Shocking

[NJS 4411]

It's all the same thing - rule by teror - it doesn't matter if the victims are innocent or guilty its about demonstrating absolute rule. The British were masters at it in the empire days - practicing what would now be categorised as genocide just to stop any dissent.

[LeazesMag 0]

It's all the same thing - rule by teror - it doesn't matter if the victims are innocent or guilty its about demonstrating absolute rule. The British were masters at it in the empire days - practicing what would now be categorised as genocide just to stop any dissent.

 

it isn't the same at all, and what has the old British Empire got to do with it ?

[Guest Tuco Ramirez]

It's all the same thing - rule by teror - it doesn't matter if the victims are innocent or guilty its about demonstrating absolute rule. The British were masters at it in the empire days - practicing what would now be categorised as genocide just to stop any dissent.

Complete different, and you know you're talking shite because when you've actually got a point to make you'll write 10 lines.

[NJS 4411]

It's all the same thing - rule by teror - it doesn't matter if the victims are innocent or guilty its about demonstrating absolute rule. The British were masters at it in the empire days - practicing what would now be categorised as genocide just to stop any dissent.

 

it isn't the same at all, and what has the old British Empire got to do with it ?

To stop you taking the moral high ground about "us" being civilised.

[NJS 4411]

It's all the same thing - rule by teror - it doesn't matter if the victims are innocent or guilty its about demonstrating absolute rule. The British were masters at it in the empire days - practicing what would now be categorised as genocide just to stop any dissent.

Complete different, and you know you're talking shite because when you've actually got a point to make you'll write 10 lines.

 

 

Religion in the past has been used a control mechanism for the masses - think of the influence of the Catholic church in Europe in the middle ages. With that control as with any form of government comes the need to keep dissent down. It doesn't matter whether the control mechanism is religion, race as it was in South Africa, politics as it was in fascist or communist countries, the excesses have always taken place. From Tianaamen square to the highland clearances to the Petersfield massacres and the Croke park massacre in Ireland.

 

What makes you think the Taliban are any different? Do you think the Ku Klux Klan never strung up an innocent black or the guerillas in various African conflicts ever cared who they raped or mutilated?

 

As I sad the British were masters at supressing dissent - the Tasmanian genocide, the Indian tyranny and others were just as bad as anything the Taliban have ever done.

 

Theres nothing wrong with condemning the bastard for shit like this but don't tell me they are the only "inhuman" fighters who've ever done stuff like this.

 

You really need to read some history.

[Guest Tuco Ramirez]

It's all the same thing - rule by teror - it doesn't matter if the victims are innocent or guilty its about demonstrating absolute rule. The British were masters at it in the empire days - practicing what would now be categorised as genocide just to stop any dissent.

Complete different, and you know you're talking shite because when you've actually got a point to make you'll write 10 lines.

 

 

Religion in the past has been used a control mechanism for the masses - think of the influence of the Catholic church in Europe in the middle ages. With that control as with any form of government comes the need to keep dissent down. It doesn't matter whether the control mechanism is religion, race as it was in South Africa, politics as it was in fascist or communist countries, the excesses have always taken place. From Tianaamen square to the highland clearances to the Petersfield massacres and the Croke park massacre in Ireland.

 

What makes you think the Taliban are any different? Do you think the Ku Klux Klan never strung up an innocent black or the guerillas in various African conflicts ever cared who they raped or mutilated?

 

As I sad the British were masters at supressing dissent - the Tasmanian genocide, the Indian tyranny and others were just as bad as anything the Taliban have ever done.

 

Theres nothing wrong with condemning the bastard for shit like this but don't tell me they are the only "inhuman" fighters who've ever done stuff like this.

 

You really need to read some history.

You're not even worth arguing with, we are in the 21st century and a girl has had nose cut off in the name of a religious cause, and you're likening it to things we did two centuries ago en masse.

[Happy Face 29]

What we need to do is bomb them all into the modern age.

[AgentAxeman 189]

What we need to do is bomb them all into the modern age.

 

 

sounds like a well reasoned and sensible idea to me.

 

 

[Dr Gloom 22184]

It's all the same thing - rule by teror - it doesn't matter if the victims are innocent or guilty its about demonstrating absolute rule. The British were masters at it in the empire days - practicing what would now be categorised as genocide just to stop any dissent.

Complete different, and you know you're talking shite because when you've actually got a point to make you'll write 10 lines.

 

 

As I sad the British were masters at supressing dissent - the Tasmanian genocide, the Indian tyranny and others were just as bad as anything the Taliban have ever done.

 

Theres nothing wrong with condemning the bastard for shit like this but don't tell me they are the only "inhuman" fighters who've ever done stuff like this.

 

You really need to read some history.

 

i find it strange when so many on the left are quick to attack those that are critical of the more barbaric and savage strands of islam around the world. i consider myself a leftie but many liberals fall over here if you ask me

 

the taliban enforced one of the strictest interpretations of sharia law ever seen in the muslim world. treatment of women is shocking - they were forced to wear the burqa in public and were allowed neither to work nor to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the qur'an. nor where they were not allowed to be treated by male doctors unless accompanied by a male chaperon, which led to illnesses remaining untreated. not to mention public flogging in the street, stonings and public execution for violations of the taliban's laws.

 

the british empire has blood on its hands no doubt. there are some that say we shouldn't even be in afghanistan. i disagree. war shouldn't be entered into lightly and the iraq war was massively misguided. the invasion of afghanistan was justified. and now we're there we must try to finish the job. it's debatable as to whether we will; no one has won a war there before. but the taliban harboured terrorists - that's why we invaded post 9/11. now we're there we have to stay and win. it's a worthy cause - there is no place in the modern world for this kind of regime.

[Guest alex]

He isn't defending the Taliban though ffs.

[NJS 4411]

i find it strange when so many on the left are quick to attack those that are critical of the more barbaric and savage strands of islam around the world. i consider myself a leftie but many liberals fall over here if you ask me

 

I think calling them bastards and mentioning I abhor Islam makes my position clear. My point is that Stevie seems to be suggesting this is somehow worse than anything anyone has ever done - I don't think it is.

 

I also don't think saying "it's the 21st century FFS" matters either.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I didn't see anywhere where Stevie claimed this to be the worst crime in history.

 

NJS I like your technique of quoting a completely irrelevant period of history to the argument in question and citing that as proof of your points. It has endless potential because you can just go further and further back in history as the argument goes on until you'll be saying the genocide of the dinosaurs was as bad as this, and by that time Stevie will have lost patience. It is akin to the 'Chewbacca defence' famously employed by Johnny Cochran.

 

Edited October 18, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Guest Tuco Ramirez]

I didn't see anywhere where Stevie claimed this to be the worst crime in history.

 

NJS I like your technique of quoting a completely irrelevant period of history to the argument in question and citing that as proof of your points. It has endless potential because you can just go further and further back in history as the argument goes on until you'll be saying the genocide of the dinosaurs was as bad as this, and by that time Stevie will have lost patience. It is akin to the 'Chewbacca defence' famously employed by Johnny Cochran.

 

Which is exactly what I did. There's no point in even debating it with some people, because even when they don't have an alternative view deep down, they contrive one with mixed up irrelevant nonsense.

[NJS 4411]

I didn't see anywhere where Stevie claimed this to be the worst crime in history.

 

NJS I like your technique of quoting a completely irrelevant period of history to the argument in question and citing that as proof of your points. It has endless potential because you can just go further and further back in history as the argument goes on until you'll be saying the genocide of the dinosaurs was as bad as this, and by that time Stevie will have lost patience. It is akin to the 'Chewbacca defence' famously employed by Johnny Cochran.

 

 

Why is any history of the supression of dissent by terror irrelevant to the Taliban when that's exactly what they are doing?

 

Can either you or Stevie explain why this is different to any other period/regime who've done the same things?

 

"21st century" or "Muslims" doesn't work.

[Guest alex]

Dan must have made the same point about all these liberals defending Muslim extremists in every thread that even touches upon Islam or the Middle East like. Straw man stuff every time as well.

[Happy Face 29]

What we need to do is bomb them all into the modern age.

 

 

sounds like a well reasoned and sensible idea to me.

 

 

 

We should probably attack the US while we're at it.

 

After all they just executed a woman with a mental age of 13.

 

Utterly barbaric tbh

[acrossthepond 878]

Dan must have made the same point about all these liberals defending Muslim extremists in every thread that even touches upon Islam or the Middle East like. Straw man stuff every time as well.

 

Which is half the threads in GC now. Thoroughly boring even for me, someone who likes to discuss the topic.

[Guest alex]

ATP, are you saying Salman Rushdie deserves to die?

[Guest alex]

I haven't read the Satanic Verses btw but I've googled it.

[Renton 22007]

ATP, are you saying Salman Rushdie deserves to die?

 

 

What a pointless thread this is like.

 

Why can't we have a decent discussion on whether morality is relative or absolute for a change?

[LeazesMag 0]

ATP, are you saying Salman Rushdie deserves to die?

 

 

What a pointless thread this is like.

 

Why can't we have a decent discussion on whether morality is relative or absolute for a change?

 

shocking isn't it ?

 

Like a black man being escorted away from a demonstration against the building of a mosque near a huge atrocity by the evil police, saving him from being stoned to death by the peaceful and tolerant locals.

[LeazesMag 0]

What we need to do is bomb them all into the modern age.

 

 

sounds like a well reasoned and sensible idea to me.

 

 

 

We should probably attack the US while we're at it.

 

After all they just executed a woman with a mental age of 13.

 

Utterly barbaric tbh

 

Serious question HF.

 

What exactly do you have against the west ?

[Renton 22007]

ATP, are you saying Salman Rushdie deserves to die?

 

 

What a pointless thread this is like.

 

Why can't we have a decent discussion on whether morality is relative or absolute for a change?

 

shocking isn't it ?

 

Like a black man being escorted away from a demonstration against the building of a mosque near a huge atrocity by the evil police, saving him from being stoned to death by the peaceful and tolerant locals.

 

Was one thread not enough for you to make your point though? Not that I think you have much of a point except to be provocative using strawman arguments.

[Guest alex]

What we need to do is bomb them all into the modern age.

 

 

sounds like a well reasoned and sensible idea to me.

 

 

 

We should probably attack the US while we're at it.

 

After all they just executed a woman with a mental age of 13.

 

Utterly barbaric tbh

 

Serious question HF.

 

What exactly do you have against the west ?

[Dr Gloom 22184]

i have made this point before alex because it puzzles me and i respond to it in threads where i see it. people are quick to attack critics of islamic extremism for some reason. i don't read the daily mail; i consider myself liberal, which is why i find it strange and i think it'd an area where the left falls on its arse a bit.

 

leazesmag's argument that multiculturism can't exist is a difficult one to defend. britian is a great example of it working. the ethnic and cultural diveristy is one of the things i love about living in london. but there are some cultures in this world that clearly can't or don't want to co-exist. the level of sharia law that includes honour killings - and the kinds of mutilations practiced by the taliban that was linked to in the opening post in this thread do not have a place on this earth. they are barbaric and abhorrent - most of us agree with this i'm sure, and yet those who criticise it are often shot down in flames.

 

for what it's worth, i'm not calling anyone a do-gooding fancy dan lecturer for disagreeing with me. it just strikes me that it's ironic that many on the left seem scared to attack this form extremism. why is that? are we all scared of being being labeled reactionary?

 

what is your view alex? can islamic extremists live in a multi-cultural society? is there a place for those beliefs in the modern world? and whether you agree with the fact that the coalition invaded afghanistan or not, now that we're there, isn't the mission to stay to try and remove the taliban a war worth fighting?