Terrorism

[Gemmill 44894]

 

 

Okay, so I guess you're happy to allow it then HF? Or at least not want to ban it? So we as modern secularist thinkers have to double guess the islamists so as not to appear warmongering?

 

Tell you what, why don't we take a proper stance here and declare a full face covering is simply incompatible with our values and therefore is illegal on this particular rock on the western edge of Europe? Why don't we declare such misogynistic practices disgust us and if these idiots will terrorise us as result, we'll resist them?

 

Or as you suggest, do we just accept it in order to appease these woman haters and immediate retaliation from brainwashed male counterparts?

[emoji38] Fucking hell.

[Dr Gloom 21924]

I think a government policing dress is overreach.

 

I think most Muslim women wear the shame-curtains willingly and with a certain amount of misplaced pride. But that's okay, for me. The French government forcing Muslim women to remove their burkinis was needlessly humiliating and can only foment a bad atmosphere.

 

However, that's not to say that I'm in with the radical Leftist, West-haters who think every time a terrorist farts it's the West's fault. That's just silly leftist-social-Marxist radicals joining with their Islamist fellow travellers on the pilgrimage to apocalypse, and trying to attach a political motivation so they can hate the West together along the way.

 

That's crap. The Islamists hate us. We know why. It's for religious reasons.

 

Anyway, there are certain things that cannot be tolerated and against which a stand must be made, but people have a right to be oppressed by their own beliefs, as long as it's only themselves they're oppressing.

that's a pretty balanced argument. It is a free country so that means women have a right to be oppressed. Sounds weird doesn't it but some chooose to wear it though in many cases I suspect they'd rather wear something less degrading but feel compelled to do so.

 

I pity the women who feel compelled wear it. It symbolises everything that's wrong with Islam - and religion broadly. But in a free country we also have the right to express our disgust at misogynistic cultural practices.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Dr Gloom

[Kid Dynamite 7030]

Okay, so I guess you're happy to allow it then HF? Or at least not want to ban it? So we as modern secularist thinkers have to double guess the islamists so as not to appear warmongering?

 

Tell you what, why don't we take a proper stance here and declare a full face covering is simply incompatible with our values and therefore is illegal on this particular rock on the western edge of Europe? Why don't we declare such misogynistic practices disgust us and if these idiots will terrorise us as result, we'll resist them?

 

Or as you suggest, do we just accept it in order to appease these woman haters and immediate retaliation from brainwashed male counterparts?

Politics and Religion always seems to bring out the worst in you mind. Your insight evaporates when you post shit like this

[Rayvin 5223]

I think a government policing dress is overreach.

 

I think most Muslim women wear the shame-curtains willingly and with a certain amount of misplaced pride. But that's okay, for me. The French government forcing Muslim women to remove their burkinis was needlessly humiliating and can only foment a bad atmosphere.

 

However, that's not to say that I'm in with the radical Leftist, West-haters who think every time a terrorist farts it's the West's fault. That's just silly leftist-social-Marxist radicals joining with their Islamist fellow travellers on the pilgrimage to apocalypse, and trying to attach a political motivation so they can hate the West together along the way.

 

That's crap. The Islamists hate us. We know why. It's for religious reasons.

 

Anyway, there are certain things that cannot be tolerated and against which a stand must be made, but people have a right to be oppressed by their own beliefs, as long as it's only themselves they're oppressing.

Cultural Marxism has a lot to answer for in distracting the left from the more important aspects of its political awareness. I suspect Parky would agree here since the term also encompasses feminism.

 

Anyway I basically agree with the caveat that it is actually the West's fault, IMO, that these people are in our countries and blowing us up, and that they'd likely be content to hate us from afar if we weren't meddling.

 

That doesn't mean I hate the West. It just means I think we have the capacity for extreme stupidity in our international politics.

[NJS 4386]

Politics and Religion always seems to bring out the worst in you mind. Your insight evaporates when you post shit like this

It's been a downhill path in this country since the establishment meekly accepted the Muslim reaction to Rushdie.

 

I'm a bit torn between telling people how to dress and standing up against the bastards but once you allow them an inch they'll take a mile - see that gymnast being banned for blasphemy as the latest example.

[Happy Face 29]

that's a pretty balanced argument. It is a free country so that means women have a right to be oppressed. Sounds weird doesn't it but some choice to wear it though in many cases I suspect they'd rather wear something less degrading but feel compelled to do so.

 

I pity the women who feel compelled wear it. It symbolises everything that's wrong with Islam - and religion broadly. But in a free country we also have the right to express our disgust at misogynistic cultural practices.

 

Spot on.  

 

Strongly denounce any country or branch of religion that would punish a woman for what she chooses to wear.

 

Remain a shining example of freedom, loud and proud about the fact that people in this country can wear whatever they want.

[toonotl 2979]

Anyway I basically agree with the caveat that it is actually the West's fault, IMO, that these people are in our countries and blowing us up, and that they'd likely be content to hate us from afar if we weren't meddling.

 

That doesn't mean I hate the West. It just means I think we have the capacity for extreme stupidity in our international politics.

 

ISIS have stated specifically that they fight us because we are their religious enemies.

 

Read: Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You in Dabiq magazine.

 

Here's a direct quote from the article: 

What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary ... The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you. 

 

We fight you ... to bring you true freedom in this life and salvation in the Hereafter, freedom from being enslaved to your whims and desires as well as those of your clergy and legislatures, and salvation by worshiping your Creator alone and following His messenger. We fight you in order to bring you out from the darkness of disbelief and into the light of Islam.

 

 

They fight us for their religion and will continue to do so until we are (i) converted, (ii) conquered, or (iii) dead.

 

Nobody should be so foolish as to believe that if we leave them alone that they will do the same.

[Rayvin 5223]

ISIS have stated specifically that they fight us because we are their religious enemies.

 

Read: Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You in Dabiq magazine.

 

Here's a direct quote from the article:

 

They fight us for their religion and will continue to do so until we are (i) converted, (ii) conquered, or (iii) dead.

 

Nobody should be so foolish as to believe that if we leave them alone that they will do the same.

And how did ISIS come to be...? I'm not disagreeing with any of the above, just saying that they wouldn't be in the position they are without everything we did leading up to it.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Rayvin

[Happy Face 29]

ISIS have stated specifically that they fight us because we are their religious enemies.

 

Read: Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You in Dabiq magazine.

 

Here's a direct quote from the article: 

 

They fight us for their religion and will continue to do so until we are (i) converted, (ii) conquered, or (iii) dead.

 

Nobody should be so foolish as to believe that if we leave them alone that they will do the same.

 

That's written by people who don't actually blow themselves up in western cities though.  The Pentagon have looked at those actual cases, the suicide videos, the testimonies of unsuccessful attackers and their conclusion was that those people don't hate our freedom or our religion or our excess.  They hate their family being bombed and being poor.

 

You won't defeat the ideaology by withdrawing, but to a large degree you'll stop gifting the enemy their ammo to attack us.

[toonotl 2979]

It's written by ISIS. It's a primary source of what they think. But, apparently, even a primary source isn't enough to penetrate your ideology.

[Happy Face 29]

It's written by ISIS. It's a primary source of what they think. But, apparently, even a primary source isn't enough to penetrate your ideology.

 

You know that the ISIS leaders and propaganda makers aren't the ones blowing up themselves up though.

[Dr Gloom 21924]

It's been a downhill path in this country since the establishment meekly accepted the Muslim reaction to Rushdie.

 

I'm a bit torn between telling people how to dress and standing up against the bastards but once you allow them an inch they'll take a mile - see that gymnast being banned for blasphemy as the latest example.

People shouldn't be punished for criticising or mocking religion in a free country. It should be encouraged if anything. Jim Jefferies' latest on religion where he talks about the three carriages on the train of humanity being held back by the religious nutters on the third carriage is hilarious - and absolutely spot on.

[Dr Gloom 21924]

Cultural Marxism has a lot to answer for in distracting the left from the more important aspects of its political awareness. I suspect Parky would agree here since the term also encompasses feminism.

 

Anyway I basically agree with the caveat that it is actually the West's fault, IMO, that these people are in our countries and blowing us up, and that they'd likely be content to hate us from afar if we weren't meddling.

 

That doesn't mean I hate the West. It just means I think we have the capacity for extreme stupidity in our international politics.

What about home grown suicide bombers? Is that the west's fault?

 

I think most moderate Muslims would tell you that's bollocks. These are deranged, brainwashed terrorists.

 

Travelling to Syria to fight for the Isis cause is one thing. If you ask me it's also deranged but you could argue they're fighting a war at least, no matter how twisted the cause to create a caliphate might be.

 

Detonating a suicide vest on an underground train during rush hour or outside a busy football stadium is something else entirely. Indefensible and in no part the fault of "the west", sorry. The motive here is to massacre as many civilians as possible. Let's not be afraid to call it for what it is.

[Rayvin 5223]

It's written by ISIS. It's a primary source of what they think. But, apparently, even a primary source isn't enough to penetrate your ideology.

 

I'm gonna press this, sorry - you know that we created ISIS, right? They filled the power vacuum we left behind following our destructive middle eastern foreign policy.

 

So can we agree on the following - i) these people who hate us on principle do exist and they exist irrespective of what we do or say and ii) they wouldn't have anywhere near as much ammunition against us, as many people in support, and as much operational freedom in the MIddle East, without our disastrous foreign policy?

 

Surely on a rational level, we can all agree on this point? I mean, it's not like we've been fending off terrorism in this country for the centuries that Islam has been in place, is it? It's very much only in the last 20 years, isn't it?

[Dr Gloom 21924]

That's written by people who don't actually blow themselves up in western cities though. The Pentagon have looked at those actual cases, the suicide videos, the testimonies of unsuccessful attackers and their conclusion was that those people don't hate our freedom or our religion or our excess. They hate their family being bombed and being poor.

 

You won't defeat the ideaology by withdrawing, but to a large degree you'll stop gifting the enemy their ammo to attack us.

Are you saying suicide bombers are also mainly motivated by revenge or economic hardship and they haven't bought into the ideology?

[Happy Face 29]

Detonating a suicide vest on an underground train during rush hour or outside a busy football stadium is something else entirely. Indefensible and in no part the fault of "the west", sorry. The motive here is to massacre as many civilians as possible. Let's not be afraid to call it for what it is.

 

That's not the motive, that's the aim.  A motive leads to action to achieve an aim.  What is the motive?

[Rayvin 5223]

What about home grown suicide bombers? Is that the west's fault?

 

I think most moderate Muslims would tell you that's bollocks. These are deranged, brainwashed terrorists.

 

Travelling to Syria to fight for the Isis cause is one thing. If you ask me it's also deranged but you could argue they're fighting a war at least, no matter how twisted the cause to create a caliphate might be.

 

Detonating a suicide vest on an underground train during rush hour or outside a busy football stadium is something else entirely. Indefensible and in no part the fault of "the west", sorry. The motive here is to massacre as many civilians as possible. Let's not be afraid to call it for what it is.

 

 

I think HF covered that pretty well above.

 

I'm very happy to call it exactly what it is - the massacring of innocent civilians. I'm not trying to justify it. You can't justify it. What you can do though, is look at the underlying factors. You seem to think religion alone is enough to persuade otherwise sane people to blow themselves and other people up. That just doesn't wash for me. If that was all it took, we'd have a fuckton more suicide bombings.

[Dr Gloom 21924]

I'm gonna press this, sorry - you know that we created ISIS, right? They filled the power vacuum we left behind following our destructive middle eastern foreign policy.

 

So can we agree on the following - i) these people who hate us on principle do exist and they exist irrespective of what we do or say and ii) they wouldn't have anywhere near as much ammunition against us, as many people in support, and as much operational freedom in the MIddle East, without our disastrous foreign policy?

 

Surely on a rational level, we can all agree on this point? I mean, it's not like we've been fending off terrorism in this country for the centuries that Islam has been in place, is it? It's very much only in the last 20 years, isn't it?

We didn't create the ideology, no. Sorry. Jihad and Islamist terrorism has fuck all to do with the west. Our foreign interventions fanned the flames and helped their recruitment drive but we didn't inspire these people to blow themselves up in the name of Allah. Perhaps we can all agree on that? Edited November 3, 2016 by Dr Gloom

[Dr Gloom 21924]

That's not the motive, that's the aim. A motive leads to action to achieve an aim. What is the motive?

A caliphate - a world without non believers.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Dr Gloom

[Rayvin 5223]

We didn't create the ideology, no. Sorry. Jihad and Islamist terrorism has fuck all to do with the west. Our foreign interventions fanned the flames and helped their recruitment drive but we didn't inspire these people to blow themselves to try to up in the name of Allah. Perhaps we can all agree on that?

 

How is that different to what I said?

 

Unless you mean the bit about us creating ISIS. We did. ISIS isn't the ideology, they're just an armed political movement. We absolutely did not create the ideology, but our negligence absolutely did create ISIS, the organised and armed wing of the ideology - which would have never have gotten off the ground had we left certain dictators to it.

[Happy Face 29]

 i) these people who hate us on principle do exist and they exist irrespective of what we do or say 

 

Not really, As the Pentagon outlined 12 years ago, it is what we do (the people we elect) that drives resentment...

 

2.3 What is the Problem? Who Are We Dealing With?

 

The information campaign — or as some still would have it, “the war of ideas,” or the struggle for “hearts and minds” — is important to every war effort. In this war it is an essential objective, because the larger goals of U.S. strategy depend on separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists. But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.

 

American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

 

• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that “freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.

• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination.

• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support.

• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.

• Finally, Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic — namely, that the war is all about us. As the Muslims see it, everything about the war is — for Americans — really no more than an extension of American domestic politics and its great game. This perception is of course necessarily heightened by election-year atmospherics, but nonetheless sustains their impression that when Americans talk to Muslims they are really just talking to themselves.

 

http://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/commun.pdf

[Dr Gloom 21924]

I think HF covered that pretty well above.

 

I'm very happy to call it exactly what it is - the massacring of innocent civilians. I'm not trying to justify it. You can't justify it. What you can do though, is look at the underlying factors. You seem to think religion alone is enough to persuade otherwise sane people to blow themselves and other people up. That just doesn't wash for me. If that was all it took, we'd have a fuckton more suicide bombings.

Not true. I've already stated that misguided western interventions have aided their cause. And the Iraq war was a massive disaster on that score. We didn't create the jihadi ideology though, whether it's Isis, or al qaeda

[Dr Gloom 21924]

How is that different to what I said?

 

Unless you mean the bit about us creating ISIS. We did. ISIS isn't the ideology, they're just an armed political movement. We absolutely did not create the ideology, but our negligence absolutely did create ISIS, the organised and armed wing of the ideology - which would have never have gotten off the ground had we left certain dictators to it.

So are you saying Arab people just aren't ready for democracy and they need to be ruled by dictators?

[Rayvin 5223]

Not true. I've already stated that misguided western interventions have aided their cause. And the Iraq war was a massive disaster on that score. We didn't create the jihadi ideology though, whether it's Isis, or al qaeda

 

 

That's great and all, but I'm talking about ISIS - the current and most established political force behind jihadi terrorism. That was born out of Al Qaeda in Iraq. I know that they didn't start jihadism, but my initial point was that 1) we didn't start it, and 2) we made it a lot worse. By creating ISIS. You're trying to argue something I'm not arguing. I'm arguing that our foreign policy made jihadism worse, and enabled them much greater political clout and control, and that ISIS proves this. You're trying to make it sound like I'm saying ISIS were the first on the scene in terrorism; I'm not.

[Rayvin 5223]

So are you saying Arab people just aren't ready for democracy and they need to be ruled by dictators?

 

I'm saying that you can't create meaningful political change in a country by charging in and wiping out all established power structures, and then running away before establishing anything close to an organised system of governance.