilty? She has been a part of the Murdoch culture for some time so my point is that he is happy to continue to use "his" people with "his" methods of selling newspapers. Being popular means nothing. One Direction are popular, does that make their music better than The Beatles, The Stones, Beethoven, Mozart, Bob Marley? No it just means that a lot of people currently like them, like The Osmonds and The Bay City Rollers. Whether their music will endure is another matter. I have nothing against White Van Man, I used it as a generic term. If you work in advertising you would know what I mean. As for readership, we have had this debate before, anyone who has seen the front page of The Sun is classified as a "reader." The Sun still employs MacKenzie as a columnist as I am sure you know. It also employs Katie Hopkins. Good luck with supporting their employment by the wonderful Sun. While we are at it perhaps you would also like to defend Murdoch's cynical move in closing the News of the World and then publishing a Sunday Sun soon after? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 ISIS will never negotiate and agree to anything that they think will weaken their religion in even the smallest, tiniest way. They do not think "give and take" like normal people, they only take. They look upon The West as being weak and stupid and alas judging by some comments on here they are totally correct. Yes they will never be defeated in a conventional sense and their expansion can only be slowed down by not acting in a huggy fluffy goody two shoes way but by brute force. Anyone who cannot accept this are deluding themselves big time and making matters much, much worse for everyone else in the future. If you don't care about yourself for goodness sake stop being so selfish and start to think of future generations and the millions yet to be born. Do you really want them to be slaves to an ISIS controlled stone age religion? . This is entirely the problem. We are right, they are wrong. It is the same with the Arabs and the Jews, with us and the IRA, it goes on and on. At some point all conflicts have to be resolved around a table and it will have to happen here - if it doesn't the killing will go on forever. It is not about who is right and who is wrong. It is about learning to live together and there are plenty of Muslims who want to live peacefully. If by weak and stupid you mean that we are pathetic for not nuking Syria, then I am happy to be weak and stupid. Unfortunately your standpoint just perpetuates death and misery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 I know. No culture would be influenced by events 800 years or even 2000 years ago. Tell that to the Christians or the Muslims or anybody else that follows religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 This is entirely the problem. We are right, they are wrong. It is the same with the Arabs and the Jews, with us and the IRA, it goes on and on. At some point all conflicts have to be resolved around a table and it will have to happen here - if it doesn't the killing will go on forever. It is not about who is right and who is wrong. It is about learning to live together and there are plenty of Muslims who want to live peacefully. If by weak and stupid you mean that we are pathetic for not nuking Syria, then I am happy to be weak and stupid. Unfortunately your standpoint just perpetuates death and misery. How do you negotiate with an enemy that sees only your death and the destruction of your way of life as acceptable? I also hope that you do not associate the moderate Muslim majority with the fanatics of ISIS? They must be referred to separately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Of course. But when your intelligence tells you that these chaps are ISIS terrorists from the UK, are you not supposed to engage because this conflict is different than previous conflicts? The uniforms may be different, but there are many similarities. Not quite as simple as that is it... For example, calls for First Crusade caused the massacre of thousands of Jews in France and Germany... The last crusade was what, 800 years ago? I can't see how this is a legitimate reason for Islamist aggression. It'd be like us kicking off with Norway for their "Viking" raids and the murder of Christians on British soil over 1000 years ago...! The WMD thing I can understand, a lie and I think Blair et al should be held accountable. I just think the Crusades are largely irrelevant these days. Many Vikings came to live here and took our religion. Scandinavians have gave up their old Gods for Christianity. The Crusades were a "Holy Way." Jihad means "Holy War." Christians are fighting Muslims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 This is entirely the problem. We are right, they are wrong. It is the same with the Arabs and the Jews, with us and the IRA, it goes on and on. At some point all conflicts have to be resolved around a table and it will have to happen here - if it doesn't the killing will go on forever. It is not about who is right and who is wrong. It is about learning to live together and there are plenty of Muslims who want to live peacefully. If by weak and stupid you mean that we are pathetic for not nuking Syria, then I am happy to be weak and stupid. Unfortunately your standpoint just perpetuates death and misery. But parties get round the table and talk when there is something to negotiate, when each side can give something to the other. What would the negotiation with Isis be about? What could we offer them to make them stop? And what do you propose happens to Isis in the mean time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 what the hell have Argentinians got to do with anything? You are spending far too much time in that Batcave. I was talking about The Sun's use of comic headlines. As Whitey points out - it was "Gotcha" then and "Wham! Bam! Thank You Cam" now. It has nothing to do with Argentinians. It is about The Sun. Do keep up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 How do you negotiate with an enemy that sees only your death and the destruction of your way of life as acceptable? I also hope that you do not associate the moderate Muslim majority with the fanatics of ISIS? They must be referred to separately. We ended up negotiating with the IRA. We ended up negotiating with many people that we fought against when we were losing our Empire including the United States. If the only way to end this is to kill all militant Muslims, doesn't that strike you as a) impossible and b) totally xenophobic? If you read my last post again I say that most Muslims want to live in peace. I think most people want to live in peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 (edited) We ended up negotiating with the IRA. We ended up negotiating with many people that we fought against when we were losing our Empire including the United States. If the only way to end this is to kill all militant Muslims, doesn't that strike you as a) impossible and b) totally xenophobic? If you read my last post again I say that most Muslims want to live in peace. I think most people want to live in peace. The IRA wanted Irish independence, not the extermination of all Protestants. The wars in the old Empire where equally about the right to self determination. ISIS want to destroy, kill, convert, fundamentally end anything that has a different perspective. To top it off they see their own deaths as being a glorious martyrdom to their god and beliefs... They would embrace a war to the death. How do you negotiate with that? By their own perspective they cannot lose! Do God's work or die trying and go to heaven. As for killing all militant Muslims, I would rather have a different solution. But can I see one? I would only hope that should the core of ISIS be destroyed then common sense would prevail in those who submitted to their will for the sake of staying in their homes and having a semblance of an easier life. Edited 9 September, 2015 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Because in the same way that the gotcha headline didn't create any terrorists, this one has also failed to create Islamic ones. Just try thinking a bit harder. Earlier on I said it is what lies behind the headlines that helps perpetuate the issues between the West and between Islam. Why do you think that people of a different religion want to kill us? Is it just because our women dress differently and we eat fast food and don't go to church on Sundays? They see us as a threat to their way of life (no wonder given what happen in Desert Storm) just as we seem them as a threat to our way of life. You have no doubt heard the phrase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?" Something is happening in this country that is radicalising some members of our population to want to take action against the rest. If you think that treating the deaths of people as something from a computer game as The Sun did the other day helps the situation then fair play. I just think it helps to foster the problems that we are trying to eradicate. All to sell a few more newspapers. Sorry Jackanory but I think your newspaper is scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 The IRA wanted Irish independence, not the extermination of all Protestants. The wars in the old Empire where equally about the right to self determination. ISIS want to destroy, kill, convert, fundamentally end anything that has a different perspective. And to top it off they see their own deaths as being a glorious martyrdom to their god and beliefs... They would embrace a war to the death. How do you negotiate with that? As for killing all militant Muslims, I would rather have a different solution. But can I see one? I would only hope that should the core of ISIS be destroyed then common sense would prevail in those who submitted to their will for the sake of staying in their homes and having a semblance of an easier life. They were killing Protestants in order to get what they wanted weren't they? If you have done any work on negotiating you will know that no matter how intractable situations might seen, you work to find common ground. ISIS will know that you cannot live in a constant state of war. Yes, the headstrong will want to fight to the death but in all conflicts there comes a point where the leaders understand that they have to find a way of living with the "enemy." There are extreme Christians just as there are extreme Muslims. The moderates need to be heard and they need to stand up to the extremists, on both sides of the divide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 They were killing Protestants in order to get what they wanted weren't they? If you have done any work on negotiating you will know that no matter how intractable situations might seen, you work to find common ground. ISIS will know that you cannot live in a constant state of war. Yes, the headstrong will want to fight to the death but in all conflicts there comes a point where the leaders understand that they have to find a way of living with the "enemy." There are extreme Christians just as there are extreme Muslims. The moderates need to be heard and they need to stand up to the extremists, on both sides of the divide. You are missing the point. ISIS exist to destroy. Not survive, but actively destroy anything separate to their own ways. The core of their being is to be in a constant state of war with anything that is different. You are treating them as something akin to a freedom fight, they are however genocidal fanatics that have a broader agenda then Nazi Germany. Trying to find common ground here is pointless and simply prolongs the suffering of those caught in the middle. They must be destroyed and the longer we dilly dally the stronger they become and the weaker we appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 You are missing the point. ISIS exist to destroy. Not survive, but actively destroy anything separate to their own ways. The core of their being is to be in a constant state of war with anything that is different. You are treating them as something akin to a freedom fight, they are however genocidal fanatics that have a broader agenda then Nazi Germany. Trying to find common ground here is pointless and simply prolongs the suffering of those caught in the middle. They must be destroyed and the longer we dilly dally the stronger they become and the weaker we appear. Okay, so how do you propose we destroy them? Drones and missiles don't come cheap and there members live all over the place in lots of different communities. The USA found to their cost that they couldn't defeat guerrillas in Vietnam. These were fanatics too, willing to destroy and to die for their cause. You want to destroy them all fine, but for every one you kill you create another and you end up being no better and just perpetuating the suffering for the people caught in the middle as you call them. I really don't think this is a conflict that either side can win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Okay, so how do you propose we destroy them? Drones and missiles don't come cheap and there members live all over the place in lots of different communities. The USA found to their cost that they couldn't defeat guerrillas in Vietnam. These were fanatics too, willing to destroy and to die for their cause. You want to destroy them all fine, but for every one you kill you create another and you end up being no better and just perpetuating the suffering for the people caught in the middle as you call them. I really don't think this is a conflict that either side can win. How would you stop someone believing in their religion? Their religious interpretation? How does you, the infidel, the creation of an evil, decadent, destructive society convince someone that they have been warped onto a path of sin? Of the two perspectives we are coming from, one humours the faction that wants to destroy, the other seeks to stop it. Good luck Chamberlain, I'm sticking with the Churchillian route. Sticking with the past precedents that you enjoy, out of Nazi Germany and WW2 came the United Nations, European union and institutionalised peace in a part of the world (Yes, Europe) that had nothing but a history of bloody international wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Why would you want them to stop believing in their religion? They have as much right to theirs as Christians do. I am sure you will know that the Koran does not preach the destruction of others and that most Muslims are peaceful and respectful of other just as most Christians are. The United Nations, European Union etc came after many wars and through negotiation to try and make the world a safer place to live in. We need to find a way to do that in the Middle East without killing everybody. If we can sit around table with the perpetrators of the 2nd World War surely we can sit around a table with the perpetrators of the current problems at some point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Why would you want them to stop believing in their religion? They have as much right to theirs as Christians do. I am sure you will know that the Koran does not preach the destruction of others and that most Muslims are peaceful and respectful of other just as most Christians are. The United Nations, European Union etc came after many wars and through negotiation to try and make the world a safer place to live in. We need to find a way to do that in the Middle East without killing everybody. If we can sit around table with the perpetrators of the 2nd World War surely we can sit around a table with the perpetrators of the current problems at some point? I have not said that Muslims have no right to follow their religion. As you say, Islam is fundamentally peaceful, therefore stop associating ISIS and their warped interpretation and ideology as one and the same. Equally, where in Christianity does it say 'Kill all Jews?' Didn't stop Nazi Germany. We didn't sit around the table with the key perpetrators of World War 2, they died. Mussolini was strung up and paraded through the streets, Hitler was incinerated by Joseph Goebells shortly before he himself committed suicide. We dealt with the moderate underlings to push forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 I have not said that Muslims have no right to follow their religion. As you say, Islam is fundamentally peaceful, therefore stop associating ISIS and their warped interpretation and ideology as one and the same. Equally, where in Christianity does it say 'Kill all Jews?' Didn't stop Nazi Germany. We didn't sit around the table with the key perpetrators of World War 2, they died. We dealt with the moderate underlings. We still dealt with people that were are part of the aggression (or were they "only following orders") but we are going round in circles so I think it best that we agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Why would you want them to stop believing in their religion? They have as much right to theirs as Christians do. I am sure you will know that the Koran does not preach the destruction of others and that most Muslims are peaceful and respectful of other just as most Christians are. The United Nations, European Union etc came after many wars and through negotiation to try and make the world a safer place to live in. We need to find a way to do that in the Middle East without killing everybody. If we can sit around table with the perpetrators of the 2nd World War surely we can sit around a table with the perpetrators of the current problems at some point? The perpetrators of the second world war were all killed! It was only after that that the non fanatical murderous ones were talked to. There is no getting round the table with isis. They have no interest in any sort of negotiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 (edited) We still dealt with people that were are part of the aggression (or were they "only following orders") but we are going round in circles so I think it best that we agree to disagree. No, you have no basis to your argument, we are not going around in circles i'm just showing how utterly and fundamentally flawed it is. I will not agree to disagree because I think your concepts are horribly dangerous. You seek to appease an entity that would see everything you believe in burn and believe themselves righteous in the process. Frankly, you scare me. Edited 9 September, 2015 by Colinjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Well the Sun spoke for me. I expect they also spoke for the thousands of desperate Syrian and Iraqi refugees forced to abandon the land they have lived in for centuries, and who have witnessed friends and families butchered or daughters taken off to be sold as sex slaves. They probably spoke for British Jews who can no longer walk the streets safely of parts of our country because of a modern day intolerance that has its place in a different century. I would assume they spoke for the gay community who must look on with horror at seeing homosexuals thrown from the top of buildings simply because they are gay. I would think they also spoke for the overwhelming majority of ordinary British Muslims that simply want to live in harmony without the uncertainty and fear of association with these medieval barbarians in the name of their fine religion. The Sun said what most people were thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 We still dealt with people that were are part of the aggression (or were they "only following orders") but we are going round in circles so I think it best that we agree to disagree. So what you are saying then is that we have to get rid of the main perpetrators until the only ones left are the more moderate ones who we can then talk to in order to negotiate something. Good we agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 The perpetrators of the second world war were all killed! It was only after that that the non fanatical murderous ones were talked to. There is no getting round the table with isis. They have no interest in any sort of negotiation. All of them? Really? What about the members of the IRA who now have tea with the Queen? Didn't they kill her husband's uncle? Well, good luck with killing everyone in ISIS. Lets see how that works out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 All of them? Really? What about the members of the IRA who now have tea with the Queen? Didn't they kill her husband's uncle? Well, good luck with killing everyone in ISIS. Lets see how that works out. You really don't understand this, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 All of them? Really? What about the members of the IRA who now have tea with the Queen? Didn't they kill her husband's uncle? Well, good luck with killing everyone in ISIS. Lets see how that works out. The main perpetrators were killed which is what we are currently doing in Syria against Isis. I really don't understand your argument. You agree that there is no negotiating with the main fanatics and that we should seek to negotiate with those who are less extreme once the extremists have been wiped out. So what's the argument? What would you do differently? Seek to get round a table to talk with jihadi John? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Well the Sun spoke for me. I expect they also spoke for the thousands of desperate Syrian and Iraqi refugees forced to abandon the land they have lived in for centuries, and who have witnessed friends and families butchered or daughters taken off to be sold as sex slaves. They probably spoke for British Jews who can no longer walk the streets safely of parts of our country because of a modern day intolerance that has its place in a different century. I would assume they spoke for the gay community who must look on with horror at seeing homosexuals thrown from the top of buildings simply because they are gay. I would think they also spoke for the overwhelming majority of ordinary British Muslims that simply want to live in harmony without the uncertainty and fear of association with these medieval barbarians in the name of their fine religion. The Sun said what most people were thinking. Most people? I think that all of the other media outlets dealt with the news in a way that "most people" found respectful and acceptable. I think a lot of people would have found The Sun's front page crass but if you like it, fair dos. By the way, we used to hang women and put homosexuals in prison in this country not so long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 All of them? Really? What about the members of the IRA who now have tea with the Queen? Didn't they kill her husband's uncle? Well, good luck with killing everyone in ISIS. Lets see how that works out. Do you actually have a point to make, instead of typing the first bit of rambling old nonsense that comes into your head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Do you actually have a point to make, instead of typing the first bit of rambling old nonsense that comes into your head? His point I think is that people can change.... except the ones who cannot..... but don't kill them..... unless the only to way to negotiate and find peace is to get them out of the way..... oh, and anyone who is arguing against his points thinks that Islam/ISIS is the same thing...... unless they have made that difference clear first..... Or something. I actually think there is a degree of common ground between my opinion and perspective and Sadoldgits..... but he is too preoccupied with the moral high ground to see it. Hands are going to be dirtied one way or another here. Lets not get caught up in the undesirable details lest it put you off. Tough situations require tough decisions. No win scenarios are simply life itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 You really don't understand this, do you? If you say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Do you actually have a point to make, instead of typing the first bit of rambling old nonsense that comes into your head? This helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 His point I think is that people can change.... except the ones who cannot..... but don't kill them..... unless the only to way to negotiate and find peace is to get them out of the way..... oh, and anyone who is arguing against his points thinks that Islam/ISIS is the same thing...... unless they have made that difference clear first..... Or something. I actually think there is a degree of common ground between my opinion and perspective and Sadoldgits..... but he is too preoccupied with the moral high ground to see it. Hands are going to be dirtied one way or another here. Lets not get caught up in the undesirable details lest it put you off. Tough situations require tough decisions. No win scenarios are simply life itself. I don't think that there is anything wrong in moral high ground. We can spend all day grubbing around in the low ground but with what end result? At some point someone has to be big enough to say that we can either go on killing each other or we can try and find a peaceful resolution. Can you really say that we in the West are squeaky clean? Do you really think that Desert Storm was all about the Moral High Ground, or was it about oil? I don't disagree that hands are going to be dirtied. goodness knows there has been plenty of killing on both sides so far with more to come no doubt. But it isn't going to end it one way or the other. You simply cant beat terrorists, this is nothing like fighting an army in the field. They will go on with their terrorist attacks and we will go on with our drone strikes until someone says this is enough, we need to find another way to deal with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 The main perpetrators were killed which is what we are currently doing in Syria against Isis. I really don't understand your argument. You agree that there is no negotiating with the main fanatics and that we should seek to negotiate with those who are less extreme once the extremists have been wiped out. So what's the argument? What would you do differently? Seek to get round a table to talk with jihadi John? There are plenty of top people from the IRA who are now talking to us as politicians rather than terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 (edited) I don't think that there is anything wrong in moral high ground. We can spend all day grubbing around in the low ground but with what end result? At some point someone has to be big enough to say that we can either go on killing each other or we can try and find a peaceful resolution. Can you really say that we in the West are squeaky clean? Do you really think that Desert Storm was all about the Moral High Ground, or was it about oil? I don't disagree that hands are going to be dirtied. goodness knows there has been plenty of killing on both sides so far with more to come no doubt. But it isn't going to end it one way or the other. You simply cant beat terrorists, this is nothing like fighting an army in the field. They will go on with their terrorist attacks and we will go on with our drone strikes until someone says this is enough, we need to find another way to deal with each other. Of course the West isn't squeaky clean. I'm not blind to that truth. Humanity is morally dubious by it's very nature. And Terrorism cannot be beaten by a war, they do not have convenient armies. Terrorism is based on ideals, not territory. Isis however do, they have armies and Militias that have captured swaythes of the Levant. They have a capital, Raqqa. ISIS can be fought conventionally. Militant Islamic terrorism and ISIS may have intrinsic links, but they are not one and the same. This is an enemy that can be fought and it's back can be broken. You cannot destroy an ideal, but you can destroy a construct. ISIS.... Islamic State.... That is an entity that can be crushed. Edited 9 September, 2015 by Colinjb 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