| Non-motoring > ISIS | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: No FM2R | Replies: 162 |
|
New Sat 14 Mar 15 22:29
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
I've just watched the BBC news reporting the death of a Brit fighting against ISIS. Lots of drama about his funeral and how he's a hero and all that stuff. Now, with all due respect, how is that any different to a Brit going out and fighting *for* ISIS. I realise that one side is more attractive or agreeable than the other, but is like/dislike of the side chosen really sufficient to vilify one and hero-worship the other? Not for me, I think they're both wrong. I might like one more than the other, but its wrong or its not. |
|
New Sat 14 Mar 15 22:35
ISIS - Bromptonaut
|
|
Absolutely. It's either OK to go and help out in a foreign war or it's not. Once you qualify it with a value judgement about the side chosen it gets ridiculous. |
|
New Sat 14 Mar 15 22:44
ISIS - sooty123
|
|
>> Absolutely. >> >> It's either OK to go and help out in a foreign war or it's not. >> >> >> Once you qualify it with a value judgement about the side chosen it gets ridiculous. >> >> Not sure it's ridiculous, it happens all the time. Doesn't seem unreasonable to look at two different groups and form an opinion about them. |
|
New Sat 14 Mar 15 22:55
ISIS - Old Navy
|
| Blair's crusades certainly stired up the whole middle east. He may yet have WW3 to his credit. |
|
New Sat 14 Mar 15 23:29
ISIS - Manatee
|
|
>> It's either OK to go and help out in a foreign war or it's not. >> >> >> Once you qualify it with a value judgement about the side chosen it gets ridiculous. I make a lot of value judgements, you should try it! |
|
New Sat 14 Mar 15 23:48
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> Once you qualify it with a value judgement about the side chosen it gets ridiculous. Not as ridiculous as 'helping out in a foreign war' without having any idea of which side you favour, surely? Unless you're a psychopath or other sort of nutter you simply won't go there without the preliminary value judgement. And if you do you deserve to be swatted, you're begging for it. Isil adherents are reactionary fools. Squaddies are... well, squaddies. They too may sometimes be reactionary fools, but they're on the right side, our side. Part of something you can understand and sort of sympathise with. |
|
New Sat 14 Mar 15 23:28
ISIS - Manatee
|
|
>> I realise that one side is more attractive or agreeable than the other, but is >> like/dislike of the side chosen really sufficient to vilify one and hero-worship the other? Er...yes. >> Not for me, I think they're both wrong. I might like one more than the >> other, but its wrong or its not. If you think ISIS is very bad, then fighting it might be good? Britain is officially supporting the fight against ISIS, is that wrong too? |
|
New Sat 14 Mar 15 23:35
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
>> is like/dislike of the side chosen really sufficient to vilify one and hero-worship the other? > Er...yes. Er...no. I think it takes more than individual like or dislike to decide criminality. >>Britain is officially supporting the fight against ISIS, is that wrong too? No. Nor is it relevant. I wasn't discussing the actions of a country, I was discussing the judgement of individual actions. Was it not obvious? So, for you, the difference between an acceptable fighter and an unacceptable fighter is merely whether or not you agree with them? I'm a little surprised that you're comfortable with that distinction. |
|
New Sat 14 Mar 15 23:43
ISIS - Manatee
|
|
>> I'm a little surprised that you're comfortable with that distinction. And I'm so surprised that you aren't that I thought your post must be a wind up. Maybe you just need to think a bit more. www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2015/feb/25/brits-abroad-against-law-fight-isis Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 15 Mar 15 at 04:01
|
|
New Sat 14 Mar 15 23:48
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
>>Maybe you just need to think a bit more Why? Or is that some clever-clever, condescending way of implying that because we disagree I must not have thought enough? I completely cannot see the difference between a British civilian leaving the country to fight on one side or the other. Of course I favour one side or the other, but is that a basis for selective implementation of a law? |
|
New Sat 14 Mar 15 23:51
ISIS - Manatee
|
|
>> >>Maybe you just need to think a bit more >> >> Why? Or is that some clever-clever, condescending way of implying that because we disagree I >> must not have thought enough? Spot on. |
|
New Sat 14 Mar 15 23:57
ISIS - Manatee
|
|
Actually I just agreed with you because there doesn't seem to be much point arguing. But you are not alone it seems. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/10/orwell-hero-terrorism-syria-british-fighters-damned |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 00:01
ISIS - sooty123
|
|
>> I completely cannot see the difference between a British civilian leaving the country to fight >> on one side or the other. Of course I favour one side or the other, >> but is that a basis for selective implementation of a law? >> Seems to me to be the basis of many things, making a judgement on one group or another. In this case, Oking citizens to fight on side, but arresting those on the other, and the laws are made by people and people make judgements. The government wants one set (or at least turns a blind eye ) and doesn't want the other group, hence the difference in treatment. |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 00:03
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> I completely cannot see the difference between a British civilian leaving the country to fight on one side or the other. I don't believe you FMR. It isn't a question of taste, of which 'side' you 'favour'. That's just faff. It's a whole mixed-up tangle of moral and political and social imperatives. Grown-up stuff, God help us. |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 09:19
ISIS - Zero
|
|
the big distinction here is that, whatever side you choose and they are victorious, they will be tomorrows conquering despotic terror group. Thats the best you will have helped to achieve, and at worse, you are actively keeping the killing and terror going. This is not good and civilisation vs bad and uncivilised. There is no good or bad here, you jump in and you are bad or bad. |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 09:55
ISIS - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> the big distinction here is that, whatever side you choose and they are victorious, they >> will be tomorrows conquering despotic terror group. The Spanish civil war ought to have taught people that. It was a big badge of where you stood on the right/wrong battle. But we can I think see now that the only choice was between a fascist dictatorship or a Stalinist one. It's odd that we don't seem to hear of mercenaries any more. In civil wars of old there were always groups of toughened ex-paratroopers led by rather dubious former officers. What's happened to traditional values - doesn't anyone fight for money any more ? |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 10:28
ISIS - MD
|
| Yes they do. Shooting pirates is one for example. Good money too I'm told. |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 12:20
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> whatever side you choose and they are victorious, they will be tomorrows conquering despotic terror group. ISIL is a conquering despotic terror group already. What makes you think freelance squaddies will become one in the unlikely event that they are 'victorious'? >> There is no good or bad here, you jump in and you are bad or bad. False objectivity. You don't really think they are equally bad, but you're keeping that to yourself. |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 12:41
ISIS - Manatee
|
|
Quite. I have no doubt that there are some opportunistic bad eggs and factions allied against ISIS, along with those striving to stop its expansion and trying to protect for example Lebanon, which will be a real bloodbath such as we have not yet seen should ISIS overrun it. I'll settle for ISIS = bad, and opposing ISIS = good to be going on with. No difficulty with that value judgement. The pin-head-dancing distinction about the legal status of the combatants is not the same point of course, but does not justify classifying those fighting ISIS along with those joining it and I find it pretty unsavoury. I'm not going there to fight them myself, but I am certainly not going to criticise those who do. |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 14:05
ISIS - Roger.
|
|
All sides in Syria seem to like killing captured opponents with knives, rocks, sticks, fire or bullets to the head. Load of turds - all of them. Last edited by: Roger. on Sun 15 Mar 15 at 14:06
|
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 14:41
ISIS - NortonES2
|
|
A cycle of rule by terror that Islamists and other power-seekers have adopted from the Assyrians: The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold, And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold; And the sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea, When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee. Until the Assyrians as they weakened were tortured, burnt and killed, in succeeding reigns of terror. Last edited by: NortonES2 on Sun 15 Mar 15 at 14:42
|
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 15:01
ISIS - Dog
|
|
>>The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold, And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold; And the sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea, When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee. Until the Assyrians as they weakened were tortured, burnt and killed, in succeeding reigns of terror<< I've looked all through the Daily Wail, but I can't find any reference to that at all for some reason. I'll have a look through my other snoozepaper now, the Daily Express. :} |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 15:05
ISIS - NortonES2
|
| You'll have to try the works of Byron... |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 15:08
ISIS - Dog
|
| www.byronhamburgers.com/ ?? |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 15:12
ISIS - NortonES2
|
| Haram. So no. |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 15:09
ISIS - Bromptonaut
|
|
It's only in last year or so that ISIS have become identified in the way they are now. Until then they were on the against Assad side who seemed on the whole to be portrayed as 'good'. Wern't they also opposed to the corrupt regime in post Saddam Iraq? |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 15:34
ISIS - sooty123
|
| The groups opposed to Assad are wide and varied, they often change alliances and name. I think it's the msm that have picked up on ISIS being 'bad' in the past few years, outside of that it's been well known that were bad apples in those fighting Assad. |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 15:05
ISIS - Zero
|
|
>> I'll settle for ISIS = bad, and opposing ISIS = good to be going on >> with. No difficulty with that value judgement. I supposed you settled for ISIS = Good Syrian forces=bad at one time as well. I repeated, its a despotic terrorist war on both sides. |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 15:11
ISIS - Bromptonaut
|
| Run up the flags, I'm pretty much in agreement with Z. |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 15:15
ISIS - Runfer D'Hills
|
| Careful you don't catch the flags on that belt clip. Could be nasty. |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 17:08
ISIS - Manatee
|
|
>> >> >> I'll settle for ISIS = bad, and opposing ISIS = good to be going >> on >> >> with. No difficulty with that value judgement. >> >> I supposed you settled for ISIS = Good Syrian forces=bad at one time as well. >> >> >> I repeated, its a despotic terrorist war on both sides. Does that mean you are indifferent to the outcome? |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 17:13
ISIS - Zero
|
|
>> >> I repeated, its a despotic terrorist war on both sides. >> >> Does that mean you are indifferent to the outcome? Of course not, I didn't even suggest that - I am never indifferent to instability that may effect us. I know however there is, currently, not much we can do in the way of intervention. Mostly because there is no definitive side to intervene on behalf of. |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 17:37
ISIS - Manatee
|
| Are we only talking about privateers, or do you think Britain should not have helped to keep ISIS out of Lebanon (so far)? |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 17:45
ISIS - Zero
|
|
>> Are we only talking about privateers, or do you think Britain should not have helped >> to keep ISIS out of Lebanon (so far)? who says we have? I am pretty sure there is nothing we have done that has stopped that. The Cristian forces and Hezbolah there have done most of the work. ISIS is scared sheep less of them Last edited by: Zero on Sun 15 Mar 15 at 17:48
|
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 18:06
ISIS - sooty123
|
|
>> ISIS is scared sheep less of them >> What makes you think that? |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 18:18
ISIS - Zero
|
|
because they have 40 years of experience, and a cause and its a well defended line to cross.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 15 Mar 15 at 18:20
|
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 18:28
ISIS - sooty123
|
| And that makes ISIS scared whitless of them? |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 18:37
ISIS - Zero
|
| Yes why not? Anyway, they haven't made huge advances it there have they, and its nothing to do with the efforts of the west is it. |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 18:52
ISIS - sooty123
|
|
The kurds have plenty of experience and a cause, are they similarily scared of them? No they haven't, but that's more down to them not mounting a major offensive towards Lebanon. |
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 19:24
ISIS - Zero
|
|
>> The kurds have plenty of experience and a cause, A cause, but only experience of being put down by the Turks and Sadam Hussein. The cause is good tho, they are doing well. However, wasn't that long ago we had Kurds down as terrorists. They will be again. Which just goes to show the shifting sands of right and wrong. Last edited by: Zero on Sun 15 Mar 15 at 19:27
|
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 19:49
ISIS - sooty123
|
|
Experience of holding their own, they are/have been there or thereabouts. I wouldn't say we saw them in a different light in terms of morality, I think the PKK is still named as terrorist group in the UK. What it does show is just the normal flow and ebb of political reality and convenience. Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 15 Mar 15 at 19:50
|
|
New Sun 15 Mar 15 20:15
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> Which just goes to show the shifting sands of right and wrong. There are no shifting sands of right and wrong. You are being falsely objective Zero. 'The Kurds' have never done any brutal unjustified mass murders. On the contrary, they have given very serious armed protection to those persecuted Yemeni Christians, if we are to believe the media. They are good guys. On the other hand, these Isil and Al Qaeda people are very clearly bad. Not just because 'we' don't like them, but because they want to make us scared of them. They have this fantasy of forging a worldwide, dominant Islamic Caliphate led by some smelly old Imam. Some hope! Herself told me they already have a mini-Caliphate. But it won't last five minutes. I agree with others that it is deeply distasteful to put Isil back-to-back with these anti-Isil volunteers. It's slander actually, not worthy of you. Why shouldn't there be good thugs as well as bad ones? Syria is something else again. The Assads are a hereditary tyranny and very bad indeed. Everyone hates them including other bad people. A cousin in law went to Syria as a tourist not long ago. He says the Syrians themselves are terrific chaps and jolly good fun. Just like Iraqis and Algerians and Libyans in my personal experience. |
|
New Mon 16 Mar 15 07:36
ISIS - Westpig
|
|
>> There are no shifting sands of right and wrong. You are being falsely objective Zero. >> I agree with others that it is deeply distasteful to put Isil back-to-back with these >> anti-Isil volunteers. It's slander actually, not worthy of you. Why shouldn't there be good thugs >> as well as bad ones? Couldn't put it better myself. It ought to be glaringly obvious and I cannot understand why it isn't. A soldier brought up in a democracy, taught extensive rules of engagement, told he may be used for humanitarian goals, taught right from wrong, etc, etc....then, maybe misguidedly, maybe not depending on your viewpoint, goes to fight for the side that is literally being terrorised. The other side.... exceptionally violent, brutal to an unbelievable degree, totally criminal in its methods, working from a belief that their b******ised version of religion should dominate everyone else... ... and you see a comparison???? |
|
New Mon 16 Mar 15 07:49
ISIS - Zero
|
|
>> The other side.... exceptionally violent, brutal to an unbelievable degree, totally criminal in its methods, >> working from a belief that their b******ised version of religion should dominate everyone else... >> >> ... and you see a comparison???? There is no "other side" being terrorised. you have two sides equally working from a b version of religion, and trying to dominate everyone else, This is two sides of islam trying to wipe each other out. The ones in the middle being harmed are civilians, either side don't give a crap about them. I see whats happening, you on the other hand just see black or white, and if those two very distinct colours don't exist, you just go head and colour them so. Wasn't that long ago when you were clamouring for us to go and help ISIL, ISIS, IS - call them what you will when they were fighting Syrian Gov Troops. They were good white guys then. Last edited by: Zero on Mon 16 Mar 15 at 07:52
|
|
New Mon 16 Mar 15 08:29
ISIS - Westpig
|
|
>> There is no "other side" being terrorised. you have two sides equally working from a >> b version of religion, and trying to dominate everyone else, This is two sides of >> islam trying to wipe each other out. My point is addressed to the poster who initiated this post and those that agree with him i.e. what is different between a British soldier going to fight against ISIL and someone who wishes to fight for them. >> I see whats happening, you on the other hand just see black or white, and >> if those two very distinct colours don't exist, you just go head and colour them >> so. I cannot fathom what you mean. >> >> Wasn't that long ago when you were clamouring for us to go and help ISIL, >> ISIS, IS - call them what you will when they were fighting Syrian Gov Troops. >> They were good white guys then. I really do not remember arguing about helping ISIL... however, as AC has so credibly put, the goal posts change anyway, so your friend becomes your enemy then your friend again, needs must. We (Britain) generally come from a democratic, humanitarian angle... so how does one equate someone supporting people who openly rape, throw people off buildings or behead people.. with that of an idealist who goes to fight to try to save communities from barbarism? |
|
New Mon 16 Mar 15 11:39
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
These foreign conflicts are rarely good vs. bad. They are more usually one lot of bad vs. another lot of bad. It is an entirely different foundation to society. At the moment is seems that fighting against ISIS is a lot better than fighting for ISIS. Again, it seems at the moment that I like someone fighting against ISIS more than I like someone fighting for ISIS. But that is emotional and subjective. You do not, or at least should not, wish to live in a world where the law is based upon such extreme subjectivity. One day it will be something that you're doing that will become illegal just because someone else doesn't agree with it. So, if going abroad as a private citizen to fight in someone else's war per se is against the law, then it is against the law whether or not you like the side they have chosen. >>We (Britain) generally come from a democratic, humanitarian angle.. The sort of society which demands that a properly convened court decide if someone is guilty or not and what the punishment should be? Or the sort of society which decides if one team is doing bad stuff then a private citizen can wander off to another country and kill people who may be associated with that team without knowing what that individual did or did not do? And that's fine as long as we like the team they have chosen. Otherwise its bad. For goodness sakes, think it through. |
|
New Mon 16 Mar 15 11:51
ISIS - Roger.
|
|
Is this a first? I agree with Mark! (Takes happy pill!) Last edited by: Roger. on Mon 16 Mar 15 at 11:52
|
|
New Mon 16 Mar 15 14:11
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
>> I agree with Mark! Well stop it, its disconcerting. |
|
New Mon 16 Mar 15 11:53
ISIS - sooty123
|
|
>> So, if going abroad as a private citizen to fight in someone else's war per >> se is against the law, then it is against the law whether or not you >> like the side they have chosen. I don't think that it is illegal, might be wrong but I don't think it is. |
|
New Mon 16 Mar 15 12:13
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> I don't think that it is illegal, might be wrong but I don't think it is. That's about the size of it. Zero's right in a way: it's always 'wrong' to go armed and kill other people, even when acting under orders in a properly constituted military or police unit. Not many people really want to do it, and soldiers are quite often racked with guilt and disgust over things they've done in battle. However: in the far from perfect world we inhabit, clashes and disagreements are traditionally solved, as often as not, by fighting. If everyone could 'see reason' there wouldn't be any need for it. But they can't always, because there are two different conceptions of morality in play here. We think or hope that through e.g. the UN or other talking shops we can graduate from this primitive behaviour and stop killing each other. Perhaps 'we', if there is a 'we', can mature in this way. But it's very obviously a long, slow process. It won't happen in my lifetime or even the Sheikh's lifetime. If ever, realistically. |
|
New Mon 16 Mar 15 19:53
ISIS - Westpig
|
|
>> Zero's right in a way: it's always 'wrong' to go armed and kill other people, >> even when acting under orders in a properly constituted military or police unit. Not many >> people really want to do it, and soldiers are quite often racked with guilt and >> disgust over things they've done in battle. I disagree with that. In an ideal world, then 'yes' you are right. Trouble is we don't and never will live in an ideal world, so sadly difficult decisions sometimes have to be made... inc fighting people with arms. The only alternative is to roll over and let any hoodlum do as they wish... and they will do. |
|
New Mon 16 Mar 15 20:05
ISIS - Zero
|
|
>> The only alternative is to roll over and let any hoodlum do as they wish... >> and they will do. The trouble with your gung ho "lets go and kick some butt - any butt will do lets worry about the consequences later" has helped lead to the creation of ISIS. And Do you think they would have gone bowling over the Iraqi border if Saddam had been there? No, and that is one butt you were only too keen to kick at the time. And we did, and look what we have. your idea of "difficult decisions" is mindless thoughtless aggression with no regard for the situation, the parties involved, the reasons or the consequences. We, as a country are not rolling over, its nothing to do with us, not our fight - we are not the worlds policemen. As the worlds policemen in the past we have royally cocked it up. Last edited by: Zero on Mon 16 Mar 15 at 20:07
|
|
New Mon 16 Mar 15 21:22
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> As the worlds policemen in the past we have royally cocked it up. Is Britain's imperial record any worse than anyone else's? I don't really think so. Acts of imperialist aggression, or attempts to hold a tatty empire down, are always going to have knock-on effects, sometimes for centuries. And the descendants of the original 'victims' have long, often distorted memories, with which they try to torture the descendants of the original imperialists. It's all very stupid and horrible, but there's nothing new about it. We humans have made the world a stupid and horrible place. Being stupid and horrible we can't help it though. Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 16 Mar 15 at 21:24
|
|
New Mon 16 Mar 15 21:57
ISIS - Westpig
|
|
>> The trouble with your gung ho "lets go and kick some butt - any butt >> will do lets worry about the consequences later" has helped lead to the creation of >> ISIS. You really are a first class codpiece Zero. That is not my line, never has been and never will be. You seem to be one of these people that serially puts words in other people's mouths purely to counteract your own arguement i.e. putting together an angle that suits the polar one of yours. >> your idea of "difficult decisions" is mindless thoughtless aggression with no regard for the situation, >> the parties involved, the reasons or the consequences. See above >> We, as a country are not rolling over, its nothing to do with us, not >> our fight - we are not the worlds policemen. As the worlds policemen in the >> past we have royally cocked it up. Personally.. I think it is shameful that we all let Rwanda happen. The civilised should stand up for the oppressed... not just shrug their shoulders and let them get on with it. |
|
New Mon 16 Mar 15 22:16
ISIS - Zero
|
|
>> >> The trouble with your gung ho "lets go and kick some butt - any >> butt >> >> will do lets worry about the consequences later" has helped lead to the creation >> of >> >> ISIS. >> >> You really are a first class codpiece Zero. That is not my line, never has >> been and never will be. Thats is your line, thats all you ruddy well spout, your answer to everything. No putting words in your mouth. Last edited by: Zero on Mon 16 Mar 15 at 22:16
|
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 08:36
ISIS - Westpig
|
|
>> Thats is your line, thats all you ruddy well spout, your answer to everything. No >> putting words in your mouth. Very good. Now answer my point about Rwanda. That was truly shameful. You armchair critics that spout that we shouldn't get involved... yet we are all human beings and should try to look after each other, not just shrug our shoulders and leave people to it. Yes mistakes will be made, yes allegiances change, yes it will be difficult and cost lives, but to do nothing is cowardly and wrong. Who is the one who cannot see the wood for the trees... it isn't me is it? |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 08:48
ISIS - Zero
|
|
>> Who is the one who cannot see the wood for the trees... it isn't me >> is it? Yes it is. Can I suggest you check out how Rwanda has turned out since non intervention? Last edited by: Zero on Tue 17 Mar 15 at 08:50
|
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 10:31
ISIS - Zero
|
|
>> >> Who is the one who cannot see the wood for the trees... it isn't >> me >> >> is it? >> >> Yes it is. >> >> Can I suggest you check out how Rwanda has turned out since non intervention? >> I guess we didn't bother then, not being conducive to the Iron Fist (yee ha) theory. |
|
New Fri 27 Mar 15 20:15
ISIS - MD
|
|
>> The civilised should stand up for the oppressed... not just shrug their shoulders and let them get on with it. Well said WP. |
|
New Mon 16 Mar 15 19:50
ISIS - Westpig
|
|
>> For goodness sakes, think it through. >> I have thought it through. I remain uneasy about ex British soldiers and similar fighting for the Kurds without the support / permission of this country... but am horrified to a very high degree at the antics of ISIL and similar. It's a matter of degree.... and it is hopelessly simplistic to state they are both wrong and therefore as bad as each other. That is my point. |
|
New Mon 16 Mar 15 22:20
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
"None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see." Matthew Henry |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 08:32
ISIS - Westpig
|
|
>> >> "None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that >> will not see." >> >> Matthew Henry ... and nothing so annoying as those who think their way is the only way Westpig, 2015 |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 10:27
ISIS - car4play
|
|
Great quote Context for anyone interested... "None so blind as those that will not see" www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/psalms/82.html "None so blind, so deaf, as those that will not see, that will not hear" www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/ezekiel/12.html .. basically people in their natural state without God are essentially blind to his causes and deaf to what he is saying (neglect of poor, injustice, etc.) |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 09:56
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
>> For goodness sakes, think it through. > I have thought it through. Sorry, my mistake. For goodness sakes, read what is written, try to understand it and then think it through. For your assistance; 1) "These foreign conflicts are rarely good vs. bad. They are more usually one lot of bad vs. another lot of bad. " 2) "You do not, or at least should not, wish to live in a world where the law is based upon such extreme subjectivity." 3) "...society which decides if one team is doing bad stuff then a private citizen can wander off to another country and kill people who may be associated with that team without knowing what that individual did or did not do?." Not seeing the matter of degree, the hopeless simplicity or your point. Which of those messages do you struggle with? For goodness sakes, think it through. You ought to move beyond your belief that attacking people works. It doesn't. It never does. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 10:55
ISIS - Westpig
|
|
>> Which of those messages do you struggle with? I do not struggle with any of your messages, albeit I do find you rude and condescending at times. >> For goodness sakes, think it through. You ought to move beyond your belief that attacking >> people works. It doesn't. It never does. You are a one trick pony in this area. You believe firmly and passionately about it..fine, however, it might surprise you that others think differently... and who knows, we might be right (or we might be wrong)... ... but more importantly, your beliefs might not always be correct either... have you considered that? |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 11:46
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
>> For goodness sakes, think it through. You ought to move beyond your belief that attacking >> people works. It doesn't. It never does. > >.......... others think differently... and who knows, we might be right (or we might be wrong) It has *never* worked. Barbaric, cruel, awful and wrong as these people are, they think that they're right. You cannot stop a man, who believes he's right, with force. You just give him something more concrete to fight against and resent. It has always been that way. Look to history. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 12:08
ISIS - Focusless
|
|
>> It has always been that way. Look to history. Genuine (naive) question Mark - what about Hitler (sorry to bring him up)? Were the allied attacks justified because they were defensive, or could/should WW2 have been avoided somehow? |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 12:26
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
The Second World War was, in many ways, different. To be overly simpistic, the drivers by and large were not religious or belief driven. If one wanted to remove the *actual* drivers then one needed to remove money and power, and the possibility of it. Hitler was able to take power due to the environment (Treaty of Versailles, The Great Depression, Political fighting) and a great deal of financial & political support from weak political parties in Germany who helped to gain themselves power by controlling Hitler, not from the religious beliefs of his supporters. So, the fighting, loss to Germany of lives and money, great hardship etc. etc. removed the things that drove the war - a lust for money and power by depriving them of both things. These people, by and large, didn't think they were right. They just wanted stuff. This is quite different to people who believe that they are right. Equally there is a big difference between justified and effective. If someone kills the low-life "star" of the beheading videos, then it may well be justified, perhaps even satisfying. But it won't be effective. It hasn't removed anything from the drivers of the conflict. Even if one can bury belief driven fighters in a pile of rubble, they will be back. The only way to stop them coming back is to remove the drivers of conflict. In all cases one needs to understand the drivers, and then work to remove those drivers. *IF* the US had not called in all its European loans as a result of its own economic difficulties, if a lot of those hadn't come from Germany which was already weakened by WW1 and the Versailles Treaty, if the German workers had not started to lean towards communism, and the Germany political parties and been stronger, then it is quite possible that Hitler would not have come to power and WW2 would not have happened. Many valuable lessons in that. Most of which the world has not learned from. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 12:28
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
p.s. writing on a phone in a coffee shop, so please excuse everything. AC is correct in that of course you can stop a man, a bullet in the head will do it. However, individual men are not the issue, groups of people are. I should think that was clear. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 13:20
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> individual men are not the issue, groups of people are. To be finicky, FMR, groups consist of several or many individuals. These things are done by individuals who then have to be eliminated one by one (as the Mossad picked off most of those involved in the 'Munich massacre' over a period of years). The problem is that there's always another one somewhere, a comrade or vengeful relation. I agree with those praising you for your skill with a 'smartphone'. I can't work those things so hate them with a passion. Chapeau! |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 12:29
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
>>political parties in Germany who helped to gain themselves power HOPED to gain themselves power.......... Sorry. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 13:11
ISIS - Focusless
|
| Thanks for that Mark - heroic effort on a phone :) |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 12:17
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> You cannot stop a man, who believes he's right, with force. Of course you can. Sufficient force will 'stop' or eliminate anyone. But it won't usually stop or eliminate all those who think like him. That's the trouble with force: it works all right, but only on identified targets. . |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 20:14
ISIS - Westpig
|
|
>> It has *never* worked. Barbaric, cruel, awful and wrong as these people are, they think >> that they're right. Erm...Hitler?... Force brought him down. Japan...yep, they were barbaric and yep they were brought down. You need another look at your history books. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 20:25
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
Whereas I suggest you return to your Reading books. What is the point in asking me a question or making a comment if you are incapable of simply reading what I write? You clearly have a simplistic understanding of things, unfortunately most of these situations are complex. And your understanding is, as Zero says, violence. For goodness sakes pay attention to and understand the next word.... IMAGINE a situation; If it turns out I am bigger than you, and if it turns out I am tougher than you, and I come down to the West Country and beat you up. If I then tell you to keep your views to yourself and never write in here again or I'll come and beat you again and next time I'll beat your wife and children as well, what will you do? 1) Run away crying that you'll never upset me again? 2) Vow to sort it out, protect your family, you have your rights and you'll fight for them whatever it takes? Which? I presume 2) which will be based on your feelings and belief that you are right, you are on the side of the good, and you will not be beaten by me, who believe to be evil just because I hurt you? Now, as I said earlier, think it through. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 20:50
ISIS - Westpig
|
|
>> Now, as I said earlier, think it through. >> Have you been drinking? I do not have the faintest idea of what you are on about. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 20:54
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
>> Have you been drinking? No, although you may drive me to it. >> I do not have the faintest idea of what you are on about. I am sadly unsurprised. It was claim lack of understanding or admit you'd finally seen the point. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 22:34
ISIS - Westpig
|
|
>> I am sadly unsurprised. It was claim lack of understanding or admit you'd finally seen >> the point. If someone says they don't understand something, it is either: 1, Their fault for not listening, being thick, etc 2, The other persons fault for not explaining it properly or as you are hinting at: 3, Pretending you don't understand it when you really do. Now I'm happy to confirm it isn't '3'... so which one of the other two is it? Could it possibly be '2'? |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 00:23
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
>> If someone says they don't understand something, it is either: > 1, Their fault for not listening, being thick, etc > 2, The other persons fault for not explaining it properly > 3, Pretending you don't understand it when you really do. Ok, you make a fair point. My argument was this; Clearly you are a man of conviction. This is a good thing, even if your convictions are wrong (and some of them definitely are!). As a man of conviction, if I was to threaten you with physical violence in order to compel you to change your mind, or at least to say something different, you would resist. It would be very difficult to stop you voicing your opinion using only a threat of violence. If that threat of violence was so awful, and aimed at your family as well, I guess there is a point where you would shut up. Not because you accepted my point, but simply because the threat was too awful. But I haven't solved a problem, I've scared it away and buried it. Now maybe in a few years your resentment will reach such a point that you will strike at me. Or maybe your children leave home and your wife sees the light and runs off with AC. Whatever actually happens, you feel less vulnerable so you strike out. Or maybe its not you, but a mate of yours is so upset on your behalf that he strikes out at me. My point, painfully made perhaps, is that you cannot win with violence. I couldn't beat you, you couldn't beat me, and neither of us couldn't beat ISIS. If I wanted to "win" against you I would have to find out why you disliked my arguments or my position so much. And then I would have to seek to remove your objections so that we could then live in tolerance. Like it or not, that's what we need to do with ISIS and similar. Of course they are disgusting, violent awful beings that the world would be better off without. But that is beside the point. The world is not without them. It will never be without them. We will never kill or scare them all. We need to work out how we can engineer a situation where we can live with them. And vice versa. That's why your violent ideas won't work (and never has). WW2 falls within that logic. The fight against Hitler's Germany put the happiness, safety and finances of the Germans at risk. That was what defeated them, not the violence. So killing ISIS members will not work. Removing their reason to fight, or their reward from fighting, or putting something even stronger at risk might. That was what happened in Germany. And in Japan. It didn't happen in Vietnam. Or Korea. And ultimately the belief driven guerrilla forces remained undefeated. And speaking of WW2, the French Resistance, after the terrible punishment of France, pretty much shows how much violence buries an ideal. Even a dumb one. |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 00:47
ISIS - sooty123
|
|
>> WW2 falls within that logic. The fight against Hitler's Germany put the happiness, safety and >> finances of the Germans at risk. That was what defeated them, not the violence. >> Focussed military power (or violence) did exactly that though, not reasoning or trying to understand them. The overwhelming use of force was at the very centre of the defeat of that particular idealogy. That's of course not to say it will always work or that military might is right in every situation but it does have a role and has had a role in defeating many peoples. |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 01:03
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
Kind of. The war was about financial and political power allied with controlling support of the people And accompanied by a smart and cunning nutter. The violence attacked those reasons. It was not the violence that won, it was the effect of the violence. The violence of the Blitz and the Battle of Britain had quite the opposite effect, because we thought we were right. Germany just thought it was stronger. They didn't manage to damage our belief that we were right. But we certainly damaged their belief that they were stronger. And their belief that they were stronger, and that strength was all that mattered were part of their driver. Those are not the same drivers that ISIS seems to have. |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 01:12
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> And their belief that they were stronger, and that strength was all that mattered were part of their driver. >> Those are not the same drivers that ISIS seems to have. The nazis were aggressors because they thought they were stronger. Islamists are aggressive because they think they're right. The important thing is the unprovoked aggression. If necessary the aggressors have to be killed one by one until there aren't enough left to pose a threat. It isn't complicated. |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 08:08
ISIS - Westpig
|
|
>> The nazis were aggressors because they thought they were stronger. Islamists are aggressive because they >> think they're right. >> >> The important thing is the unprovoked aggression. If necessary the aggressors have to be killed >> one by one until there aren't enough left to pose a threat. >> >> It isn't complicated. >> Which is how I see it. Hearts and minds for the majority that are reasonable and peaceful... and an iron fist for those that are not. |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 11:31
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
3, Pretending you don't understand it when you really do 4, Ignoring it, for when you've already been busted for using 3, |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 12:20
ISIS - Westpig
|
|
>> 3, Pretending you don't understand it when you really do >> 4, Ignoring it, for when you've already been busted for using 3, >> >> 5, read, digest and understand what someone else writes.. but STILL DISAGREE WITH THEM |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 12:26
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
So you would permanently give up and knuckle under if you were threatened with violence? Bit bored now. |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 15:40
ISIS - Westpig
|
|
>> So you would permanently give up and knuckle under if you were threatened with violence? No, I would not....and in that narrow reference that you used as an example, I agree with you. However, within the complexities of clan versus clan I am intelligent enough and forward thinking enough to work out what is best long term for my clan or family or whatever it is we are talking about. So your example(s) is/are too narrow in reference and not valid for the bigger picture. I think you have a major problem with understanding the fact that different people have different views. It is perfectly acceptable to explain fully your viewpoint, but you have to accept the other person might still not agree with it... and there's no lacking in intelligence of that other person or no secret agenda to pretend they haven't understood when they have, etc... just accept they see life a different way to you.. and who is to say your way is correct? Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 18 Mar 15 at 15:43
|
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 15:49
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
>>your example(s) is/are too narrow in reference and not valid for the bigger picture. Why not? Because you are " intelligent enough and forward thinking enough" to behave differently to "foreign" people?" Do you not think that there is a contradiction between your certainty that you would not bow down, and your equally strongly held belief that foreigners would? It would appear that most ISIS and similar members will die for their cause. In fact they will die in a suicide bombing. If you felt that strongly about something, to the point you would strap a bomb to your body and walk into a crowded shopping centre, what would it take to stop you? Would the threat of violence be sufficient? Would actual violence? Perhaps death would stop you, but what about those either inspired by you or looking to avenge you. You really need to think this through a bit more yet. But I'm bored, so work it out or don't. All I could do would be repeat myself. And if that interested you then you'd be reading everything I wrote twice. |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 16:13
ISIS - Westpig
|
|
>> Because you are " intelligent enough and forward thinking enough" to behave differently to "foreign" >> people?" I've got absolutely no idea why you are going down that path, to me that's utterly irrelevant. >> Do you not think that there is a contradiction between your certainty that you would >> not bow down, and your equally strongly held belief that foreigners would? I stated I would not bow down IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR EXAMPLE. I then went on to say I didn't think your example all that relevant. >> It would appear that most ISIS and similar members will die for their cause. In >> fact they will die in a suicide bombing. It seems to me that ISIS and similar is like a cult, they get the poor indoctrinated saps at the bottom of the food chain to do all the dirty work (and dying). You seem to equate cult like indoctrination with that of an ordinary man having his family threatened. The first one needs very firm action to combat.. because they are fanatics and reason isn't going to work. The second one is open to negotiation, especially if you stop threatening his family. >> You really need to think this through a bit more yet. As do you. What is your strategy then... kowtow to their warped demands?... Let them continue to rape, murder, enslave? |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 16:44
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
> I've got absolutely no idea why you are going down that path, to me that's > utterly irrelevant. Why did you say it then? >> Do you not think that there is a contradiction between your certainty that you >> would not bow down > I stated I would not bow down IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR EXAMPLE. Somebody's willingness to bow down depends on how committed to the issue they are. I think we can assume that a bunch of people willing to die for their beliefs are fairly committed. >> It seems to me that ISIS and similar is like a cult, they get the >> poor indoctrinated saps at the bottom of the food chain to do all the dirty >> work (and dying). Probably. Kind of makes you think that threatening or using violence against the "poor indoctrinated saps" isn't going to be effective. In fact, it will probably make it easier to indoctrinate MORE saps since then the leaders will have even more western injustice to point at. In fact, one might even think that violence was likely to make things worse, not better. >> You seem to equate cult like indoctrination with that of an ordinary man having his >> family threatened. In their minds they ARE ordinary men and they ARE having their family threatened. >> What is your strategy then... kowtow to their warped demands?... Let them continue to >> rape, murder, enslave? Absolutely not. But lets understand that going in with guns blazing and believing that when we leave that part of the world will be a peaceful paradise is stupid. By far and away every place we have done such a thing we achieved somewhere between making no difference and making it worse. One alternative.... Killing the people who kill hostages will solve nothing. Which is not to say that they should not be killed, but that they should be killed legally if appropriate, and that killing should not be done with any thought that it will change the future for the better. The trouble is that hostage taking is profitable. Really, really, profitable. So, stop paying them. Not a penny, not ever, not for anyone. Now, why would they continue to take hostages if they cannot get the one thing they are after? You do realise that millions and millions are paid annually in ransom by European countries and companies? So, sanction any country that pays a ransom, shut any company which pays a ransom, and publicise any private group or individual who pays a ransom. Do you realise that the people who take hostages are mostly unrelated to the group that ransoms and/or executes them? Any old bunch of criminals can, and do, go and kidnap a few foreigners and then SELL them to the terrorist groups who will demand ransom and execute. And as you say, these people are being paid by the non-saps, so killing saps won't help. But taking money out of the proces will discourage the criminal non-terrorist from kidnapping because the terrorist won't pay anything like as much for them. People should be punished for their crimes. If necessary they should be limited from committing more crimes with force. However, the conflict will be stopped by other means than violent attack. |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 17:11
ISIS - Haywain
|
|
"Do you realise ............" Zzzzzzzzzzz........... |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 17:18
ISIS - Westpig
|
|
>> > I've got absolutely no idea why you are going down that path, to me >> that's >> > utterly irrelevant. >> >> Why did you say it then? You have confused me. What is it I have said that negatively relates to foreigners? As for the rest of it. I agree to a point, certainly cutting the funding... but.. also believe force has its place. Drone taking out the kingpins, yes please. Well trained army take bag cities, towns, villages so that the population can live in relative peace... yes please. We need the locals on side more though. |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 17:20
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> However, the conflict will be stopped by other means than violent attack. What conflict? There isn't one. There's a disparate scattering of individuals who commit acts of savage unprovoked aggression, usually on completely innocent uninvolved bystanders. Their motives are neither here nor there (just like Hitler's). Those individuals, and if necessary their brothers, cousins, sons etc., will only be stopped by 'violent attack' as you call it. Sounds like a long, filthy job to me. Fortunately here are people willing to make a start by eliminating some head-choppers and other toerags. If you have a better suggestion FMR, I am eager to hear it. Perhaps a 'hug a kuffar' campaign could be launched among the jihadi community? |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 01:12
ISIS - sooty123
|
|
>> The violence attacked those reasons. It was not the violence that won, it was the >> effect of the violence. >> Dancing on pinheads on there a little, so not quite, the two are inseparable in this case. Of course it's a means to and end. But that's not to say violence never works, nor does it always work, but it has it's place as per this example. |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 11:40
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
>>Dancing on pinheads on there a little Not trying to. The point is that the goal is to remove the aggressors drivers and the facilitators. There are various approaches, one of which is fighting, and choosing the "right" one, if there is such a thing, depends on the particular drivers and facilitators at play. "Duff 'em up and that'll show them" is rarely one of them. And thinking you can scare someone into peacefulness is ridiculous. You can suppress them for a limited period of time, but it'll break out again. |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 11:50
ISIS - sooty123
|
|
>> >> The point is that the goal is to remove the aggressors drivers and the facilitators. >> >> There are various approaches, one of which is fighting, and choosing the "right" one, if >> there is such a thing, depends on the particular drivers and facilitators at play. Precisely, if focussed in the correct manner, there will be a wide range of options. Warfare being one. >> And thinking you can scare someone into peacefulness is ridiculous. You can suppress them for a limited period of time, but it'll break out again. >> Interesting that you raise that point, just to clarify do you mean deterence when you type 'peacefulness'? |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 12:02
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
>>just to clarify do you mean deterence when you type 'peacefulness'? I didn't think about it carefully really, since I don't think its possible. I suppose I mean forcing someone into choosing to live peacefully because they are scared of your strength - essentially suppression - rather than them actually feeling at peace. |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 12:17
ISIS - sooty123
|
|
>> >>just to clarify do you mean deterence when you type 'peacefulness'? >> >> I didn't think about it carefully really, since I don't think its possible. >> >> I suppose I mean forcing someone into choosing to live peacefully because they are scared >> of your strength - essentially suppression - rather than them actually feeling at peace. >> Hmm I think it is possible. Countries can give up efforts to attack after feeling they have no military option and would be hopeless. Although it's not, perhaps, down to one single factor but a military effect can be the clearly the largest factor. Although many countries aren't overly concerned whether an opposing side actually feel at peace or not. Deterence and it working is sufficient. |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 12:22
ISIS - Zero
|
|
>> Although many countries aren't overly concerned whether an opposing side actually feel at peace or >> not. Deterence and it working is sufficient. Israel has big sticks, and not afraid to use them. As a deterrence is it working? Sometimes., Do the Israeli people feel at peace? No way jose. Are those deterred happy and peaceful? No way Jose. Will they be back for more? Absolutely. Even more so now that Big Stick Netanyahu is back in power to wind up fear and the iron fist rhetoric. I'm sure Westie loves him. Last edited by: Zero on Wed 18 Mar 15 at 12:24
|
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 12:30
ISIS - sooty123
|
| I never suggested it worked in all areas, forever. Although I think as country Israel, simply being and having their standard of living is sufficent. It's a little of an odd one, although they know they don't have to fund alot of their deterrence so that changes matters on a domestic level somewhat. |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 06:42
ISIS - swiss tony
|
|
>> >> WW2 falls within that logic. The fight against Hitler's Germany put the happiness, safety >> and finances of the Germans at risk. That was what defeated them, not the violence. >> >> >> >> Focussed military power (or violence) did exactly that though, not reasoning or trying to understand them. The overwhelming use of force was at the very centre of the defeat of >> that particular idealogy. No FM2R is of course quite correct. IF we hadn't decided to fight the Germans, the war would have ended much sooner..... |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 11:35
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
What do you think would have happened if the Germans had invaded Britain and won the war? Do you think all the Brits would behave as Westpig says and become forever peaceful under German rule because they were scared of their strength? Do you think that the Germans would have been sat on top of a Resistance nightmare? |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 11:53
ISIS - Zero
|
|
>> What do you think would have happened if the Germans had invaded Britain and won >> the war? >> >> Do you think all the Brits would behave as Westpig says and become forever peaceful >> under German rule because they were scared of their strength? >> >> Do you think that the Germans would have been sat on top of a Resistance >> nightmare? I suspect a proportion on here would have gladly joined the Waffen SS Britisches Freikorps. |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 12:22
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> I suspect a proportion on here would have gladly joined the Waffen SS Britisches Freikorps. Before being seconded to the Japanese air force and piloting a Mitsubishi? Sorry Zero, couldn't resist it. Er, :o} |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 20:37
ISIS - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> >> It has *never* worked. Barbaric, cruel, awful and wrong as these people are, they >> think >> >> that they're right. >> >> Erm...Hitler?... Force brought him down. >> >> Japan...yep, they were barbaric and yep they were brought down. WW2 is a probably that rare example, a truly just war. It was also a war between established nation states. As such, it's a bit of an outlier when exemplifying how to deal with complex long rooted multi party civil wars. And that's not to say it couldn't have been nipped in the bud. If WW3 is fermenting in Ukraine right now do we weigh in unquestioningly with what seems right ie on the side of Kiev? Or do we try and understand why eastern provinces prefer to ally with Russia and remember that some of those on Kiev's side hate Jews and quite like neo Nazi symbology and try to find a solution? Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 17 Mar 15 at 20:38
|
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 00:36
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
>>a truly just war. Perhaps. But the circumstances and the various "allied" countries involvement in those circumstances were not. With true justice it would never have happened. It happened because people still believed that one could "win" with violence. It stopped because it turned out you couldn't. |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 10:48
ISIS - Zero
|
|
>> If WW3 is fermenting in Ukraine right now do we weigh in unquestioningly with what >> seems right ie on the side of Kiev? Lets hone in on The Crimea. Russia annexed it by force, and is classed by this country and the EU and the US as an illegal occupation. So we have officially classed it as a bad thing. Now do we follow the guidance of our resident interventionist hawk and go with the hearts and minds approach and alter the hearts and minds of the majority of the population there who wanted to be Russian, and then Iron Fist the Russians for their actions? (the order of events there can be reversed, fist them ruskies first then alter their hearts and minds) or what? Last edited by: Zero on Wed 18 Mar 15 at 10:49
|
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 11:56
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
>>but more importantly, your beliefs might not always be correct either... have you considered that? I try to steer clear of beliefs, but I take your point. Of course; but my ideas are mostly not wrong these days because I've been listening, watching, arguing and learning for many years. Lots of things I thought when I was 20 were wrong. But because I am not wedded to my own answers in the face of contrary evidence, because I'll listen (and argue) to anybody about anything, I am much more right these days. And of course I think I'm right. Why on earth would I say something if I didn't think I was? Any more than you would. But one has to try to explain why one thinks something. Simple repetition is unhelpful. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 21:00
ISIS - Manatee
|
| And you call me condescending! |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 21:52
ISIS - No FM2R
|
| Do I? 'Spect you are then although I don't particularly remember saying that. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 10:11
ISIS - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I remain uneasy about ex British soldiers and similar fighting for the Kurds without the >> support / permission of this country... but am horrified to a very high degree at >> the antics of ISIL and similar. Trouble is it's not Kurds v ISIL and similar. It's not even Kurds and others v ISIL and similar. It's a multi way ethno-religious conflict rooted in the history of Iraq and now Syria. To a significant extent it's Sunni v Shia, catalysed by the corruption and one sided nature of the post invasion Maliki government. The sects of Islam though are also 'markers' for other loyalties - clan, tribe whatever. Taking ISIL out of the equation won't somehow allow it all to settle down again. Whoever came out on top in such a scenario it's likely that Kurds and other minorities would still be suffering. It's worth reading the Wiki pages on Iraqi insurgency. Like anything on Wiki they're not an unassailable account but they give some sense to how Iraq got to be where it is today. Difficult to see a solution that doesn't involve re-drawing the map of the Levant. But if you try that you'll draw Israel in...... |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 12:51
ISIS - Dutchie
|
|
Can anybody explain to me what is good about Islam.? I know Geert Wilders has been called for his so called rascist vieuws.He has been speaking about this for over ten years. Van Gogh stabbed to death and Pim Fortuin shot and killed.Iam not really interested if it is Sunni against Shia or whatever clan or tribe is involved.If it wasn't for oil would any western country be involved in the Middle East. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 12:54
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
>>Can anybody explain to me what is good about Islam.? As much or as little as is good or bad about most religions; Its based upon good stuff, its used for bad stuff. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 13:03
ISIS - Bromptonaut
|
|
Discovering Religions by Sue Penney is a starting point. Obviously, it was written as a school textbook but it sets out the history etc, though I don't know if she's updated it much in recent years. www.amazon.co.uk/Discovering-Religions-Islam-Student-Edition/dp/0435304682 Alternatively, the Muslim Council of Great Britain's website? |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 13:07
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
>>Geert Wilders Wilders is a hate driven a***. His particular fear or the moment seems to be either Islam or Muslims. But sometimes he's ok with Muslims and its Islam. It varies. He says he believes in free speech and expression and seeks to prove this by banning anything related to this particular religion. Obviously he means "free speech and expression as long as he agrees with you". I guess you're just hoping that either he never gets significant power or if he does he never disagrees with you. I am sure his Mother is very proud of him. Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 17 Mar 15 at 13:07
|
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 14:30
ISIS - Haywain
|
|
"Can anybody explain to me what is good about Islam.?: Sorry, but I can't think of anything. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 14:36
ISIS - Zero
|
|
>> "Can anybody explain to me what is good about Islam.?: >> >> Sorry, but I can't think of anything. Have you checked? |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 14:51
ISIS - Haywain
|
|
"Have you checked?" Yes, and I couldn't find anything other than 'Citizen Khan' which, I understand, is an example of great comedy. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 14:56
ISIS - Zero
|
|
>>an >> example of great comedy. I think your understanding of comedy is suspect too. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 14:58
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
|
Can anybody explain to me what is good about Islam.?: Yes. It has a moral and ethical code very close to those of the other monotheisms, and so discourages its adherents from behaving like the utter savages they usually are. Just as the other monotheisms do. All blessings are mixed, aren't they? But better mixed blessings than none. Vulgar 'blanket' atheism is dangerous crap that doesn't hold nasty idiots in check. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 15:32
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
>> "Can anybody explain to me what is good about Islam.?: > Sorry, but I can't think of anything. Which reflects considerably more upon you than it does the religion. Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 17 Mar 15 at 15:32
|
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 15:43
ISIS - Haywain
|
|
"Which reflects considerably more upon you than it does the religion." Meanwhile, Dutchie is still waiting for someone to answer his question. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 15:52
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
The first two lines on Google.... If you're serious, look up the rest yourself. There is no excuse for willful ignorance in this world, and its most certainly not something to be proud of. www.huffingtonpost.com/stephanie-meade/5-things-about-islam-you-_b_5586722.html blog.fairmormon.org/2008/05/03/seven-admirable-things-about-islam/ etc. etc. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 20:47
ISIS - Haywain
|
|
"There is no excuse for willful ignorance in this world," Do you mean that it's admirable to be anti-gay? "Muslims care for personal morality. When I was a grad assistant several years ago, some of my Muslim students approached me asking about a Evangelical-led protest of the university’s “Gay Pride Week.†They wanted to join the Evangelicals’ protest against moral degeneration." Still, protesting is one thing ...... throwing them off tall buildings is something else. I can't believe that you actually read those links that you raked up. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 20:56
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
>> "There is no excuse for willful ignorance in this world," >> >> Do you mean that it's admirable to be anti-gay? Uh no. I meant there is no excuse for wilful ignorance. I am not too sure how you got quite so confused, it looks a fairly simple sentence to me. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 21:05
ISIS - Haywain
|
|
"it looks a fairly simple sentence to me." It looks pretty straightforward to me, too. I suggest you can only concentrate on one argument at a time. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 21:55
ISIS - No FM2R
|
|
I'm sorry you'll have to help me if you want me to understand, whichever of us it is that has the shortcoming. I said there was no excuse for willful ignorance and you asked me if I therefore thought it was ok to be anti-gay. I simply can't follow that. Still, I doubt it was important. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 22:09
ISIS - Haywain
|
|
"I simply can't follow that." Sorry, if you'd read your link, you would see that I was quoting from that. Never mind, if comprehension isn't your thing, have a listen to Richard Dawkins youtu.be/mu7AQTs_y5A |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 15:54
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> Meanwhile, Dutchie is still waiting for someone to answer his question. Rubbish. I've answered it. Can't you read? |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 15:57
ISIS - Haywain
|
|
"and so discourages its adherents from behaving like the utter savages they usually are." OK, AC - you've answered it. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 16:00
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
| My last post looks a bit bad-tempered. Apologies Haywain. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 16:14
ISIS - Haywain
|
|
"Apologies Haywain." Accepted, AC; and there was I thinking that you must have started early ...... ;-) I am sometimes mystified as to why some people put great store by a book of ancient folk-tales on which to base their morality. Are we not yet at the stage when an intelligent person can recognise what is good and what is evil? In any case, religion never stopped the bad 'uns from being bad. I don't have a religion - nor do I need one to keep me on the straight and narrow. I am able to think for myself and, during the course of my life, I have crossed the floor on both religion and politics. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 18:08
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> I am sometimes mystified as to why some people put great store by a book of ancient folk-tales on which to base their morality. Are we not yet at the stage when an intelligent person can recognise what is good and what is evil? In any case, religion never stopped the bad 'uns from being bad. People used to be brought up in religions. And our very culture is deeply impregnated with Christian material we aren't consciously aware of. It's the same for Muslims and Jews. It takes a certain determination to cut yourself off from a superstition you've outgrown. Not everyone can really manage it, they carry on in half-and-half fashion which is less frightening. You may not need a religion to keep you on the straight and narrow and I may not, but a lot of people do actually. Not everyone can apply their 'intelligence' to everything without exception, without fear or favour. Without a cultural bulwark they feel exposed and helpless. Or so I still think, from what I see and hear and read. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 16:45
ISIS - movilogo
|
|
>> "Can anybody explain to me what is good about Islam.?: If you are a jihadist and die in fighting kafirs, 72 virgins will wait for you in heaven. If 72 is too many for you, you can have at least have 4 while still being mortal. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 17:00
ISIS - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> If you are a jihadist and die in fighting kafirs, 72 virgins will wait for >> you in heaven. Only figuratively though, they might tend to most of your needs but they'll remain intact. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 19:33
ISIS - NortonES2
|
| Virgins is a misprint. Actually a bunch of grapes. |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 20:18
ISIS - Roger.
|
|
>> >> If you are a jihadist and die in fighting kafirs, 72 virgins will wait >> for >> >> you in heaven. >> >> Only figuratively though, they might tend to most of your needs but they'll remain intact. >> >> Well, blow me. ;-0 |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 20:46
ISIS - Dutchie
|
| Ex Marine no flies on you Roger.>:) |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 22:41
ISIS - Roger.
|
|
>> Ex Marine no flies on you Roger.>:) Very ex, Dutchie! Me, in 1954! i115.photobucket.com/albums/n297/penfro/Me/2808_1039962051567_3407234_n_zpszodtlvov.jpg |
|
New Tue 17 Mar 15 23:34
ISIS - Ted
|
|
Bus conductor ? |
|
New Wed 18 Mar 15 10:58
ISIS - Cliff Pope
|
| Salvation Army trombonist? |
|
New Fri 27 Mar 15 18:21
ISIS - Old Navy
|
|
I can't say I am surprised. www.express.co.uk/news/uk/566791/Islamic-State-bride-dad-blamed-everyone-else-banned-terrorist-group |
|
New Fri 27 Mar 15 18:42
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
|
No one gets 'radicalised'. Most Muslims are thick and nasty just like the believers in other mediaeval superstitions. Why these fools expect special treatment from the authorities of an advanced capitalist society is beyond me, and I do know a bit about this stuff. It's something to do with Islam's conviction that it's inherently superior to everything else. Good riddance. But when the survivors come back with their tails between their legs, let them in by all means, and survey them closely until they're no longer a threat. Bunch of wallies. |
|
New Fri 27 Mar 15 19:46
ISIS - NortonES2
|
| Don't think we have the commitment to watch the fools. Best thing is to hope they find their sharia paradise elsewhere. |
|
New Fri 27 Mar 15 18:54
ISIS - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I can't say I am surprised. >> >> www.express.co.uk/news/uk/566791/Islamic-State-bride-dad-blamed-everyone-else-banned-terrorist-group Do you really think the Express is a reliable source on this. And if you bother to reply pleae do better than some whataboutery referring to The Guardian. |
|
New Fri 27 Mar 15 19:12
ISIS - Old Navy
|
|
>> >> I can't say I am surprised. >> >> >> >> www.express.co.uk/news/uk/566791/Islamic-State-bride-dad-blamed-everyone-else-banned-terrorist-group >> >> Do you really think the Express is a reliable source on this. And if you >> bother to reply pleae do better than some whataboutery referring to The Guardian. >> If you have more reliable sources please enlighten us. Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 27 Mar 15 at 19:14
|
|
New Fri 27 Mar 15 21:19
ISIS - Bromptonaut
|
|
OK, so the girl's father was on a protest march. So was Anjem Choudry. What exactly were they protesting about? - the report is strangely silent. I've been on a protest march attended by Bob Crowe but it doesn't mean I agree with his every word, or even his general philosophy. Puzzles me how these stories turn up in the right wing press. Does one of their reporters have a photographic memory for Abase Hussen's phisog? Or is there somebody in the police or security services providing a feed of information. |
|
New Fri 27 Mar 15 21:30
ISIS - Old Navy
|
|
No one associates with a group of people without a reason.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 27 Mar 15 at 21:32
|
|
New Fri 27 Mar 15 21:47
ISIS - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> No one associates with a group of people without a reason. Up to a point Lord Copper. If you were to be involved with say an ex-service cause would you turn your back because some revolutionary commie squaddies wanted a similar end? |
|
New Sat 28 Mar 15 01:29
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> OK, so the girl's father was on a protest march. So was Anjem Choudry. What exactly were they protesting about? - the report is strangely silent. They were protesting about the unfairness of it all, especially in this country which always used to be renowned for 'fairness'. Anjem Choudary is an absolute screamer. His beard alone makes you want to shoot him. Indeed the filthy beards of these Islamist toerags make all beards look like a reason for murder. I find myself shaving more and more often these days. If anyone here has a beard, get rid of it. Beards are utterly vile. |
|
New Sat 28 Mar 15 07:41
ISIS - legacylad
|
|
Works ok for Billy Gibbons and Dusty Hill, although paradoxically Frank Beard is clean shaven. Zzzzzzz |
|
New Sat 28 Mar 15 07:53
ISIS - swiss tony
|
|
>> Zzzzzzz >> Tired? Maybe you need to top up your sleep... |
|
New Sat 28 Mar 15 21:35
ISIS - legacylad
|
| Nice one swiss.... |
|
New Sat 28 Mar 15 09:07
ISIS - Haywain
|
|
"Works ok for Billy Gibbons and Dusty Hill" Worked for the greatest ever human mind as well, Charles Darwin. [and no need to get into the Darwin v Wallace debate, 'cos Wallace also had a beardl] |
|
New Sat 28 Mar 15 17:24
ISIS - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> greatest ever human mind as well, Charles Darwin. In Darwin's time shaving was a terrible chore. Cut throat razors are difficult to use, and intellectuals tend to be clumsy. 'greatest ever human mind' is a bit of a claim though Haywain. Many convincing rivals could be cited. |
|
New Sat 28 Mar 15 19:40
ISIS - Haywain
|
|
"'greatest ever human mind' is a bit of a claim though Haywain." Yes, I agree, I should have said 'IMHO' ;-) "Many convincing rivals could be cited." That's true, I hadn't accounted for NoFM and Brompto; have they, by any chance, got beards? |
|
New Sat 28 Mar 15 19:49
ISIS - Old Navy
|
|
>> "Many convincing rivals could be cited." >> >> That's true, I hadn't accounted for NoFM and Brompto; have they, by any chance, got >> beards? >> Did you forget Zero ? |
|
New Sat 28 Mar 15 19:55
ISIS - Haywain
|
|
"Did you forget Zero ?" How could I have forgotten Z, this forum's answer to Brian Blessed? ;-) |
|
New Sat 28 Mar 15 19:58
ISIS - Zero
|
|
>> "Did you forget Zero ?" >> >> How could I have forgotten Z, this forum's answer to Brian Blessed? ;-) beardless - don't count. |
|
New Sat 28 Mar 15 20:31
ISIS - Bromptonaut
|
| Goatee only. Had it since 1996.:-P |
|
New Sat 28 Mar 15 20:39
ISIS - Zero
|
|
>> Goatee only. Had it since 1996.:-P www.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/120501lenin.gif |
|
New Sat 28 Mar 15 21:33
ISIS - legacylad
|
| I always preferred Gromit to Wallace |
|
New Sat 28 Mar 15 08:11
ISIS - Dog
|
|
>>Beards are utterly vile. Oh, I dunno: www.beardsbrewery.com/beers.html |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
