The nature of these groups is for fractures and factions to emerge certainly, but I'd also treat it with a degree of caution Clive. ISIL monitor western media. The tactic about dripping hints into the public domain regarding informers and double agents is quite an old trick. It's designed to play on the inherrant paranoia that often besieges these people under pressure with the hope that they start killing of each other as suspicion becomes contagious and trust breaks down. Nothing wrong with that of course, it's a legitimate tactic. Imaginary informers are much easier to get inside an organisation than real ones! If the west really had assets who were turning information over, I think they'd more likely put out a different cover story rather than risk exposing them to be honest
ISIS...Islamic State Victims
- Thread starter harry
- Start date
The nature of these groups is for fractures and factions to emerge certainly, but I'd also treat it with a degree of caution Clive. ISIL monitor western media. The tactic about dripping hints into the public domain regarding informers and double agents is quite an old trick. It's designed to play on the inherrant paranoia that often besieges these people under pressure with the hope that they start killing of each other as suspicion becomes contagious and trust breaks down. Nothing wrong with that of course, it's a legitimate tactic. Imaginary informers are much easier to get inside an organisation than real ones! If the west really had assets who were turning information over, I think they'd more likely put out a different cover story rather than risk exposing them to be honest
Totally incorrect to state that the uk was "peripheral". Its been acknowledged by all sides that gchq and mi6 obtained the intelligence and tracked him with drones whilst the U.S. pulled the trigger . That is most certainly not "peripheral" and I would suggest the biggest input of all
biological war (dreadful idea) in the Middle East will most certainly not stop jihad. The attackers came from Belgium ffs. Shall we nuke Brussels?
if isis is defeated I believe it will knock th stuffing out of the Islamists in much the same was as bin ladens death quelled Al queda. There is simply less for bedsit nutters to slaver over on line but this is an idealogy not a specific army
biological war (dreadful idea) in the Middle East will most certainly not stop jihad. The attackers came from Belgium ffs. Shall we nuke Brussels?
if isis is defeated I believe it will knock th stuffing out of the Islamists in much the same was as bin ladens death quelled Al queda. There is simply less for bedsit nutters to slaver over on line but this is an idealogy not a specific army
simmo
Senior Jockey
No need to apologise for provoking my ire. But the idea, which you stand by, that being a crook doesn't conflict with faith, is quite ridiculous. Why does Britain maintain a means of worship in pretty much every prison in the country? Because it says somewhere in the bible "thou shalt kill"?
See what I'm saying?
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
I'll nose through the recent contibutions soon enough, but very delighted that Hamm has resurfaced unscathed, and with a highly lucid and heartfelt contribution.
Leaving aside the denunciation of Islam and all the fault lines and contradictions that exist there (nothing I'd seek to fundamentally disagree with), I'd return instead to the caliphate and the 'defeat' of the enemy
I'm a little bit nervous at the outset about people who say it won't make any difference, as this increasingly sounds like the last refuge for those who've advocated policies that have helped create the caliphate in the first place. It's almost as if they're trying to cleanse themselves by convincing themselves it would have happened regardless. Sadly I just don't think the evidence supports that. Or more to the point, they've got to explain satisfactorily why this has only happened post western intervention, and post the removal of the dictators. The tensions, pressures, and aspirations have always existed, but only now have they gained the ascendancy. It wasn't Saddam's dictatorship that spawned the islamic State, but rather the failure of Iraqi democracy and to put it frankly, the cowardice of their army. The whole Iraqi transplant experiement in other language. I see no evidence that the likes of the Sadr Army or Ansar al Islam were gaining any traction under the Ba'athists that would lead you to conclude that Iraq was about to fall to into the hands of an Islamic State
That kind of brings me to the caliphate itself. I think you have to respect the zeal with which those who have sworn allegiance to it are prepared to defend it, I think equally you'd be stupid not to show respect for their ability to replenish losses too and recruit, but outside of these factors, they don't hold a strong set of cards for a whole host of strategic reasons. The legitimacy of the caliphate and the loyalty to the caliph is predicated on territorial expansion. If this is checked, and then thrown into reverse, those who've sworn are unbonded (heaven knows where they go) but they are surrounded by hostile places (in theory) albeit I'd like to see Turkey tighten up. I suspect we might be able to push west along the northern frontier to create a Kurdistan which isn't going to be welcoming to any ISIL soldiers attempting to flee. The combined industrial might and military assests of the west have thrown back bigger enemies than ISIL
I think the caliphate can be defeated, but I have little doubt they've benefited hugely from western powers identifying the wrong enemy, and other regional interests always seemingly finding another agenda to prioritise. I do feel however that we need to try and empower Iraq and Syria to regain their own territory rather than blundering in ourselves and becoming ever bigger targets for future attacks. Ultimately, if we have to, then we have to, but we should be trying to build a bigger international coalition (should have been doing that at the outset, but again we got caught looking in other directions)
I think you're right to say Islamofascism isn't going to go away though, and that the defeat of the caliphate won't signal the end of this. The Romans were the super power of the day, and they couldn't surpress christianity. The Soviets couldn't quite get rid of the Russian Orthodox despite confronting it with science. The Chinese the buddhists etc I think you could argue that the fundamental difference is that all these religions wanted was the right to practise, rather than trying to impose and convert on pain of death. That's clearly a massive difference of emphasis, but a strong power can get on top of a religion and possibly hope to manage a state of perma-predominance
As you say though, I'm sure it's going to continue, and there might be an issue as to whether they can claim expansion of the caliphate beyond the middle east constitutes it's continued growth and influence. There's also going to be a first generation of children approaching martyrdom age who were born into the Islamic State hitting the market in the next 10 years to consider too (not sure where they go either). I equally feel though that destroying it will set things back, (not their ambitions - just their capability) and if the destruction is visited upon it by Syria and Iraq, then it might restrict the global grievance or perhaps dilute it amongst many enemies. I'm equally aware though that this might set off a terrible regional conflict between sunni and shia too - that's a very legitimate worry. How are the sunni states going to react if the shia militas and Syrian government set out on a reprisal mission?
I think the conflict from history that it might remind me of most is the 100 years war, which was really a series of campaigns with periods of badly managed peace in between. I think there is a danger that during these periods we can get lulled into a false sense of security, until the snake strikes out from under its stone now and then and another cycle starts. It's why I'm equally worried by this complacent attitude that runs along the lines of nothings happened yet, none of the bad predictions have come true, so we don't really have anything to worry about - until it does! and when it does, all of this complacency is wiped away at a stroke
I think finally, that you have to be very, very concerned about how our own society is going to evolve and the very likely prospect that this will spill onto our streets eventually, and that for now at least, we are badly prepared to respond to it. We are going to have to look at ways in which we organise society and our protective services, quite probably adopting aspects of the American approach
If I were guessing, I think North Africa will ultimately prove to be the hotbed and that's where I think the epicentre could transfer to within two or three decades
It's a dismal prognosis admittedly, but I still feel we can put a lid on this, but my god if someone said write out a play book of how not to manage a foreign policy, the things our collective leaders have managed over the last 15 years wouldn't be far off your answer
Last edited:
Being a crook does conflict with religious faith, that was the point I was making; or at least I think it should and don't understand how someone can reconcile observation of the Ten Commandments - or their equivalent in other faiths - one minute and then violate them the next by committing a crime
The function of places of worship in prisons I'd surmise is primarily for rehabilitation - 'I have sinned' sorta stuff
I've no wish to continue this further as my possibly ill-considered post was really just an aside: an observation of something I don't and can't understand...
...but I am an agnostic-near-atheist so have no first-hand knowledge of religion or the level of hypocrisy prevalent amongst those who profess to be believers
praise the lord and pass the ammunition
Last edited:
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Extraordinarily enough, I have been thinking exactly the same for the past little while! The similarities are glaring.
"I laughed with glee,
As your kings and queens,
Fought for ten decades
For the Gods they made".
"Sympathy For The Devil". Rolling Stones.
We have been fighting the War On Terror now, for what, for 14 years? Nobody could say with sincerity that we are winning.
I admire your optimism re defeating the Caliphate; I can't share that optimism, unfortunately. Said it before, I do believe this war is already lost.
But even if ISIS were to be defeated in Syria/Iraq, do you really think that that is the end of the matter? I know you don't. Because ISIS is now everywhere; they are amongst us as demonstrably proved by Friday's events in Paris and elsewhere.
You have to appreciate that even if ISIS were obliterated, the ideology lives on. Also, it would be a mistake to think that ISIS are alone in propagating/ following this ideology. Others -- al Shabaab, al Nusra, al Qaeda, and a host of others even outside the Arab/Libya expanse -- share the exact same philosophy. The common denominator, of course, is Islam .............. or to be precise, the more extreme interpretation ( some would say the purest interpretation) of islamic texts and scriptures. Scoff if you must, but I see a dystopian future where the idea of banning the religion itself will be seen as the only way to get on top of and to destroy the death cultism of fundamentalist islam. It won't be the first time in history that an interdiction has been placed on a religion/ faith when a particular faith has been construed as a danger to the State. England prohibibited Catholicism in the 16th century; Falun Gong is banned in China as is Scientology in some countries (Germany?). Last year Angola banned Islam and shut down all mosques in the country.
I don't know the answer; I don't know how all this will pan out. But I have little confidence that fighting ISIS will achieve a total victory over an ideology that is now global. Wipe out ISIS in Syria, they just increase their dangerous presence elsewhere ( in Europe). They have the means and the manpower to do this; an estimated 60,000 committed followers, an estimated 1Trillion Sterling in financial assets.
To combat them on our own streets, we need our own entire indigenous Muslim population on side but that is clearly not a probability. We also need to tell Saudi, Qatar, Turkey and all other Sunni nation states to get with the programme. We need a strong home defence presence in towns and cities because if this war is to be won it will be on our streets rather than the desert of Syria.
Don't get me wrong. tho', I most certainly do get a warm fuzzy feeling of definite joy every time a laser-guided bomb hits any one of the evil b'stards in Syria or Iraq.
Last edited:
I'd agree with a vast majority of that Ice too. The only major area I'd take issue is that do I believe the caliphate can be defeated, and whereas I don't believe that this would be a time to get out the bunting and roll the victory parades, it would degrade them to some extent. ISIS wouldn't be in a stronger position because of it. I think this stops short of 'not making any difference'. I think it will. A big part of their appeal is to propogate the undefeatable myth of invincibility, and losing their caliphate punctures this. Losing it at the hands of fellow muslims probably even more so
I'm not totally convinced that it need increase their presence elsewhere either, although clearly I'll accept that something of kill - recruit - kill - recruit, cycle, exists in these scenarios, and that has been the lesson from history. I think it only increases recruitment dependent on how, we kill the caliphate. If we go blundering in there, then yes, I think your cycle will apply.
Obviously the idea of 'banning' Islam would be the single biggest recruiter, but assume your comment was an observation about the dynamics involved rather than a suggestion
I think there is also a chance that sleepers emerging from the shadows could also be confused with the increasing of a presence as they're being activated. This needn't be an increase (they're always been there etc) but rather an awakening. I conceed however, that I wouldn't want to pin an entire strategy on that
All your proposals for the wider response I'm comfortable with (well I'm not - but you know what I mean)
I still feel we need a wider global alliance if we are to start challenging the wider root of Islam, and that means trying to entice the two countries with manpower into the theatre.
I note incidentally that Tsar Vladmir is offering the west a united front against ISIL today. The paralells with Spain in 1936 are screaming
I'm not totally convinced that it need increase their presence elsewhere either, although clearly I'll accept that something of kill - recruit - kill - recruit, cycle, exists in these scenarios, and that has been the lesson from history. I think it only increases recruitment dependent on how, we kill the caliphate. If we go blundering in there, then yes, I think your cycle will apply.
Obviously the idea of 'banning' Islam would be the single biggest recruiter, but assume your comment was an observation about the dynamics involved rather than a suggestion
I think there is also a chance that sleepers emerging from the shadows could also be confused with the increasing of a presence as they're being activated. This needn't be an increase (they're always been there etc) but rather an awakening. I conceed however, that I wouldn't want to pin an entire strategy on that
All your proposals for the wider response I'm comfortable with (well I'm not - but you know what I mean)
I still feel we need a wider global alliance if we are to start challenging the wider root of Islam, and that means trying to entice the two countries with manpower into the theatre.
I note incidentally that Tsar Vladmir is offering the west a united front against ISIL today. The paralells with Spain in 1936 are screaming
Last edited:
simmo
Senior Jockey
I nearly respected your wish not to continue this further and then thought - no I need to get this out!
Being a crook should conflict with religious faith, you are quite right. But in reality it doesn't. Christianity, for example, would have you forgive the sins (I'm not sure what Islam's position on forgiveness is).
One only has to look at the number of Catholic priests butt-******* small boys to realise that whilst there is a dichotomy between illegality/immorality and religious belief, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Now we can let it rest.
The priority has to be to cut off the communication and the money. Without both ISIS would not be the the threat they are. It doesn't solve the wider problem but it would slow them down significantly and allow us to get on the front foot.
The west should make a public statement that it will take out anyone who is supplying either, irrespective of where they are on this planet and who's borders they reside in. If any Government attempts to block this then they are by default saying they are aligned with ISIS.
This would also have the benefit of getting the pressure on the Saudi's, Pakistan, and the North African countries to either play ball or pull up the shutters. And then we have a whole new set of decisions to make.
The west should make a public statement that it will take out anyone who is supplying either, irrespective of where they are on this planet and who's borders they reside in. If any Government attempts to block this then they are by default saying they are aligned with ISIS.
This would also have the benefit of getting the pressure on the Saudi's, Pakistan, and the North African countries to either play ball or pull up the shutters. And then we have a whole new set of decisions to make.
Last edited:
simmo
Senior Jockey
Extraordinarily enough, I have been thinking exactly the same for the past little while! The similarities are glaring.
"I laughed with glee,
As your kings and queens,
Fought for ten decades
For the Gods they made".
"Sympathy For The Devil". Rolling Stones.
We have been fighting the War On Terror now, for what, for 14 years? Nobody could say with sincerity that we are winning.
I admire your optimism re defeating the Caliphate; I can't share that optimism, unfortunately. Said it before, I do believe this war is already lost.
But even if ISIS were to be defeated in Syria/Iraq, do you really think that that is the end of the matter? I know you don't. Because ISIS is now everywhere; they are amongst us as demonstrably proved by Friday's events in Paris and elsewhere.
You have to appreciate that even if ISIS were obliterated, the ideology lives on. Also, it would be a mistake to think that ISIS are alone in propagating/ following this ideology. Others -- al Shabaab, al Nusra, al Qaeda, and a host of others even outside the Arab/Libya expanse -- share the exact same philosophy. The common denominator, of course, is Islam .............. or to be precise, the more extreme interpretation ( some would say the purest interpretation) of islamic texts and scriptures. Scoff if you must, but I see a dystopian future where the idea of banning the religion itself will be seen as the only way to get on top of and to destroy the death cultism of fundamentalist islam. It won't be the first time in history that an interdiction has been placed on a religion/ faith when a particular faith has been construed as a danger to the State. England prohibibited Catholicism in the 16th century; Falun Gong is banned in China as is Scientology in some countries (Germany?). Last year Angola banned Islam and shut down all mosques in the country.
I don't know the answer; I don't know how all this will pan out. But I have little confidence that fighting ISIS will achieve a total victory over an ideology that is now global. Wipe out ISIS in Syria, they just increase their dangerous presence elsewhere ( in Europe). They have the means and the manpower to do this; an estimated 60,000 committed followers, an estimated 1Trillion Sterling in financial assets.
To combat them on our own streets, we need our own entire indigenous Muslim population on side but that is clearly not a probability. We also need to tell Saudi, Qatar, Turkey and all other Sunni nation states to get with the programme. We need a strong home defence presence in towns and cities because if this war is to be won it will be on our streets rather than the desert of Syria.
Don't get me wrong. tho', I most certainly do get a warm fuzzy feeling of definite joy every time a laser-guided bomb hits any one of the evil b'stards in Syria or Iraq.
I wouldn't agree with very much of this. In fact, I think a fundamental question that hasn't been asked is missing from the debate. Islam has been around for 1300 years or so. The first 900 or so of those years were spent fighting Christianity and attempting to violently spread the influence of Islam. The last 400 years have been spent living in relative peace and harmony with Christianity.
So why has there been a sudden rise in the violent application of Islam in the past 25 years? How has the balance altered towards the West (I think we can safely say the West rather than Christianity now) such that elements of Islam feel sufficiently threatened to need to redress the balance?
I don't know as much as I might about the subject - but the roots of the current conflict can, I believe, be traced back to the first Gulf War and Western influence spreading within the Islamic region as we attempt to ensure stability in an area which produces oil for us. This has been the root of todays issues and is the recruiting sergeant which we need to remove before any long term victory can be achieved.
For even if we destroy ISIS, as long as the issues that cause it to appear in the first place are still there, it will simply reappear under a different name.
This is what we should be addressing long term. Until then, lets bomb the **** out of them.
Western "influence" in the gulf was considerably greater 60 years ago
The gulf war was not the start. For me the rushdie affair is one starting point and the disgusting appeasement by many in this country towards killing for publishing a novel. "we have to understand them" cue Claire Shorts whiney accent
We had politicians refusing to condemn...
Lets read this slowly. Even thick left wingers might understand this
EXECUTION FOR WRITING A NOVEL
They will always find a reason. You can bet that as if some handwringers have suggested, we allow the muslims to censor our freedom of speech then they will move onto the next thing that "offends" them
The gulf war was not the start. For me the rushdie affair is one starting point and the disgusting appeasement by many in this country towards killing for publishing a novel. "we have to understand them" cue Claire Shorts whiney accent
We had politicians refusing to condemn...
Lets read this slowly. Even thick left wingers might understand this
EXECUTION FOR WRITING A NOVEL
They will always find a reason. You can bet that as if some handwringers have suggested, we allow the muslims to censor our freedom of speech then they will move onto the next thing that "offends" them
Last edited:
simmo
Senior Jockey
So lemme get this straight - you think that the West appeasing Islam in the Rushdie affair is the beginning of the current issues? You must be a thick left winger if you think that clive.
You also seem to have forgotten that Thatchers government was incredibly well disposed towards Rushdie - even giving him free police protection. And that Clare Short had **** all to do with it.I don't, however, recall any instances of terrorism which were attributed by the perpetrators to the Rushdie affair. Your hatred of Islam is blinding you to the facts.
I also don't believe that the overthrow of the Shah was the start of it - for me that has much more in common with Cuba than this issue.
Next. Sensible answers only - those whose only response is bile need not apply.
Edit: forgot to address the 60 years ago part - 60 years ago oil was just being discovered and exploited and was leading to great improvements in society in Arabia. Hardly the conditions for social revolution.
Last edited:
Claire Short defended the proposed execution of Rushdie. May have to check that one but thats how i recall it
You dont get the point do you? You seem to believe that islamic violence started with the gulf war and this predated the gulf war. They made it clear that bookshops would be bombed and publishers attacked. Just because no one got killed in the uk doesnt mean the threat wasnt made
Sorry if it bothers you that i hate those that believe that novelists should be summarily excuted for writing books. Interesting that others might not have absolute contempt for that... i would say....
Overthrow of the shah is perfect example of your ignorance. Al quaeda and isis are sunni. Iran is shia.
You dont get the point do you? You seem to believe that islamic violence started with the gulf war and this predated the gulf war. They made it clear that bookshops would be bombed and publishers attacked. Just because no one got killed in the uk doesnt mean the threat wasnt made
Sorry if it bothers you that i hate those that believe that novelists should be summarily excuted for writing books. Interesting that others might not have absolute contempt for that... i would say....
Overthrow of the shah is perfect example of your ignorance. Al quaeda and isis are sunni. Iran is shia.
Last edited:
With police protection, Rushdie escaped direct physical harm, but others associated with his book have suffered violent attacks. Hitoshi Igarashi, his Japanese translator, was stabbed to death on 11 July 1991. Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator, was seriously injured in a stabbing in Milan on 3 July 1991.[SUP][15][/SUP] William Nygaard, the publisher in Norway, was shot three times in an attempted assassination in Oslo in October 1993, but survived. Aziz Nesin, the Turkish translator, was the intended target in the events that led to the Sivas massacre on 2 July 1993 in Sivas, Turkey, which resulted in the deaths of thirty seven people.[SUP][16][/SUP]
In September 2012, Rushdie expressed doubt that The Satanic Verses would be published today because of a climate of "fear and nervousness".[SUP][17]
[/SUP]
Meanwhile, the Commission for Racial Equality and a liberal think tank, the Policy Studies Institute, held seminars on the Rushdie affair. They did not invite the author Fay Weldon, who spoke out against burning books, but did invite Shabbir Akhtar, a Cambridge philosophy graduate who called for "a negotiated compromise" which "would protect Muslim sensibilities against gratuitous provocation". The journalist and author Andy McSmith wrote at the time "We are witnessing, I fear, the birth of a new and dangerously illiberal "liberal" orthodoxy designed to accommodate Dr Akhtar and his fundamentalist friends."[SUP][12][/SUP]
Journalist Christopher Hitchens staunchly defended Rushdie and urged critics to condemn the violence of the fatwa instead of blaming the novel or the author. Hitchens understood the fatwa to be the opening shot in a cultural war on freedom.
i will absolve the horrible short from this but as ever Christopher hitchens ...so wish he was alive now... was spot on
[SUP]
[/SUP]
In September 2012, Rushdie expressed doubt that The Satanic Verses would be published today because of a climate of "fear and nervousness".[SUP][17]
[/SUP]
Meanwhile, the Commission for Racial Equality and a liberal think tank, the Policy Studies Institute, held seminars on the Rushdie affair. They did not invite the author Fay Weldon, who spoke out against burning books, but did invite Shabbir Akhtar, a Cambridge philosophy graduate who called for "a negotiated compromise" which "would protect Muslim sensibilities against gratuitous provocation". The journalist and author Andy McSmith wrote at the time "We are witnessing, I fear, the birth of a new and dangerously illiberal "liberal" orthodoxy designed to accommodate Dr Akhtar and his fundamentalist friends."[SUP][12][/SUP]
Journalist Christopher Hitchens staunchly defended Rushdie and urged critics to condemn the violence of the fatwa instead of blaming the novel or the author. Hitchens understood the fatwa to be the opening shot in a cultural war on freedom.
i will absolve the horrible short from this but as ever Christopher hitchens ...so wish he was alive now... was spot on
[SUP]
[/SUP]
I am giving this a rest but will say one last thing
I would use the word despise rather than hate and yes i despise the 30% or so of muslims who hold these views
If you or anyone does not despise those that believe in execution for novel writing or publishing cartoons not to mention every other foul belief that this section of islam adheres to then i would suggest that the moral compass has gone
I would use the word despise rather than hate and yes i despise the 30% or so of muslims who hold these views
If you or anyone does not despise those that believe in execution for novel writing or publishing cartoons not to mention every other foul belief that this section of islam adheres to then i would suggest that the moral compass has gone
granger
Senior Jockey
Good to know you are well Hamm. You were close to it Friday by all accounts.
simmo
Senior Jockey
Much lols. Who issued the fatwa that you think is the root cause of ISIS? hahahaha. Gotta love arguing with halfwits on the internet.
I have no problem with your dislike of those who issued the fatwa - I don't like them either. But that doesn't mean that I wish to destroy every single person who follows Islam.
What I am suggesting is that we carry out treatment on the root causes rather than behead a beast that will simply grow another. Apologies if an actual solution to the problem would mean that you'd have to rein in your bigotry and hatred.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Clivex, Rushdie's fatwa was issued by Iranian Shia clerics, who just happen to be the sworn enemies of ISIS.
The current, particular, brand of violent Jihad does not have its etymology in the Rushdie Affair, or even the overthrow of the Shah and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is a much more modern construct, with it's roots first taking-hold in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion (where large numbers of foreign Mujahideen were mobilised for the first time). The First Gulf War is/was much less relevant (in my view) than the second, because only during GW2 was there a political/control vacuum that the likes of Al-Zarqawi could exploit.
The current, particular, brand of violent Jihad does not have its etymology in the Rushdie Affair, or even the overthrow of the Shah and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is a much more modern construct, with it's roots first taking-hold in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion (where large numbers of foreign Mujahideen were mobilised for the first time). The First Gulf War is/was much less relevant (in my view) than the second, because only during GW2 was there a political/control vacuum that the likes of Al-Zarqawi could exploit.
Dire
So it was only shia iranians calling for violence, intimidation, curbs on free speech and execution of the novelist was it?
talk about missing the point...
it really is fckimg hopeless if i have to explain that once again
And im not saying it was the "start" but it was a clear early manifistation of lingering intentions. And it predated the gulf war by two years, which was cited as "the start"
So it was only shia iranians calling for violence, intimidation, curbs on free speech and execution of the novelist was it?
talk about missing the point...
it really is fckimg hopeless if i have to explain that once again
And im not saying it was the "start" but it was a clear early manifistation of lingering intentions. And it predated the gulf war by two years, which was cited as "the start"
simmo
Senior Jockey
Unbelievable Jeff.
This thing here is black.
No it isn't, it's white.
Yes it is, it's black - look, there's black all over it.
Of course it's black you fcking idiot, what sort of numpty are you to think it's white.
I don't think it's white.
Yes you do, you've just said that. Idiot.
No I was saying it's black. Which it is.
Of course it's black. With orange spots.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Clivex, the only linkage between reaction to Rushdie/Satanic Verses, and the type of ultra-violent Jihad conducted by ISIS (and their affiliates/proxies), are your "lingering intentions'. By that measurement - if it even qualifies as a measurement - I should probably be just as scared of the Germans, or the French, or the English, as I am of ISIS........but everyone (with the apparent exception of your good self) can see that it would be ridiculous to hold such a position.
You're trying to portray violent, militant Islam as a pre-Gulf-War-2 creation. In some (very) small respects, this is true, but you try to extend this to deny GW2 having anything to do with the genesis of ISIS - which is an equally ridiculous position to hold. It is self-evident that GW2 - and the chaos of the Arab Spring - were the most crucial factors, when it came to enabling the Islamic State. I can't seriously believe that you continue to deny this.
You're trying to portray violent, militant Islam as a pre-Gulf-War-2 creation. In some (very) small respects, this is true, but you try to extend this to deny GW2 having anything to do with the genesis of ISIS - which is an equally ridiculous position to hold. It is self-evident that GW2 - and the chaos of the Arab Spring - were the most crucial factors, when it came to enabling the Islamic State. I can't seriously believe that you continue to deny this.
Last edited:
simmo
Senior Jockey
So am I. I would cite the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1998 US embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole and 9/11 as examples of pre-GW2 violent, militant Islam.
From those came GW2, Afghanistan and the subsequent violence which we have witnessed - but it's roots lie prior to GW2, prior even to 9/11 (self-evidently).
I believe the Rushdie thing is irrelevant - the fatwa and the list of attempted executions were not against The West, they were against specific individuals. The rise of hatred of the West has it's roots entwined in the events I've listed above and it is the issues which caused the initial problem which need to be addressed before a final solution can be achieved.