icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
So also is Assad.
ISIS...Islamic State Victims
- Thread starter harry
- Start date
Tanlic
Senior Jockey
@ people including a female died in the police raid in St Denis7 arrested.
Apparently she blew herself up with a suicide belt........no waist was found.
Good enough for the cow.
Apparently she blew herself up with a suicide belt........no waist was found.
Good enough for the cow.
M
marbler
Guest
Point made by lady on radio 2, who has questioned why Muslims are always asked to explain themselves in their daily lives, and justify themselves almost like the Germans after the second world war, especially after attacks like last week.
It's a fair and interesting point actually.
It's a fair and interesting point actually.
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
M
marbler
Guest
Nothing surprising EC1..Blair even admitted himself a few weeks ago.
Bad wars have bad consequences.
Bad wars have bad consequences.
Last edited:
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Yeah but, No but, Yeah but, No but .................
All I'm hearing for too long now is a Deafening Silence from the Muslim population in condemnation of not only Paris atrocity but all the others that have gone before.
M
marbler
Guest
The but usually comes when talking about the West foreign policy actions.
When the indigenous British say the Iraq war was a joke and caused the problems we have today its seen as acceptance...
When a muslim person says it its seen as justification for terrorism. That's the problem.
British muslims have as much right to feel aggrieved and angry about Iraq 2003 as as any other bugger.
Last edited:
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
What you on about? Don't quite understand the above.
Forget about 2003 for a moment, if you can. This is about massacres of innocent people at the present moment.
Either Muslims condemn it, or they don't. If they don't it might be out of fear, or else because they agree with it.
I know this: if a bunch of Church of England adherents were running around shouting "Christ Is Great" and beheading people or shooting up bars restaurants and concert halls, you would have millions of Anglicans loudly saying "not in our name".
I notice that the Muslim Council of Britain have taken out adverts in the press this morning. Not enough, not enough by half. When they expel hate preachers from their mosques, and also admit that the BOOK that all Muslims read from contains inherently bad theology of invocations to kill, then I might believe their goodwill.
EC1
On a break
if you are a muslim..your whole life would consist of going out in the streets every day and voicing your dislike of IS just to suit Ice and those that think like him..it would be a full time job..people have lives to lead Ice..unlike on this thread..most people in this country..muslim or not have no interest in politics or terrorists..they just go about their life...not everyone is interested basically..its a bit like horse racing..some like and follow it..some don't. Many people don't have any interest..many don't watch the news as its just depressing..politics isn't that interesting to many people..never mind running round streets just to suit you
our local radio have had numerous phone ins with muslims voicing their disgust at events by the way..maybe you don't take much notice or choose not to notice so you can complain..ooh muslims won't condemn it. Maybe you are out of touch..read these
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/paris-attacks-muslims-around-world-react-islamic-state-massacre-152875
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/M...orism-attack/story-28174486-detail/story.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/16/muslims-hate-isis-most-of-all.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/14/how-muslims-around-the-world-condemned-the-paris-attacks/
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/muslims-use-social-media-condem-isis-fight-islamophobia
[url]http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/muslim-groups-strongly-condemn-terror-attacks-paris
[/URL]
our local radio have had numerous phone ins with muslims voicing their disgust at events by the way..maybe you don't take much notice or choose not to notice so you can complain..ooh muslims won't condemn it. Maybe you are out of touch..read these
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/paris-attacks-muslims-around-world-react-islamic-state-massacre-152875
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/M...orism-attack/story-28174486-detail/story.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/16/muslims-hate-isis-most-of-all.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/14/how-muslims-around-the-world-condemned-the-paris-attacks/
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/muslims-use-social-media-condem-isis-fight-islamophobia
[url]http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/muslim-groups-strongly-condemn-terror-attacks-paris
[/URL]
Last edited:
M
marbler
Guest
To suggest each and every Muslim around the world needs to renounce the terrorists might be your idea of living in an ideal world but you're intelligent enough to know we're far from being in that world.
As long as Muslims in the U.K do not commit or incite terrorist acts they are fine by me - and they are surely the majority.
What political thoughts they have about world domination in relation to I.S and what they think doesn't bother me too much.
Actions as always, speak much louder than words, and certainly thoughts.
As for my earlier post, I think you do understand, but you don't accept what I said. Two different things.
As long as Muslims in the U.K do not commit or incite terrorist acts they are fine by me - and they are surely the majority.
What political thoughts they have about world domination in relation to I.S and what they think doesn't bother me too much.
Actions as always, speak much louder than words, and certainly thoughts.
As for my earlier post, I think you do understand, but you don't accept what I said. Two different things.
Last edited:
it bothers me if they support a worldwide caliphate. But most dont
there is in most polls a solid 30% or so that hold extreme views. That clearly means you will et plenty of muslims phoning radio stations to voice their anger and good thing to. They are also the majority but there is a very noticeable rise in certain areas of london in the uniform of fundamentalism. Take a walk around the edgware road and bethnal green
Now not all fundamentalists agree with the violence although they certainly hold views on many matters that are abhorrent to anyone outside the hard left and its no secret that the violence and hatred towards non believers almost always spreads from this arm of islam.
If you choose to wear the uniform of extremism, do not complain if are viewed as an extremist
there is in most polls a solid 30% or so that hold extreme views. That clearly means you will et plenty of muslims phoning radio stations to voice their anger and good thing to. They are also the majority but there is a very noticeable rise in certain areas of london in the uniform of fundamentalism. Take a walk around the edgware road and bethnal green
Now not all fundamentalists agree with the violence although they certainly hold views on many matters that are abhorrent to anyone outside the hard left and its no secret that the violence and hatred towards non believers almost always spreads from this arm of islam.
If you choose to wear the uniform of extremism, do not complain if are viewed as an extremist
EC1
On a break
most don't support them though Clive.
that 30% figure was gleaned from the Ebdoo cartoons from what i can remember..might be wrong...basically they objected to the cartoons..thats not the same as supporting Isis
either way..anyone they find in this country preaching support or in any other way supporting isis should be air dropped over Syria and let them join their mates..Putins reaction to the plane going down is 20 cruise misslies isn't it?..being on the end of one of them will test their support.
the last thing we want in this country is people turning on peace minded people..thats what isis want..and will celebrate if they achieve it..we must not let them unless we want civil war on our streets..i don't particularly relish that thought..too old now
that 30% figure was gleaned from the Ebdoo cartoons from what i can remember..might be wrong...basically they objected to the cartoons..thats not the same as supporting Isis
either way..anyone they find in this country preaching support or in any other way supporting isis should be air dropped over Syria and let them join their mates..Putins reaction to the plane going down is 20 cruise misslies isn't it?..being on the end of one of them will test their support.
the last thing we want in this country is people turning on peace minded people..thats what isis want..and will celebrate if they achieve it..we must not let them unless we want civil war on our streets..i don't particularly relish that thought..too old now
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
here is the article..yes you are right..sympathy for attacking the cartoonists
tp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html
one thing it doesn't say..how many were polled?..a bit misleading i think..is it 10..a 1000?..surely thats the main info needed and they don't mention it
i wonder if they will do a poll on how many support the Paris attacks
here is another of same poll.looks like they asked a 1000 to me..then claim that represents the whole muslim community...1000?..to me this shoddy and a little misleading.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2...f-uk-muslims-support-attacks-on-charlie-hebdo
I'd agree its not good ..but i think saying 27% of ALL muslims here based on asking a thou is very misleading.
like i say..lets see em do another one about the weekend now.
tp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html
one thing it doesn't say..how many were polled?..a bit misleading i think..is it 10..a 1000?..surely thats the main info needed and they don't mention it
i wonder if they will do a poll on how many support the Paris attacks
here is another of same poll.looks like they asked a 1000 to me..then claim that represents the whole muslim community...1000?..to me this shoddy and a little misleading.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2...f-uk-muslims-support-attacks-on-charlie-hebdo
I'd agree its not good ..but i think saying 27% of ALL muslims here based on asking a thou is very misleading.
like i say..lets see em do another one about the weekend now.
Last edited:
simmo
Senior Jockey
**** me. Even by Daily Mail standards this is quite vile.
http://www.thecanary.co/2015/11/17/daily-mail-sunk-time-low-despicable-response-paris-attacks-image/
http://www.thecanary.co/2015/11/17/daily-mail-sunk-time-low-despicable-response-paris-attacks-image/
EC1
On a break
oh yes i really did think it was 10
..you really do take everything i say literally don't you?..or you think that replies like that make you look smart..they don't....27% of 10 is 2.7 by the way..see i did it back..annoying and boring int it? Come on Clive..scoring cheap ones isn't necessary..lets be sensible eh?its a fair number if in context..its not fair to infer in your headline that 27% of the whole population thinks like that considering the number of people you are trying to represent..its very assumptive...and looks like a stirring up issue intent on causing more problems than we already have
i agree its not good at 27%...but i wouldn't hang my hat on it that is for sure
Last edited:
Having some degree of sympathy is very much open to the interpretation of the repsonder
I can think of plenty of occasions where I might disagree with something but could also respond as being sympathetic based on an understanding of the subject matter
That 11% agree with the murdering is the more significant finding, which is broadly similar to the 10% of Saudi Arabian's surveyed who agree with ISIL (the biggest percentage by country)
I can think of plenty of occasions where I might disagree with something but could also respond as being sympathetic based on an understanding of the subject matter
That 11% agree with the murdering is the more significant finding, which is broadly similar to the 10% of Saudi Arabian's surveyed who agree with ISIL (the biggest percentage by country)
I think the Daily Mail showed their true colours back in January when the public who they're happy to whip up and incite called them out to publish the prophet cartoons in an area of life that directly related to something they should have been prepared to defend (free speech). Let it be remembered that not a single right wing media outlet was brave enough to stand on the barricades and have a go (brave enough to encourage others to do so, but not to put themselves in harms way). Only the BBC and the Guardian did so (eventually) but at least they did. The Mail is a paper of bullies, and like most bullies, they select easy targets but tend to cower when they come up against someone or something that can fight back
Last edited:
So Dave is finishing off his u turn. There's probably little currency to be gained now from rubbing this in other than to say the simple fact is he could have (and should have) arrived at this decision four years ago. IS was always the threat and not Assad. I think most fair minded people can see this for what it is, an error of judgement being corrected. I'm not quite so convinced that the thankful departure of William Hague isn't completely unconnected. So we move onto the next phase
The speed with which the French and the Russians appear to be speaking with each other, and indeed co-ordinating activity is perhaps a bit surprising. It might even be signalling the beginning of closer links between the EU and Russia in the wider political schema (next 10-20 years). It doesn't seem to me at least to be too big a stretch of the imagination to suggest that over this temporal horizon Europe is likely to be sharing many of the anxieties and tensions that Russia is, rather than those shared by the geographically more isolated America. A natural alliance of the necessary could easily start to evolve once they abandon Tsarism. America (well Obama at least) continues to insist that the threat is over stated and that ISIL are "contained" which naturally enough is going to lead to the French in this case being more receptive to taking Putin up on his offer.
For our part though, we're seemingly faced with the next big decision (albeit events could always take a hand which force this of course). Do we start a bombing campaign? Do we throw the might of our 6 Tornados into fray to tip the balance decisively? or do we take a longer term and more strategic view of this and look to contribute elsewhere and perhaps in a way that might be something other than tokenistic?
I just can't help feeling that Cameron is making another error to compound one he's already made, and that sadly he seems to be aware of it too. If he acknowledges that his dropping bombs and firing missiles is going to make no difference, as he did on Monday, why do it? I get that there is an issue of principle involved, but this is outweighed imo by a requirement to be smart. There are plenty of overs to be bowled in this match yet. My instinct is to take a backseat here, even if this does involve a loss of imaginary national prestige.
Tactically a bombing campaign is only really of any benefit if you've got the infantry in place to capitalise on the weakening of a defensive position that it creates (within the first 6 hours). ISIL will replenish their losses and doubtless use civilian casualties caused by it (genuine or otherwise) to recruit further lemmings.
Ultimately this is likely to be fought as an end game in the rubble of Raaqa, which possibly means sniper rifles and flame throwers, the former of which we do actually have expertise in
In the longer term of course the fight will continue beyond this theatre. At this stage I find myself sympathetic to the aspiration, but in disagreement with the tactics, and questioning whether ego and loss of national prestige isn't all of sudden starting to dangerously drive the decision making process. Indeed, I read an account from the BBC that links it to the trevails of Jeremy Corbyn getting a hard time from Labour MP's on Monday night. If Cameron is seriously formulating defence policy and strategic decisions based around Jeremy Corbyn's internal political issues, then I despair of him. Such a perverse approach is just reckless and endangering all of us with such warped priorities. God forbid he is
The speed with which the French and the Russians appear to be speaking with each other, and indeed co-ordinating activity is perhaps a bit surprising. It might even be signalling the beginning of closer links between the EU and Russia in the wider political schema (next 10-20 years). It doesn't seem to me at least to be too big a stretch of the imagination to suggest that over this temporal horizon Europe is likely to be sharing many of the anxieties and tensions that Russia is, rather than those shared by the geographically more isolated America. A natural alliance of the necessary could easily start to evolve once they abandon Tsarism. America (well Obama at least) continues to insist that the threat is over stated and that ISIL are "contained" which naturally enough is going to lead to the French in this case being more receptive to taking Putin up on his offer.
For our part though, we're seemingly faced with the next big decision (albeit events could always take a hand which force this of course). Do we start a bombing campaign? Do we throw the might of our 6 Tornados into fray to tip the balance decisively? or do we take a longer term and more strategic view of this and look to contribute elsewhere and perhaps in a way that might be something other than tokenistic?
I just can't help feeling that Cameron is making another error to compound one he's already made, and that sadly he seems to be aware of it too. If he acknowledges that his dropping bombs and firing missiles is going to make no difference, as he did on Monday, why do it? I get that there is an issue of principle involved, but this is outweighed imo by a requirement to be smart. There are plenty of overs to be bowled in this match yet. My instinct is to take a backseat here, even if this does involve a loss of imaginary national prestige.
Tactically a bombing campaign is only really of any benefit if you've got the infantry in place to capitalise on the weakening of a defensive position that it creates (within the first 6 hours). ISIL will replenish their losses and doubtless use civilian casualties caused by it (genuine or otherwise) to recruit further lemmings.
Ultimately this is likely to be fought as an end game in the rubble of Raaqa, which possibly means sniper rifles and flame throwers, the former of which we do actually have expertise in
In the longer term of course the fight will continue beyond this theatre. At this stage I find myself sympathetic to the aspiration, but in disagreement with the tactics, and questioning whether ego and loss of national prestige isn't all of sudden starting to dangerously drive the decision making process. Indeed, I read an account from the BBC that links it to the trevails of Jeremy Corbyn getting a hard time from Labour MP's on Monday night. If Cameron is seriously formulating defence policy and strategic decisions based around Jeremy Corbyn's internal political issues, then I despair of him. Such a perverse approach is just reckless and endangering all of us with such warped priorities. God forbid he is
Last edited:
This obsession with cameron and Hague is getting very boring and repetitive
also you are wilfully misquoting him. Do we always have to come here to correct so that mug readers of this forum do not swallow this stuff?
As as with the assertion that the uk were not involved with the assassination when they had the largest input, cameron said the strikes will "not transform" the situation which is entirely different to saying not make any difference at all
also you are wilfully misquoting him. Do we always have to come here to correct so that mug readers of this forum do not swallow this stuff?
As as with the assertion that the uk were not involved with the assassination when they had the largest input, cameron said the strikes will "not transform" the situation which is entirely different to saying not make any difference at all
I'd hadn't realised that you'd taken to using the Royal "we".
Perhaps if you'll permit therefore your Highness, to submit the following explanation as a plea for clemency
It was always my belief that you could only misquote someone in writing, if you placed the quote in question, in quotation marks, and it subsequently proved to be incorrect. Luckily I suspect that "the mug readers of this forum" as you delicately refer to them, (note the quotation marks) know this. So no I have most certainly not misquoted him (David Cameron)
If I elect instead to take the gist of what he said, then that is called paraphrasing and is widely used in both the written and spoken language. Sometimes it's necessary to spell out to some people that you're paraphrasing, but you'll occasionally be accused of patronising them if you do. In this case I'd choose to encourage the reader to draw their own conclusions regarding whether "make any difference" (as in, things won't change) is a significant corruption of "not transform" - in the sense that transform usually means change
Perhaps if you'll permit therefore your Highness, to submit the following explanation as a plea for clemency
It was always my belief that you could only misquote someone in writing, if you placed the quote in question, in quotation marks, and it subsequently proved to be incorrect. Luckily I suspect that "the mug readers of this forum" as you delicately refer to them, (note the quotation marks) know this. So no I have most certainly not misquoted him (David Cameron)
If I elect instead to take the gist of what he said, then that is called paraphrasing and is widely used in both the written and spoken language. Sometimes it's necessary to spell out to some people that you're paraphrasing, but you'll occasionally be accused of patronising them if you do. In this case I'd choose to encourage the reader to draw their own conclusions regarding whether "make any difference" (as in, things won't change) is a significant corruption of "not transform" - in the sense that transform usually means change
Last edited:
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
It must be hell for a jihadist anywhere in the Islamic State right now. Russia carrying out 120 sorties today hitting over 200 targets including dozens of oiltankers and a couple of oil refineries. Warms me cockles, so it does!
I'm beginning to really like this Putin fella ! Whilst other world leaders are having talks and expressing "concern", the Russians are really taking it to the ISIS filth. Hard.
I can't help making a comparison between D Cameron's "This will be a generational war" or M Valls "We will have to live with this terrorist threat for a long time" with Vlad's "We are going to pursue terrorists everywhere. If they are in the airport, we will pursue them in the airport. And if we capture them in the toilet, then we will waste them in the outhouse".
Go Vladimir
Ra Ra Ra Putin.
I'm beginning to really like this Putin fella ! Whilst other world leaders are having talks and expressing "concern", the Russians are really taking it to the ISIS filth. Hard.
I can't help making a comparison between D Cameron's "This will be a generational war" or M Valls "We will have to live with this terrorist threat for a long time" with Vlad's "We are going to pursue terrorists everywhere. If they are in the airport, we will pursue them in the airport. And if we capture them in the toilet, then we will waste them in the outhouse".
Go Vladimir
Ra Ra Ra Putin.
It must be hell for a jihadist anywhere in the Islamic State right now. Russia carrying out 120 sorties today hitting over 200 targets including dozens of oiltankers and a couple of oil refineries. Warms me cockles, so it does!
There is a suggestion that certain fast moving vehicles have been seeing trying to leave Raaqa for Mosul, whilst the civilians are being kept in there to potentially act as hostages.
I did wonder what the effect might be of dropping small arms into Raaqa? Would the Islamic State simply accept them gratefully, or would the civilians realising that they might be going to get wasted try and liberate themselves. Shades of the Warsaw uprising (not that you'd ever dare to frame it like that of course)