Alan Henning murdered by IS in Syria

Dave *

Dave *

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,508
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
It appears that IS have murdered British aid worker Alan Henning this evening.

If nothing, it proves what a murderous bunch of terrorists they are, and the futility of trying to use peaceful dialogue with them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29199086
 
And that wasn't apparent previously?

A tragic heinous thing but no longer a shock when they do it.
 
Just makes me sad for the world we live in

This was on my time line a few minutes ago and personally I think summed it up nicely

View attachment 21833

All I can say is a good man has been taken :( one more of too many :( RIP and condolences to all of his family and friends
 
Absolutely tragic.

There's something significant going on here.

I'm assuming that the ultimate leadership and heavy hitting money men behind ISIS (or whatever they're called) know what they are doing, and there's far more to this than the front line thugs.

They seem to be deliberately provoking the West into taking action.

I'm not sure why, although I have a couple of thoughts on it.
 
simon ess said:
Absolutely tragic.

There's something significant going on here.

I'm assuming that the ultimate leadership and heavy hitting money men behind ISIS (or whatever they're called) know what they are doing, and there's far more to this than the front line thugs.

They seem to be deliberately provoking the West into taking action.

I'm not sure why, although I have a couple of thoughts on it.
Click to expand...

It is more than 'provoking' the West.

There are more countries building to fight against the IS. Many are Islamic countries themselves. It now looks lime Turkey will join in next. Egypt too has seen IS as a growing threat to the stability of their lands, in which 100m people reside and who the vast majority are Muslims. So the potential destabilisation factors there will also include the Haves v Have Nots dynamic.

At this time the major powers are slowly coming together but still split over the need to deal with targets in Syria or not.

There is some history in tbe UK about fighting terrorist both on the UK mainland and in UK- NI.

No issue that the Syria/Ira is on a much larger scale than 'the troubles' but the attrition rate there was long and drawn out. It could also be said that a peace in Northern Ireland was not achievable until PIRA hit the financial heart of the City of London and later Canary Wharf which cost £Billions. After those incidents the need for an equjtable peace became urgent.

Now jump forward and we see Saudi and other Gulf states utilising their own air power against IS. Not difficult to surmise that suicide IS conscrilts bombing economic targets in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar etc, along with 'Western' targets, starts a similar dynamic to that whkch accelerated the NI peace process. Money.

The added element is the perceived low price of crude oil and a greater 'investment' within the Gulf states on infrastructure projects and $/€/£ earnings from tourists and otber events to attract extra income and development.

In it's current format, the IS Caliphate is going to take years, if not decades, to solve (if at all) and the added dynamic of 'trained terrorists' filtering back 'home' to continue the war is more than probable.

My feeling is that there are so many facets to what is going on in Syria/Iraq right now, with a relatively few IS fighters (people) on the ground, that children not yet born, will witness this as they grow. It is also likely that many here will pass away of natural causes with the residual war still going on.

Many conspiracy theorists will point to the role of Arms manufacturers but they have always been in the mix. Armaments is a big earner but Russia will do their best to help anybody along given the state of it's economy and there is always a war going on somewhere.

A final thought is the aims of fanatics trying to get their hands on nuclear weapons/materal. With the world looking one way it could be an opportune moment for terrorists to go after, say, such devices or materials in Pakistan.

We live in fanatical times.

Steve (fully fledged insomniac)
 
'Peace' came to NI not because of the City of London bombings, but because PIRA was finding it almost impossible to operate as it was riddled with informants. Even had they been able to continue 9/11 would have been the end for them, once the yanks woke up to what terrorism actually meant and their funding from there dried up.

Attacks on economic targets were tried by AQ, 9/11 was not just an iconic event it was also an attack on the US economy, it only served to stick a stick into a hornets nest, leaving AQ having to deal with a NATO attack on it's 'homebase' and tying up it's resources and ability to follow up with further spectaculars.

Attacks on economy, or money as you put it are, while useful to ISIL as they were to AQ are not intended to lead to talks, there is no purpose in their eyes to talks simply because no one is going to discuss extending the caliphate. That can only happen by armed action. Remember the words of one of their 'British' members who threatened London and Big Ben burning. Thats the sort of result they are after, Islamic Fundamentalism spreading and the Caliphate encompassing the world. The 'Bullet and the Ballot Box' isn't relevant to their aims.
 
while we mere mortals are spending time spouting our useless ideas ,you can bet your last pound that behind the scenes the c.i.a and m.i.6 are establishing the whereabouts of the i.s leaders and waiting for the right time and place to drop something heavy .i am quite sure that if the israelis can do it efficiently the yanks can probably do it as well .at the moment any strikes are surgical and fairly precision ones ,give it a few months and collateral damage won't matter .

i also agree that they are trying to stir up worldwide trouble and gain sympathy and its more than a fair bet that we have been infiltrated over a very long period by islamic sleepers ,just put in the eurozone to wait for the right time to start a internal uprising .we have pussy footed to them for to long and forgotten the basic rule that should have been applied from the start ,WHEN IN ROME DO AS THE ROMANS .
 
ISIL is like Hydra though, many heads, cut off one, 2 will be grown back. Kill the leaders, you will increase recruitment.
Better off knowing who they are and fighting their weaknesses and adapting to defeat the strengths. A known enemy is easy to fight in short.

Infiltrated or new converts, yes we are very vulnerable, lets hope Islamic leaders have the stomach to keep the lid on it. I suspect not though.
 
ST4 said:
Such a shame. I hate IS. They need taught a lesson but not at the expense of non extremist normal Muslims here or abroad. They two arent the the same thing
Click to expand...


Absolutely agree with you there Steve
 
Mass murder and all in the name of a f*****g fairy tale ( excuse my french, but it annoys me so much), where will all this end? my god is better than your god..blah,blah,blah. When will people wake up and realise religion is the cause of more wars than anything else?
 
mex said:
Mass murder and all in the name of a f*****g fairy tale ( excuse my french, but it annoys me so much), where will all this end? my god is better than your god..blah,blah,blah. When will people wake up and realise religion is the cause of more wars than anything else?
Click to expand...
If it wasn't religion it would be something else, it's just what humans do.
 
Last edited:
mex said:
Mass murder and all in the name of a f*****g fairy tale ( excuse my french, but it annoys me so much), where will all this end? my god is better than your god..blah,blah,blah. When will people wake up and realise religion is the cause of more wars than anything else?
Click to expand...

Is it? Do you have any evidence to support this opinion?
 
There will not be many wars/conflicts where religion has'nt played a part, I would think it would be harder to name a war where religion is'nt involved.
 
Is it? Do you have any evidence to support this opinion?
Click to expand...

He's right. From the crusades, through Nazi Germany, to Israel. Obviously we shouldn't forget Mr Cromwell's dislike of the Irish Catholics either. I grant you it's in the name of religion, rather than the religion it's self, but if Religious leaders would come out and condemn the violence, and excommunicate those who commit it, then we might see less of it! So much for talk of peace and goodwill!
 
Bernie174 said:
He's right. From the crusades, through Nazi Germany, to Israel. Obviously we shouldn't forget Mr Cromwell's dislike of the Irish Catholics either. I grant you it's in the name of religion, rather than the religion it's self, but if Religious leaders would come out and condemn the violence, and excommunicate those who commit it, then we might see less of it! So much for talk of peace and goodwill!
Click to expand...

Indeed, there are few wars over the centuries where religion hasn't been involved to some extent or another, which is the ultimate irony considering they all preach a version of peace, tolerance and love for fellow (wo)man.
 
mex said:
When will people wake up and realise religion is the cause of more wars than anything else?
Click to expand...

mex said:
There will not be many wars/conflicts where religion has'nt played a part, I would think it would be harder to name a war where religion is'nt involved.
Click to expand...

Which is not quite the same thing, is it?

Never mind. What significant part did religion play in the Vietnam War, WW1 & WW2 (the greatest conflicts in human history), the Japanese invasions of China, the two Anglo-Boer Wars, the American Civil War, the Napoleonic Wars, the Wars of the Roses, the medieval wars between Scotland and England, the Norman invasion, the Viking/Danish invasions, the Anglo-Saxon invasions/migrations, and the endless wars during the expansion of the Roman, Greek and other ancient empires? Don't forget, this is about the religious component, which isn't restricted to the Christian, Muslim or Jewish faiths.
 
Religion didn't start WW2, but it killed a lot of people on the grounds of their religion. No one has claimed ever war has a basis, or justification in religion, just as every war doesn't have a basis or justification in political ideology.
The difference is that a Political ideology does not preach peace and good will, most, if not every religion does.

Yet the leaders of religions do little, and sometimes nothing to stop these wars. The Pope, and primate of all Ireland did sod all to stop the troubles there, and yet by removing those involved in the violence from the Catholic Communion they took away the admittedly weak justification for it.

Do the Jewish and Muslim religious leaders preach peace in Israel? Nope. Does the Pope preach peace in the Falklands...erm, no.
 
Bernie174 said:
Religion didn't start WW2, but it killed a lot of people on the grounds of their religion.
Click to expand...

Nazi anti-Semitism was primarily racial, not religious. Jews were classed as 'untermenschen' (subhumans). This doesn't mitigate the appalling crimes they committed, but it is a distinction.
 
MartynK said:
Which is not quite the same thing, is it?

Never mind. What significant part did religion play in the Vietnam War, WW1 & WW2 (the greatest conflicts in human history), the Japanese invasions of China, the two Anglo-Boer Wars, the American Civil War, the Napoleonic Wars, the Wars of the Roses, the medieval wars between Scotland and England, the Norman invasion, the Viking/Danish invasions, the Anglo-Saxon invasions/migrations, and the endless wars during the expansion of the Roman, Greek and other ancient empires? Don't forget, this is about the religious component, which isn't restricted to the Christian, Muslim or Jewish faiths.
Click to expand...

I agree Hitler invasion of Russia, probably the most costly war ever,was purely started on the grounds of different political ideology,also lot of the brutal wars fought in Central/South American during the 60/70/80 the same.

Also most wars in Africa have been fought on tribal backgrounds.
 
Religion has featured in wars through the ages because religion has been peoples' principal belief system. In the last century religion has been in retreat in many parts of the world and I don't think you can cite a Godhead influencing Pol Pot or Josef Stalin.
 
MartynK said:
Nazi anti-Semitism was primarily racial, not religious. Jews were classed as 'untermenschen' (subhumans). This doesn't mitigate the appalling crimes they committed, but it is a distinction.
Click to expand...

You are wrong, while Hitler viewed the Jews as a sperate race, the whole "untermensh" philosophy happened long after his anti-semitism surfaced. His hatred was all about religion though.

As early as 1919:

The danger posed by Jewry for our people today finds expression in the undeniable aversion of wide sections of our people. The cause of this aversion is not to be found in a clear recognition of the consciously or unconsciously systematic and pernicious effect of the Jews as a totality upon our nation.

Rather, it arises mostly from personal contact and from the personal impression, which the individual Jew leaves – almost always an unfavourable one. For this reason, anti-Semitism is too easily characterised as a mere emotional phenomenon. And yet this is incorrect. Anti-Semitism as a political movement may not and cannot be defined by emotional impulses, but by recognition of the facts.

The facts are these: First, Jewry is absolutely a race and not a religious association. Even the Jews never designate themselves as Jewish Germans, Jewish Poles or Jewish Americans but always as German, Poles or American Jews. Jews have never yet adopted much more than the language of the foreign nations among whom they live. A German who is forced to make use of the French language in France, Italian in Italy, Chinese in China does not thereby become a Frenchman, Italian or Chinaman.

It’s the same with the Jew who lives among us and is forced to make use of the German language. He does not thereby become a German. Neither does the Mosaic faith, so important for the survival of this race, settle the question of whether someone is a Jew or non-Jew. There is scarcely a race whose members belong exclusively to just one definite religion.
Click to expand...
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hitler_jews.htm

Plenty of other sources say the same, Hitler hated the Jews for being Jewish, it doesn't get more religous inspiration than that.
 
its also palyed its part in the Vietnam war
http://www.shmoop.com/vietnam-war/religion.html

The vikings, romans & greeks were all led by their 'Gods' of war ( Odin,Mars and Ares) without their relavant 'divine intervention' ( more fairytales) the armies of those races may not have gone to war.

Napoleon also used religion as a tool and indeed he is quoted : “Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
http://hollowverse.com/napoleon-bonaparte/

there are many,many more examples of religious involvement in conflicts throughout history.

MartynK said:
Which is not quite the same thing, is it?
Click to expand...

You are indeed correct, the word 'cause' perhaps should be replaced with 'involved', I was so angry at the time of my first posting in seeing another man murdered for anothers religious gain.
 
Dave1 said:
You are wrong, while Hitler viewed the Jews as a sperate race, the whole "untermensh" philosophy happened long after his anti-semitism surfaced. His hatred was all about religion though.

As early as 1919:


http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hitler_jews.htm

Plenty of other sources say the same, Hitler hated the Jews for being Jewish, it doesn't get more religous inspiration than that.
Click to expand...

Am I? The source you quoted seems to support what I said:

"...First, Jewry is absolutely a race and not a religious association" and "...Neither does the Mosaic faith, so important for the survival of this race, settle the question of whether someone is a Jew or non-Jew. There is scarcely a race whose members belong exclusively to just one definite religion".

The Nazis were obsessed with their ideology of blood, racial purity and 'Aryan' superiority, not religion. Vide the Nuremberg Laws (1935).
 
i have an easy solution, it's not really practical or friendly, however could "curb" the issue.....

Apaches!
 
Ricardodaforce said:
You want to ban Islam?
Click to expand...

As its a religion that through its teachings is promoting the death of all none Muslims then yes that is what I am proposing, its the most Racist organisation out there at the moment and should be treated as such, instead of all the politically correct pussyfooting around them that goes on nowadays.

Why is it ok to ban other extremist groups but not the biggest Muslim one, I bet if they where white they would be banned in an instant
 
Paul-H said:
As its a religion that through its teachings is promoting the death of all none Muslims then yes that is what I am proposing, its the most Racist organisation out there at the moment and should be treated as such, instead of all the politically correct pussyfooting around them that goes on nowadays.

Why is it ok to ban other extremist groups but not the biggest Muslim one, I bet if they where white they would be banned in an instant
Click to expand...

So you want to ban Islamic extremists? Don't think anyone here will disagree with you but I don't think you really want to ban Islam do you?
 
MartynK said:
Am I? The source you quoted seems to support what I said:

"...First, Jewry is absolutely a race and not a religious association" and "...Neither does the Mosaic faith, so important for the survival of this race, settle the question of whether someone is a Jew or non-Jew. There is scarcely a race whose members belong exclusively to just one definite religion".

The Nazis were obsessed with their ideology of blood, racial purity and 'Aryan' superiority, not religion. Vide the Nuremberg Laws (1935).
Click to expand...

Yes, even though he saw it as a race in his twisted ideology, to a normal rational person it should be evident that Jewish people are not a seperate race (you surely aren't trying to argue they are, are you?), so the issue was definitely one of religion, not race.
 
Dave1 said:
Yes, even though he saw it as a race in his twisted ideology, to a normal rational person it should be evident that Jewish people are not a seperate race (you surely aren't trying to argue they are, are you?), so the issue was definitely one of religion, not race.
Click to expand...

Jews on their own are not one separate race per se but they are a semitic race and therefore separate from western races.
 
mex said:
its also palyed its part in the Vietnam war
http://www.shmoop.com/vietnam-war/religion.html

The vikings, romans & greeks were all led by their 'Gods' of war ( Odin,Mars and Ares) without their relavant 'divine intervention' ( more fairytales) the armies of those races may not have gone to war.

Napoleon also used religion as a tool and indeed he is quoted : “Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
http://hollowverse.com/napoleon-bonaparte/

there are many,many more examples of religious involvement in conflicts throughout history.

You are indeed correct, the word 'cause' perhaps should be replaced with 'involved', I was so angry at the time of my first posting in seeing another man murdered for anothers religious gain.
Click to expand...

I understand that, and I share your sense of outrage about this. My original response was motivated by my disagreement with the proposition that most wars are caused by religion, or are fought because of religion. In my opinion, this is a fallacy that has gained some currency through repetition.

Diem's religious bigotry caused fractures in South Vietnamese society and weakened it, but it didn't cause the Vietnam War. The reasons go further back and, in a sense, allowed the major powers to fight the Cold War in the field by proxy.

The Greeks, Romans and Vikings followed various pagan belief systems, and called on their gods to support them, but their expansionist policies weren't driven by religious imperatives to convert other peoples. In fact, the Romans were very tolerant of local religions and were generally content to leave them in place, providing they didn't threaten Roman rule by becoming a focus for rebellion. The Viking belief system was also compatible with the Anglo Saxons original beliefs, and Christianity only came into play when it emerged as a unifying force for 'English' resistance.

Bonaparte used religion as a tool of government, as you say, but he wasn't an imperial evangelist.

Religion has been a part of the human condition since prehistoric times. It's deeply embedded, in one form or another, and I agree that it has played a greater or lesser role in many conflicts, but I don't think it's possible to single it out as the primary cause in most of them. Pride, hunger for power, riches, resources, self preservation and other motivations are greater imperatives.

I suspect that war and conflict would continue unabated if everyone turned to atheism which would, in all probability, become a belief system itself.
 
Last edited:
fabs said:
Jews on their own are not one separate race per se but they are a semitic race and therefore separate from western races.
Click to expand...

As long as races are considered different and separate from one another, and as long as humans invoke the names of fairytale religious idols to justify their own actions, problems like the current ones will always exist.
 
Dave1 said:
Yes, even though he saw it as a race in his twisted ideology, to a normal rational person it should be evident that Jewish people are not a seperate race (you surely aren't trying to argue they are, are you?), so the issue was definitely one of religion, not race.
Click to expand...

We are discussing this in the context of Hitler and the Nazis; not normal, rational, people. There are different points of view, even within Judaism, about whether it is a racial, religious, ethnic or cultural identity. I don't know enough about it to hold an opinion, far less argue about it, but there was no ambiguity in the Nazi ideology. It was racial.
 
fabs said:
So you want to ban Islamic extremists? Don't think anyone here will disagree with you but I don't think you really want to ban Islam do you?
Click to expand...

If you don't take action against the extremists the rest will follow on like sheep, just look at Germany and Russia if you don't believe me, the vast majority where ok but they still got Hitler and Stalin didn't they.

The majority of Muslims might well be ok but but sitting back and doing nothing to curb their own extremists that are actually condoning it.

Then when the extremists are in power that then sit there and say well how did that happen, I didn't see that coming. did you.

Yes I did but the head in the sand mob didn't

Remember whilst most Muslims are not terrorists most of the worlds terrorist are Muslim and most of Europe's Rapists are also Muslim, but that's another Story
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top