Terrorist Attacks - WARNING: CONTAINS DISTRESSING IMAGES

[CB Fry]

There's a couple more on the bingo card, chaps.

[hypochondriac]

It seems to me that the reason you lot didn't object at the time is because there was nothing in my post worth objecting to. If you really must criticise then you would better have opined that my post was too bland, rather than disingenuous.

 

But you too are invited to explain what exactly is so wrong in asking how that image made its way into the public domain.

 

Or because I couldn't be bothered to have another pointless debate with you? Guan has already pointed out exactly what was wrong with it. Read his posts if you want a reason.

[hypochondriac]

How about us all agreeing that in this modern day any atrocity be it religious based or not should be condemned and dealt with.

 

For whats its worth, I'm not even sure Isis give one jot about their religious beliefs, I think they are now just hell bent on unleashing their evils on the Western society probably because the West has in their mind poked their nose where it is not wanted.

 

Perhaps we should have left the likes of Assad, Saddam, Taliban etc to carry on wiping out their own people and threatening world peace.

 

I'm not sure I agree with that. Isis want to grow their state and probably one of the best ways of doing this is to keep terrorising the west. I doubt they hate the west any more than everyone else who they seem to hate too, it's just that they get more pr from doing stuff here.

[Sour Mash]

Exactly they are a propaganda piece for the western media /government etc to use to sell papers, justify wars and so on.

 

I heard from a very good source that ISIS are sponsored by the Daily Mail, anyone else heard similar?!?

[Jonnyboy]

I heard from a very good source that ISIS are sponsored by the Daily Mail, anyone else heard similar?!?

 

They might as well be.

[Sour Mash]

They might as well be.

I'm agreeing with you, you seem bang on the money with this.

[Batman]

Anonymous claiming ISIS planned various attacks tomorrow and have passed the info to the CIA, MI5 and other authorities

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Or because I couldn't be bothered to have another pointless debate with you? Guan has already pointed out exactly what was wrong with it. Read his posts if you want a reason.

 

Frankly I'm struggling to reconcile your new found disagreement with my straightforward question re this Bataclan Theatre matter, when the record does seem to show - see your post #797 - that not only did you fail to find anything very objectionable it but you actually agreed with me to some extent.

 

So please explain if you considered my post to be a reasonable one yesterday, why has it suddenly become a such a unreasonable one today?

[hypochondriac]

Frankly I'm struggling to reconcile your new found disagreement with my straightforward question re this Bataclan Theatre matter, when the record does seem to show - see your post #797 - that not only did you fail to find anything very objectionable it but you actually agreed with me to some extent.

 

So please explain if you considered my post to be a reasonable one yesterday, why has it suddenly become a such a unreasonable one today?

 

I didn't consider it to be reasonable yesterday.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I didn't consider it to be reasonable yesterday.

 

Then why did you say ''of course'' ?

[hypochondriac]

Then why did you say ''of course'' ?

 

Because of course it would be disgusting if someone profited from the terrorism. That doesn't change any objections I had about your post and the fact you had to write it in the first place.

[sadoldgit]

Once again I see that a point has been deliberately ignored. The original point was raised that Islam was a violent religion. I pointed out that it was no more or less violent than Christianity. We were not talking about specific extremist groups in either religion. There are those who murder and rape who are brought up under a multitude of faiths. If you want to be picky a number of the terrorist who carried out the attack in Paris were petty criminals. Hardly deeply religious people. The point is a psychopath is a psychopath, no matter what their upbringing.

[hypochondriac]

Once again I see that a point has been deliberately ignored. The original point was raised that Islam was a violent religion. I pointed out that it was no more or less violent than Christianity. We were not talking about specific extremist groups in either religion. There are those who murder and rape who are brought up under a multitude of faiths. If you want to be picky a number of the terrorist who carried out the attack in Paris were petty criminals. Hardly deeply religious people. The point is a psychopath is a psychopath, no matter what their upbringing.

 

Nope. We were talking about the fact that Islam has a greater problem with violence and terrorism at the present time than other world religions. You for some reason decided to go off on a tangent as you usually do about historical violence in Christianity. Even a number of Muslims agree that it is a problem within their religion. Odd that you- I presume a non Muslim - would disagree with them.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Because of course it would be disgusting if someone profited from the terrorism. That doesn't change any objections I had about your post and the fact you had to write it in the first place.

 

Well I am please to see that there is at least some common ground here we can agree on.

 

But if you remove this latter point from my post, all that remains is me pointing out that two 'schools of thought' exist on the question of whether extremely graphic imagery of violence should be made public. Now in all honesty that was a rather anodyne statement for me to make. So why you have chosen to kick up such a fuss about what was perhaps a rather *vanilla* post remains unclear.

[Fan The Flames]

Once again I see that a point has been deliberately ignored. The original point was raised that Islam was a violent religion. I pointed out that it was no more or less violent than Christianity. We were not talking about specific extremist groups in either religion. There are those who murder and rape who are brought up under a multitude of faiths. If you want to be picky a number of the terrorist who carried out the attack in Paris were petty criminals. Hardly deeply religious people. The point is a psychopath is a psychopath, no matter what their upbringing.

 

No one is saying that there are more murderers done by members of one religion. They are saying that there are more murders done in the name of Islam than any other religion. But you know that, but arguing is just a sport to you. Aren't you a bit ashamed that you are using this Paris incident for a bit a internet sport.

[Batman]

Britain to start bombing Syria in 2 weeks

 

 

the arguing is all a bit OTT. we are talking about 8 warplanes. which is a dot compared to what other nations are already throwing at it

 

8 planes

[Verbal]

Once again I see that a point has been deliberately ignored. The original point was raised that Islam was a violent religion. I pointed out that it was no more or less violent than Christianity. We were not talking about specific extremist groups in either religion. There are those who murder and rape who are brought up under a multitude of faiths. If you want to be picky a number of the terrorist who carried out the attack in Paris were petty criminals. Hardly deeply religious people. The point is a psychopath is a psychopath, no matter what their upbringing.

 

I hadn't wanted to get into this argument because I think it's been done quite a few times and always entails ducking into the ideological trenches.

 

The history of Islam is mostly the history of the great empires (Ommayad, Mughal, Ottoman, etc). All of them were founded not quite so much on war but on conquest (sometimes but not necessarily the same thing). And all of them, at their height, were remarkably successful. (The Mughals for example governed a quarter of the world's population in the 17th century and had a GDP equivalent to over $90 billion.) In all of these empires existed a tensions between liberal progressiveness (of a kind unheard of elsewhere, least of all Europe) and religious conservatism, including extremism.

 

When the religious conservatism and extremism became dominant, it tended to be a signal of the end for the empire. For example, the brilliant Shah Jahan, who built the Taj Mahal among other great architectural wonders in India and Pakistan, being displaced by his murderous and fanatical son Aurangzeb; the result was the factionalism and violence and, ultimately, serious decline (the British were lucky to catch the severely weakened tail-end of the empire).

 

So it is reasonable to argue historically that Islam has always been a religion of conquest, but its also been one of enormous progress, allied with a liberality and progress we'd recognise today. But when conservatism and extremism take over, it has also historically been a sign of weakness and collapse.

 

You can apply that to events now: the conservatism of the Saudis, for example, which has been desperately exported to countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, is a sign of weakness and decline. Similarly, the hyper-violence of IS is a symptom of a strand of the religion that is on the wane. Islam has always been most successful when it's been the most open and tolerant.

 

I know this is counter-intuitive - a current moral panic in the West is that it is being Islamised - but history supports the idea of decline much more strongly. Therefore probably one of the worst things we can do now is demonise Muslims living in the West (or elsewhere). And one of the best things we can do is help them and ourselves by getting rid of IS, as quickly and with as little "collateral damage" as possible.

[CB Fry]

Once again I see that a point has been deliberately ignored. The original point was raised that Islam was a violent religion. I pointed out that it was no more or less violent than Christianity. We were not talking about specific extremist groups in either religion. There are those who murder and rape who are brought up under a multitude of faiths. If you want to be picky a number of the terrorist who carried out the attack in Paris were petty criminals. Hardly deeply religious people. The point is a psychopath is a psychopath, no matter what their upbringing.

 

The point is that you can draw a very easy connecting line between 9/11, Boston, 7/7, the two Paris attacks with the perpetrators and motives being unequivocally linked, with radical Islam and hatred of the west/infidel at its core.

 

So why not yoke together Brevik, Jonestown, Timothy McVeigh and the IRA in the same manner. I mean look at these terrible Christians.

 

Someone find me the international, sustained Christianity terror movement and their multiple atrocities and let's discuss them.

 

As others have said their are senior figures in the Muslim community who accept this is a problem within their religion, so utterly facile rubbish from SOG and CEC on this thread to pretend otherwise. Pretty typical stuff on their part of course.

 

But hey, dig out another swastika chaps. Dem Nazis were, like, so Christian.

[CB Fry]

If you want to be picky a number of the terrorist who carried out the attack in Paris were petty criminals. Hardly deeply religious people.

.

 

This quote is very much worth isolating.

 

Are tou saying they were atheist fly-tippers and shoplifters who accidently found themselves machine gunning civilians at a concert hall?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The point is that you can draw a very easy connecting line between 9/11, Boston, 7/7, the two Paris attacks with the perpetrators and motives being unequivocally linked, with radical Islam and hatred of the west/infidel at its core.

 

So why not yoke together Brevik, Jonestown, Timothy McVeigh and the IRA in the same manner. I mean look at these terrible Christians.

 

Someone find me the international, sustained Christianity terror movement and their multiple atrocities and let's discuss them.

 

As others have said their are senior figures in the Muslim community who accept this is a problem within their religion, so utterly facile rubbish from SOG and CEC on this thread to pretend otherwise. Pretty typical stuff on their part of course.

 

But hey, dig out another swastika chaps. Dem Nazis were, like, so Christian.

 

But you asked yesterday for examples of the Christian faith being linked with massacre events in the last century. Examples of this were soon provided for you - and without any great difficulty in all honesty. Now instead of thanking those who graciously took the trouble to reply to your request, you have instead decided to move the 'goalposts' yet again.

 

This is bad form old boy.

[CB Fry]

But you asked yesterday for examples of the Christian faith being linked with massacre events in the last century. Examples of this were soon provided for you - and without any great difficulty in all honesty. Now instead of thanking those who graciously took the trouble to reply to your request, you have instead decided to move the 'goalposts' yet again.

 

This is bad form old boy.

If by moving the goalposts you mean - make the point I was always going to make - they are all utterly isolated incidents with no particular shared goals or intent - then yeah, I gone done moved the goalposts.

 

Well done. What about them Christian Nazis, eh?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

If by moving the goalposts you mean - make the point I was always going to make - they are all utterly isolated incidents with no particular shared goals or intent - then yeah, I gone done moved the goalposts.

 

Well done. What about them Christian Nazis, eh?

 

What about them?

 

I'm quite sure that a great many Wehrmacht members marched off into WWII firmly believing themselves to be 'Christian Soldiers' to some degree - afterall it said so on their belt buckles. For your information, the requirement to eradicate ''godless'' communism from the world was often specificity mentioned by the Nazi leadership as a justification for Operation Barbarossa.

 

So again I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make here.

[badgerx16]

Britain to start bombing Syria in 2 weeks

 

 

the arguing is all a bit OTT. we are talking about 8 warplanes. which is a dot compared to what other nations are already throwing at it

 

8 planes

 

They're probably all we've got available.

[sadoldgit]

No one is saying that there are more murderers done by members of one religion. They are saying that there are more murders done in the name of Islam than any other religion. But you know that, but arguing is just a sport to you. Aren't you a bit ashamed that you are using this Paris incident for a bit a internet sport.

 

Isn't that why we come on here, to debate issues? So no I am not ashamed in the least. We all have opinions and we express them. If you wish to call that a sport that is your right. If you don't agree with my opinion, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and the only ones we need worry about are the extremist minority, so be it.

[CB Fry]

What about them?

 

I'm quite sure that a great many Wehrmacht members marched off into WWII firmly believing themselves to be 'Christian Soldiers' to some degree - afterall it said so on their belt buckles. For your information, the requirement to eradicate ''godless'' communism from the world was often specificity mentioned by the Nazi leadership as a justification for Operation Barbarossa.

 

So again I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make here.

You want to make out Hitler and the Nazis was a religious fundementalist movement in the same way that IS is a Muslim fundementalist movement then that's really up to you old fruit. During WW2 the British Army, Navy and RAF had Chaplains and everything so probably just as bad as IS, right?

[sadoldgit]

I hadn't wanted to get into this argument because I think it's been done quite a few times and always entails ducking into the ideological trenches.

 

The history of Islam is mostly the history of the great empires (Ommayad, Mughal, Ottoman, etc). All of them were founded not quite so much on war but on conquest (sometimes but not necessarily the same thing). And all of them, at their height, were remarkably successful. (The Mughals for example governed a quarter of the world's population in the 17th century and had a GDP equivalent to over $90 billion.) In all of these empires existed a tensions between liberal progressiveness (of a kind unheard of elsewhere, least of all Europe) and religious conservatism, including extremism.

 

When the religious conservatism and extremism became dominant, it tended to be a signal of the end for the empire. For example, the brilliant Shah Jahan, who built the Taj Mahal among other great architectural wonders in India and Pakistan, being displaced by his murderous and fanatical son Aurangzeb; the result was the factionalism and violence and, ultimately, serious decline (the British were lucky to catch the severely weakened tail-end of the empire).

 

So it is reasonable to argue historically that Islam has always been a religion of conquest, but its also been one of enormous progress, allied with a liberality and progress we'd recognise today. But when conservatism and extremism take over, it has also historically been a sign of weakness and collapse.

 

You can apply that to events now: the conservatism of the Saudis, for example, which has been desperately exported to countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, is a sign of weakness and decline. Similarly, the hyper-violence of IS is a symptom of a strand of the religion that is on the wane. Islam has always been most successful when it's been the most open and tolerant.

 

I know this is counter-intuitive - a current moral panic in the West is that it is being Islamised - but history supports the idea of decline much more strongly. Therefore probably one of the worst things we can do now is demonise Muslims living in the West (or elsewhere). And one of the best things we can do is help them and ourselves by getting rid of IS, as quickly and with as little "collateral damage" as possible.

 

I was over simplifying my case when I called the extremists psychopaths but those drawn to murdering and blowing themselves up are clearly not the norm. I take your point about the history of the religion but the plane fact is that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. There has been an attempt to debate this point which, as par for the course here has gone off on a tangent, but although Christianity is supposed to be a peaceful religion, over the centuries (and yes even relatively recently) people who call themselves Christians have murdered and raped. I stick to my point that it has little to do with religion and more to do with the behaviour of the species we call Mankind. We are very good at trying to justify our actions and some will say they do it in the name of a religion or cult. I have no idea how many people how many people have been butchered in the name of one religion or another through the centuries but Islam is not alone in shedding blood. Catholics and Protestants have been killing each other for hundreds of years and it is still going on. We get ourselves worked up over people wearing a black sheet with eye holes but aren't overly bothered by people wearing white sheets with eyes holes who have been quite happy to burn and hang people of a different race and who are still active today. There are certain people who are wired in a certain way that will gravitate towards the extremes. Not all do. Some just kill and cut up their step sister or abduct, rape and kill a local teenager. Fortunately most human beings, of whatever faith, race or creed don't behave like that and conform to the moral code. The ones we have to worry about are the ones on the edge, whatever their background.

[CB Fry]

. We get ourselves worked up over people wearing a black sheet with eye holes but aren't overly bothered by people wearing white sheets with eyes holes who have been quite happy to burn and hang people of a different race and who are still active today.

 

You don't half write some utter horsesh it, don't you.

[Sour Mash]

Pakistani born 'Brits' http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/terror-police-arrest-six-brits-6877013.

[whelk]

You don't half write some utter horsesh it, don't you.

 

Yeah laughable indeed. Hard to take seriously. Everyone tolerates the kkk here.

[sadoldgit]

Yeah laughable indeed. Hard to take seriously. Everyone tolerates the kkk here.

 

Did I say that they do? But I have only seen items on FB asking me to support banning the burka. I have plenty of friends in America but you don't see anything about banning the pointy white sheets. Not the biggest deal in the world perhaps and if certain people think it is horse sh*t fine. By the way, how do you stand on the banning of the burka for security reasons?

Edited 22 November, 2015 by sadoldgit

[CB Fry]

Did I say that they do? But I have only seen items on FB asking me to support banning the burka. I have plenty of friends in America but you don't see anything about banning the pointy white sheets.

Who is the "we" who are "not overly bothered" about the activity of the Ku Klux Klan?

 

The fact you have equated the Burkha with the Klan is possibly the single most offensive thing to Muslims on this entire thread. Seriously, well done.

[ART]

This Man Survived Both 9/11 And Bataclan Concert Hall Massacre

 

http://www.unilad.co.uk/news/this-man-survived-both-911-and-bataclan-concert-hall-massacre/

[sadoldgit]

Meant to add in my previous post that the pointy sheet thing wasn't my idea. A cartoon pointing out the issue came through on FB just after the requests to sign up to the ban the burka posts. I thought it was worth a mention but clearly some of you don't.

[CB Fry]

Meant to add in my previous post that the pointy sheet thing wasn't my idea. A cartoon pointing out the issue came through on FB just after the requests to sign up to the ban the burka posts. I thought it was worth a mention but clearly some of you don't.

 

What is "the issue" you're pointing out?

 

Who is the "we" who are "not overly bothered" by the actions of the Ku Klux Klan, and how does this being "not overly bothered" manifest itself?

 

Anytime you feel like explaining your gibberish crack on, or apologise of course.

[Batman]

How Muslim apologists work when terrorist attack happens:

 

1. Blame US foreign policy

 

2. Find a terrorist attack in which a muslim was killed

 

3. Say that terrorism has no religion.

 

4. Blame the jews

 

5. Claim to be a victim of some sort and turn the whole conversation about islamophobia.

 

6. Point out that Christianity was barbaric 1000 years ago

[CB Fry]

How Muslim apologists work when terrorist attack happens:

 

1. Blame US foreign policy

 

2. Find a terrorist attack in which a muslim was killed

 

3. Say that terrorism has no religion.

 

4. Blame the jews

 

5. Claim to be a victim of some sort and turn the whole conversation about islamophobia.

 

6. Point out that Christianity was barbaric 1000 years ago

That's just the kind of post I'd expect from someone like you, who I can only conclude is a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan.

[Batman]

That's just the kind of post I'd expect from someone like you, who I can only conclude is a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan.

 

when this is is pretty much over, I look forward to all the court cases being brought against the Crown about the breach of human rights towards ex ISIS people trying to return to the UK to resume their lives. And the good old UK not letting them (well, most of them anyway you would hope)

[Johnny Bognor]

They're probably all we've got available.

 

Stuck together with superglue

[buctootim]

when this is is pretty much over, I look forward to all the court cases being brought against the Crown about the breach of human rights towards ex ISIS people trying to return to the UK to resume their lives. And the good old UK not letting them (well, most of them anyway you would hope)

 

About 760 Germans left to fight in Syria, of which 200 have returned so far and another 120 dead according to German interior minister de Maziere. .

[sadoldgit]

How Muslim apologists work when terrorist attack happens:

 

1. Blame US foreign policy

 

2. Find a terrorist attack in which a muslim was killed

 

3. Say that terrorism has no religion.

 

4. Blame the jews

 

5. Claim to be a victim of some sort and turn the whole conversation about islamophobia.

 

6. Point out that Christianity was barbaric 1000 years ago

 

I think that your rubber helmet must be caused your brain a bit of pressure Caped Crusader. If you are talking about being an apologist for peaceful Muslims, why is that an issue?

 

But while we are at it would you say that the US policy in the Middle East has made the situation better or worse? Would you say that no innocent Muslims have ever been killed in attacks? Would you blame everyone in a religion just because a minority use their religion as an excuse to kill people? Has anyone on here blamed the Jews? Has anyone here blamed Islamphobia? Once again you keep harping back to the Crusades when there are plenty of examples of atrocities carried out by "Christians" in more recent times.

 

Tell me honestly, do you think that all Islamists are a threat or just the extremists?

[CB Fry]

I think that your rubber helmet must be caused your brain a bit of pressure Caped Crusader. If you are talking about being an apologist for peaceful Muslims, why is that an issue?

 

But while we are at it would you say that the US policy in the Middle East has made the situation better or worse? Would you say that no innocent Muslims have ever been killed in attacks? Would you blame everyone in a religion just because a minority use their religion as an excuse to kill people? Has anyone on here blamed the Jews? Has anyone here blamed Islamphobia? Once again you keep harping back to the Crusades when there are plenty of examples of atrocities carried out by "Christians" in more recent times.

 

Tell me honestly, do you think that all Islamists are a threat or just the extremists?

Who is the "we" that are "not overly bothered" by the actions and beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan?

[badgerx16]

How Muslim apologists work when terrorist attack happens:

 

1. Blame US foreign policy

 

2. Find a terrorist attack in which a muslim was killed

 

3. Say that terrorism has no religion.

 

4. Blame the jews

 

5. Claim to be a victim of some sort and turn the whole conversation about islamophobia.

 

6. Point out that Christianity was barbaric 1000 years ago

 

1) What do Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya have in common ?

2) Muslims died in Paris, on 7/7, on 9/11, on the trains in Madrid, and in countless bombings in the Middle East and Africa over the last few years.

3) Terrorists find religion a convenient excuse for their actions, and a lever with which to provoke interracial tensions - they corrupt and pollute it's teachings to try to justify the unjustifiable.

4) Israel's existence is similarly a convenient diversionary excuse.

5) ( Not sure what you're getting at here )

6) No need to go back 100 years, Christianity has been highjacked in all major conflicts of the last 200 years; without invoking Godwin's Law, how many people died in God's name in the 2 World Wars ?

 

Does this make me a 'Muslim apologist' ?

[Verbal]

I think that your rubber helmet must be caused your brain a bit of pressure Caped Crusader. If you are talking about being an apologist for peaceful Muslims, why is that an issue?

 

But while we are at it would you say that the US policy in the Middle East has made the situation better or worse? Would you say that no innocent Muslims have ever been killed in attacks? Would you blame everyone in a religion just because a minority use their religion as an excuse to kill people? Has anyone on here blamed the Jews? Has anyone here blamed Islamphobia? Once again you keep harping back to the Crusades when there are plenty of examples of atrocities carried out by "Christians" in more recent times.

 

Tell me honestly, do you think that all Islamists are a threat or just the extremists?

 

I appreciate where you're coming from, SOG, but I don't think anyone's arguing the position you think they are.

 

One can accept that US foreign policy has made things worse without going the whole hog and blaming the West for the emergence of IS.

 

One can accept that many innocent Muslims have been killed but we can rule this out as an arguable motive for extreme violence perpetrated by a maniacal few.

 

Anti-semitism is the go-to rhetoric for Jihadists and their far-left sympathisers in the West.

 

Islamophobia is often blamed by said sympathisers for radicalising European jihadists. The latest example is with the Belgian suburb of Molenbeek.

 

And, yes, Islamists can be a threat - not that I understand your distinction between "Islamists" and "extremists". Islamists ARE extremists.

[hypochondriac]

I appreciate where you're coming from, SOG, but I don't think anyone's arguing the position you think they are.

 

One can accept that US foreign policy has made things worse without going the whole hog and blaming the West for the emergence of IS.

 

One can accept that many innocent Muslims have been killed but we can rule this out as an arguable motive for extreme violence perpetrated by a maniacal few.

 

Anti-semitism is the go-to rhetoric for Jihadists and their far-left sympathisers in the West.

 

Islamophobia is often blamed by said sympathisers for radicalising European jihadists. The latest example is with the Belgian suburb of Molenbeek.

 

And, yes, Islamists can be a threat - not that I understand your distinction between "Islamists" and "extremists". Islamists ARE extremists.

 

Exactly this. Soggy isn't too good with nuance though so it doesn't surprise me he struggles with this line of thinking.

[CB Fry]

1) What do Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya have in common ?

2) Muslims died in Paris, on 7/7, on 9/11, on the trains in Madrid, and in countless bombings in the Middle East and Africa over the last few years.

3) Terrorists find religion a convenient excuse for their actions, and a lever with which to provoke interracial tensions - they corrupt and pollute it's teachings to try to justify the unjustifiable.

4) Israel's existence is similarly a convenient diversionary excuse.

5) ( Not sure what you're getting at here )

6) No need to go back 100 years, Christianity has been highjacked in all major conflicts of the last 200 years; without invoking Godwin's Law, how many people died in God's name in the 2 World Wars ?

 

Does this make me a 'Muslim apologist' ?

 

If religion is a "convenient excuse" what's the real reason for what they're doing?

 

And you're putting WW2 as some kind of religious holy war are you? Clever.

 

Well done on pretty conclusively proving Batman's point.

[badgerx16]

If religion is a "convenient excuse" what's the real reason for what they're doing?

 

And you're putting WW2 as some kind of religious holy war are you? Clever.

 

Well done on pretty conclusively proving Batman's point.

 

First point - they are sociopathic bullies, plain and simple.

Second point - why do you deliberately misconstrue something just to provoke argument ? Maybe the following will help, ( courtesy of Bob Dylan ) :

 

Oh my name it is nothin'

My age it means less

The country I come from

Is called the Midwest

I's taught and brought up there

The laws to abide

And the land that I live in

Has God on its side.

 

Oh the history books tell it

They tell it so well

The cavalries charged

The Indians fell

The cavalries charged

The Indians died

Oh the country was young

With God on its side.

 

The Spanish-American

War had its day

And the Civil War too

Was soon laid away

And the names of the heroes

I's made to memorize

With guns on their hands

And God on their side.

 

The First World War, boys

It came and it went

The reason for fighting

I never did get

But I learned to accept it

Accept it with pride

For you don't count the dead

When God's on your side.

 

When the Second World War

Came to an end

We forgave the Germans

And then we were friends

Though they murdered six million

In the ovens they fried

The Germans now too

Have God on their side.

 

I've learned to hate Russians

All through my whole life

If another war comes

It's them we must fight

To hate them and fear them

To run and to hide

And accept it all bravely

With God on my side.

 

But now we got weapons

Of the chemical dust

If fire them we're forced to

Then fire them we must

One push of the button

And a shot the world wide

And you never ask questions

When God's on your side.

 

In a many dark hour

I've been thinkin' about this

That Jesus Christ

Was betrayed by a kiss

But I can't think for you

You'll have to decide

Whether Judas Iscariot

Had God on his side.

 

So now as I'm leavin'

I'm weary as Hell

The confusion I'm feelin'

Ain't no tongue can tell

The words fill my head

And fall to the floor

If God's on our side

He'll stop the next war.

[sadoldgit]

Others have highlighted episodes of less than Godlike behaviour by Christians but just to helped our Caped brother so he doesn't have to keep going back to the Crusades, here is a list of more recent events:-

Central African Republic Genocide 2012 to present - ethnic cleansing of Muslims by Christians

Bosnian Genocide 1992-95 - Orthadox Bosnian Serbs ethic cleansing against Bosnian Muslims

The Holocaust 1933-42 -Christians ethnic cleansing of Jews in Europe

The Progroms 1881-1884, 1903-1906, 1917-1921 - a series of violent attacks carried out by Christians in Russia against the Jews

American slavery 1619-1865 - Christians enslaving Africans

Native American Cultural Cleansing 1500s to 1800s - Christians killing natives of North and South America who were referred to as "devils" and "heathens"

Plenty to be getting on with there.....

[sadoldgit]

I appreciate where you're coming from, SOG, but I don't think anyone's arguing the position you think they are.

 

One can accept that US foreign policy has made things worse without going the whole hog and blaming the West for the emergence of IS.

 

One can accept that many innocent Muslims have been killed but we can rule this out as an arguable motive for extreme violence perpetrated by a maniacal few.

 

Anti-semitism is the go-to rhetoric for Jihadists and their far-left sympathisers in the West.

 

Islamophobia is often blamed by said sympathisers for radicalising European jihadists. The latest example is with the Belgian suburb of Molenbeek.

 

And, yes, Islamists can be a threat - not that I understand your distinction between "Islamists" and "extremists". Islamists ARE extremists.

 

You say that Islamists are extremists Verbal, but are you saying that they are all terrorists? I am saying that the vast majority of those who follow the faith of Islam are peaceful and wish to live peacefully with the rest of us. If some of the others agree with me, why do they keep arguing?

[sadoldgit]

1) What do Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya have in common ?

2) Muslims died in Paris, on 7/7, on 9/11, on the trains in Madrid, and in countless bombings in the Middle East and Africa over the last few years.

3) Terrorists find religion a convenient excuse for their actions, and a lever with which to provoke interracial tensions - they corrupt and pollute it's teachings to try to justify the unjustifiable.

4) Israel's existence is similarly a convenient diversionary excuse.

5) ( Not sure what you're getting at here )

6) No need to go back 100 years, Christianity has been highjacked in all major conflicts of the last 200 years; without invoking Godwin's Law, how many people died in God's name in the 2 World Wars ?

 

Does this make me a 'Muslim apologist' ?

 

And this is precisely the problem. Trying to talk about any kind of balanced response to what is going on eventually brings out the "apologist" remarks which is a bit of a give away. No one here is trying to defend the actions of terrorists whatever flag they say they are fighting under.

[CB Fry]

First point - they are sociopathic bullies, plain and simple.

Second point - why do you deliberately misconstrue something just to provoke argument ? Maybe the following will help, ( courtesy of Bob Dylan ) :

 

Oh my name it is nothin'

My age it means less

The country I come from

Is called the Midwest

I's taught and brought up there

The laws to abide

And the land that I live in

Has God on its side.

 

Oh the history books tell it

They tell it so well

The cavalries charged

The Indians fell

The cavalries charged

The Indians died

Oh the country was young

With God on its side.

 

The Spanish-American

War had its day

And the Civil War too

Was soon laid away

And the names of the heroes

I's made to memorize

With guns on their hands

And God on their side.

 

The First World War, boys

It came and it went

The reason for fighting

I never did get

But I learned to accept it

Accept it with pride

For you don't count the dead

When God's on your side.

 

When the Second World War

Came to an end

We forgave the Germans

And then we were friends

Though they murdered six million

In the ovens they fried

The Germans now too

Have God on their side.

 

I've learned to hate Russians

All through my whole life

If another war comes

It's them we must fight

To hate them and fear them

To run and to hide

And accept it all bravely

With God on my side.

 

But now we got weapons

Of the chemical dust

If fire them we're forced to

Then fire them we must

One push of the button

And a shot the world wide

And you never ask questions

When God's on your side.

 

In a many dark hour

I've been thinkin' about this

That Jesus Christ

Was betrayed by a kiss

But I can't think for you

You'll have to decide

Whether Judas Iscariot

Had God on his side.

 

So now as I'm leavin'

I'm weary as Hell

The confusion I'm feelin'

Ain't no tongue can tell

The words fill my head

And fall to the floor

If God's on our side

He'll stop the next war.

You've deliberately misconstrued the aims of the terrorists from last week into "sociopathic bullies" - so that group of people did what they did for the sheer pleasure of it? For no higher purpose, for no other reason? You really sure about that? Don't you think it strange that 7/7 and Boston had "sociopathic bullies" with beliefs in common with those in Paris? Just a crazy, bonkers coincidence then?

 

And you're the one who has misconstrued the second world war - a complex multi lateral conflict about lots of things - nations, territories, arms race, political ideology - which, just because it's convenient to you, you've decided to pretend was, like, all about God after all.

 

Funny really - Islamic terrorism is not religious but the second world war was.

 

I do apologise for my misconstrued view of the world. Yours is must less misconstrued I'm sure.