Barbaric Cowards

boyfalldown said:
The timeline of conflict in that part of the world goes far further back and is far more complex then that
Click to expand...
It's far too complex and historical for this forum ... no point to this thread really. We used to behead people, but dont anymore. It's a barbaric act, simple as that.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
I think that it would be a reasonable assumption, in my opinion. I'd like to think if they wanted to stop it they'd have a better chance than us.
Click to expand...


So quickly explain, how could a moderate Muslim, working hard and being a productive member of society stop this?

They can't. It's unrealistic to expect otherwise
 
Last edited:
Bobsyeruncle said:
I think that it would be a reasonable assumption, in my opinion. I'd like to think if they wanted to stop it they'd have a better chance than us.
Click to expand...

I'd like to think that the simple fact that someone is muslim should not make them any more responsible for stopping extremism than anyone who is not muslim. It's not 'Them and Us'
 
TCR4x4 said:
But if we hadn't have got involved in the first place, then they wouldn't have an interest in attacking us, that's my point.

This will be a never ending circle. Even if we destroy them, there will be more to take their place, even more hell bent on revenge. This will never end, the next generation will always want to have justice for the wrong doings they perceive of the previous generation.

Can anyone tell me how many British people were beheaded by Islamists before the first gulf war? I'd guess the number is very low.
Click to expand...

In theory I agree with you, lets just butt out and leave them to it. However, what if ISIS take over much of Syria/Iraq and also control some oil... they will get richer and at some point would probably get their hands on a dirty bomb or similar and possibly threaten the western world. 7/7 is one thing, but a nuclear device going off in London doesn't bear thinking about. Most world leaders (inc Putin) will probably never go on a massive war as even they don't want to end the world but ISIS really don't care and would happily blow up the UK. So with that thought I have to say we need to do something.
 
If you think that this bunch of religious nutters have an attitude problem now, just imagine what they're going to be like when they eventually find out that God doesn't actually exist and they've been conned for the last fourteen hundred years ... they're going to go absolutely bloody loopy.
 
Last edited:
You get the feeling that they wouldn't be able to discuss things quite the same way as this.

 
RichardtheSane said:
I'd like to think that the simple fact that someone is muslim should not make them any more responsible for stopping extremism than anyone who is not muslim. It's not 'Them and Us'
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to imply there's a them and us. My logic was that the extremists are never going to listen to the west, but if there was a big enough outcry from the leaders of their own religion, then they may have a better chance of being listened to.
 
boyfalldown said:
So quickly explain, how could a moderate Muslim, working hard and being a productive member of society stop this?

They can't. It's unrealistic to expect otherwise
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting that one moderate Muslim could. But lots of them might. My logic was that the extremists are never going to listen to the west, but if there was a big enough outcry from the leaders of their own religion, then they may have a better chance of being listened to.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
I'm not suggesting that one moderate Muslim could. But lots of them might. My logic was that the extremists are never going to listen to the west, but if there was a big enough outcry from the leaders of their own religion, then they may have a better chance of being listened to.
Click to expand...


By definition extremists don't listen to anyone. IS have little or nothing to do with Islam either. It won't make one Iota of difference should anybody speak out against them. No matter who they are
 
boyfalldown said:
By definition extremists don't listen to anyone. IS have little or nothing to do with Islam either. It won't make one Iota of difference should anybody speak out against them. No matter who they are
Click to expand...

I am not sure that I totally agree with that Hugh, because I believe that Islam (or rather the extremist, Wahhabi preachers/imams) has an influence over what these people are doing.
The fact that radical imams have been able to continue preaching bile in the UK, and seem to have audiences ready to listen to them, tells me that it is a big problem which politicians of all parties are unwilling to tackle.
People try to distance the actions of the Taliban from Islam, when in fact the Taliban (previously the Mujadeen) was created in the Madrassas (Wahhabi religious schools) of Pakistan. In large parts of Africa - Nigeria being a prime example - Wahhabism has resulted in large numbers of young men "converting" to Islam, and using the radical/extremist preachings of the faith/imams, to carry out acts of extreme barbarity.
So, no I do not think that we can distance the actions of IS from Islam yet.
If we had mass demonstrations against the actions of IS in the UK (as happened in Nigeria when the 200 schoolgirls were abducted by Boko Harem) of all people - Christians, Muslims, atheists - then that may send out a message to them that everyone deplores their actions, but sadly that has not happened.
 
IS/ISIL/ISIS whatever they are currently calling themselves wont listen to reason, that is absolutly correct.

They also aren't going to be put off by a few air strikes either, they are not as effective against their form of warfare as against, for example masses of tanks on the North German Plains. The only effective way of countering them is 2 fold, first is the point I think Bob is making, which is from within their own religion, and cut off the supply of manpower from that side.They can only operate if they have people, if Muslims come to see they are not the way then thats achieved.

Secondly, unpopular as it will be, its troops to remove to problem of the ones that have already joined.

The first of those is difficult to achieve, and I don't see as much effort going into that from the Muslim community as there could be.

I'm sorry but blaming either Iraq war, or Afghanistan is ignoring the reality. Islamic fundamentalism whatever flavour of it you want to choice wants a Worldwide Caliphate, it's not something confined to the Middle East and never has been. If those 3 events hadn't happened, we would still have the problem, in a different place or way but it would still be there.
 
boyfalldown said:
By definition extremists don't listen to anyone. IS have little or nothing to do with Islam either. It won't make one Iota of difference should anybody speak out against them. No matter who they are
Click to expand...

I think the point maybe that the moderates of influence, by speaking out, could stop those thinking of become extremists.

Agreed, once someone is already at the edges, they will have disdain for moderates and not be influenced by them. But speaking out could stem the flow of those turning to extremism
 
boyfalldown said:
By definition extremists don't listen to anyone. IS have little or nothing to do with Islam either. It won't make one Iota of difference should anybody speak out against them. No matter who they are
Click to expand...
Ok, so then we have to kill them, before they kill us.
 
andy700 said:
I am not sure that I totally agree with that Hugh, because I believe that Islam (or rather the extremist, Wahhabi preachers/imams) has an influence over what these people are doing.
The fact that radical imams have been able to continue preaching bile in the UK, and seem to have audiences ready to listen to them, tells me that it is a big problem which politicians of all parties are unwilling to tackle.
People try to distance the actions of the Taliban from Islam, when in fact the Taliban (previously the Mujadeen) was created in the Madrassas (Wahhabi religious schools) of Pakistan. In large parts of Africa - Nigeria being a prime example - Wahhabism has resulted in large numbers of young men "converting" to Islam, and using the radical/extremist preachings of the faith/imams, to carry out acts of extreme barbarity.
So, no I do not think that we can distance the actions of IS from Islam yet.
If we had mass demonstrations against the actions of IS in the UK (as happened in Nigeria when the 200 schoolgirls were abducted by Boko Harem) of all people - Christians, Muslims, atheists - then that may send out a message to them that everyone deplores their actions, but sadly that has not happened.
Click to expand...

Thas and interesting way of looking at it. And I hope you're right. I have to admit I tend to think of IS as a evil bunch of cowards who simply will use the name of whatever suits to further their own ends.


Rapscallion said:
I think the point maybe that the moderates of influence, by speaking out, could stop those thinking of become extremists.

Agreed, once someone is already at the edges, they will have disdain for moderates and not be influenced by them. But speaking out could stem the flow of those turning to extremism
Click to expand...

Yep - I agree, but once someone is there that bile and hate is far stronger then anything else
 
JDAM

end of
 
Bernie174 said:
I'm sorry but blaming either Iraq war, or Afghanistan is ignoring the reality.
Click to expand...

There are many things which I agreed with in your post Bernie, but the above is not one of them. You are using the exact words which Tony Blair did at the time, when following our intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, there were bombings across Europe, in India and in Asia. I am afraid that you cannot ignore the simple law of action and reaction.
Prior to 9/11, the US had been attacked mainly in the Middle East/Africa by Al Qaeda, who cited US interventionism as the reason.
Can you please tell me how many Islamic terrorist bombings took place in Europe prior to our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?
When we invaded Iraq, we destroyed the infrastructure of the country, we had no plan for the future, we disbanded the Iraqi army and we created a void which was filled by extremist factions who set about killing veryone who disagreed with them. Saddam was a horrible dictator, but he had nothing to do with 9/11, and his country is now in a far worse state than it was when he was in power.
In the past 15 years, the US (backed by the West), has been influential in regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and has attempted regime change in Syria which has helped IS expand into Iraq.
 
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. At the time I thought the Iraq war was the right thing to do. That said, saddam acted like he had something to hide and had he cooperated a bit better maybe things would have been better for him and us.
 
You're confusion 2 things, cause and effect. I grant you the the result of Iraq has helped the cause of worldwide Islamic fundamentalism, but it's not the root cause.
That root cause goes back way into history, not just as a result of the Crusades, although again, it helps the cause as does the creation and support of the state of Israel

In the past Islam hasn't had the support base or capability to attack targets in the West, that has changed, hence we now have attacks.
Blair comes to the same conclusion because those are the facts.
 
andy700 said:
There are many things which I agreed with in your post Bernie, but the above is not one of them. You are using the exact words which Tony Blair did at the time, when following our intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, there were bombings across Europe, in India and in Asia. I am afraid that you cannot ignore the simple law of action and reaction.
Prior to 9/11, the US had been attacked mainly in the Middle East/Africa by Al Qaeda, who cited US interventionism as the reason.
Can you please tell me how many Islamic terrorist bombings took place in Europe prior to our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?
When we invaded Iraq, we destroyed the infrastructure of the country, we had no plan for the future, we disbanded the Iraqi army and we created a void which was filled by extremist factions who set about killing veryone who disagreed with them. Saddam was a horrible dictator, but he had nothing to do with 9/11, and his country is now in a far worse state than it was when he was in power.
In the past 15 years, the US (backed by the West), has been influential in regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and has attempted regime change in Syria which has helped IS expand into Iraq.
Click to expand...

The World Trade Centre was bombed in 1993 and Bin Laden issued a fatwa in 1998 for Muslims to kill Americans. This all happened well before the Iraq war so how does that fit in? Tony Blair said the war in Iraq and removal of Saddam is partly to blame but to blame it all on that is too simplistic. Sunni vs Shia sectarianism has been going on a lot longer than 2003. Hindsight is always 20/20 and disbanding the army or banning Ba'ath party members from top jobs are seen by many as a mistake now but we can only play the hand we've been dealt.

Saddam should have been wiped out in the Gulf war and really we abandoned the National uprising and left Saddam to butcher them after encouraging it. The whole 'Saddam was a bad guy, but...' argument doesn't hold much water. Saddam was a brutal tyrant and genocidal butcher and like in Syria just now with Assad a dictator is no guarantee there won't be Islamic extremists. We should have intervened more in Syria to stamp on the throats of these Islamic State jihadists, unfortunately we didn't and let them gain strength and wealth from the chaotic scenes.
 
Laudrup said:
The World Trade Centre was bombed in 1993 and Bin Laden issued a fatwa in 1998 for Muslims to kill Americans. This all happened well before the Iraq war so how does that fit in? Tony Blair said the war in Iraq and removal of Saddam is partly to blame but to blame it all on that is too simplistic. Sunni vs Shia sectarianism has been going on a lot longer than 2003. Hindsight is always 20/20 and disbanding the army or banning Ba'ath party members from top jobs are seen by many as a mistake now but we can only play the hand we've been dealt.

Saddam should have been wiped out in the Gulf war and really we abandoned the National uprising and left Saddam to butcher them after encouraging it. The whole 'Saddam was a bad guy, but...' argument doesn't hold much water. Saddam was a brutal tyrant and genocidal butcher and like in Syria just now with Assad a dictator is no guarantee there won't be Islamic extremists. We should have intervened more in Syria to stamp on the throats of these Islamic State jihadists, unfortunately we didn't and let them gain strength and wealth from the chaotic scenes.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately you chose to ignore the part where I said that US interests mainly in Africa and the Middle East were attacked PRIOR to 9/11 - the World Trade Centre being an isolated example.
We were in fact backing the "rebels" (Al Qaeda and IS) against Assad in Syria, and in fact Kerry and Hague were quite open about providing them with aid.
As for dictators, well we backed Saddam in the past (when he declared war against Iran), Ghadaffi (both Bush and Blair were best buddies with him), Assad was a friend of the West, until the West decided that they didn't like seeing him as an ally of Russia and Iran.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghadaffi (both Bush and Blair were best buddies with him)
Click to expand...

And the previous administration bombed him.

The politics of the world go round, one minute we're all good friends, next we aren't, its the way things are.

That doesn't detract from the issue here, which is that unless we do something about IS/ISIL/ISIS we are are deep poo.

At the moment they don't have a Country as such, and therefore few people to 'convert'. Once they do this all starts to get a whole lot nastier.

Meanwhile back at the batcave, too many people are too concerned arguing about what caused it, which is essence, boiling it down to the basics is 1. the birth of Jesus Christ and 2. The coming of the prophet Mohamed.
 
andy700 said:
Unfortunately you chose to ignore the part where I said that US interests mainly in Africa and the Middle East were attacked PRIOR to 9/11 - the World Trade Centre being an isolated example.
We were in fact backing the "rebels" (Al Qaeda and IS) against Assad in Syria, and in fact Kerry and Hague were quite open about providing them with aid.
As for dictators, well we backed Saddam in the past (when he declared war against Iran), Ghadaffi (both Bush and Blair were best buddies with him), Assad was a friend of the West, until the West decided that they didn't like seeing him as an ally of Russia and Iran.
Click to expand...

The WTC bombing doesn't mean there weren't more plots by Islamic extremists foiled by security services. Bin Laden and his cronies were ranting about the USA wanting to destroy Iraq in 1998 to protect Israel. His fatwa in 1998 leaves no doubt:

On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it
Click to expand...

This predates 9/11 or the war in Iraq. You can't negotiate with people who want the end of western judeo-christian civilization, all you can do is find them and kill them and that is what happened to Bin Laden.

In Syria the US were arming the moderate and secular Free Syrian Army (FSA) not ISIS. As for relations with Saddam and Gaddafi the best way to sum it up is the quote from Lord Palmerston:

"Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests".
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
In Syria the US were arming the moderate and secular Free Syrian Army (FSA) not ISIS. As for relations with Saddam and Gaddafi the best way to sum it up is the quote from Lord Palmerston:

"Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests".
Click to expand...

First off, you may wish to read this article about the FSA:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/...Army-Factions-Join-Islamic-State-Terror-Group


The last statement by Palmerston illustrates nicely why nobody in the region trusts us.
 
Bernie174 said:
And the previous administration bombed him.

The politics of the world go round, one minute we're all good friends, next we aren't, its the way things are.

That doesn't detract from the issue here, which is that unless we do something about IS/ISIL/ISIS we are are deep poo.

At the moment they don't have a Country as such, and therefore few people to 'convert'. Once they do this all starts to get a whole lot nastier.

Meanwhile back at the batcave, too many people are too concerned arguing about what caused it, which is essence, boiling it down to the basics is 1. the birth of Jesus Christ and 2. The coming of the prophet Mohamed.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this, and I would be choosing a different route than our leaders. I would try to openly getting the Kurds, Turkey and Iran working together - a quick look at the map will illustrate why. At the moment, the West is talking about getting UAE and Saudi Arabia on board, something which amazes me, given the fact that funding for extremist Sunni/Wahhabi militants comes from the Gulf states, as do many of the hate preachers here in the UK.
Here is just one reason why I think the Gulf states cannot be trusted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/w...mists-alienates-allies-near-and-far.html?_r=0
 
Last edited:
At the moment, the West is talking about getting UAE and Saudi Arabia on board, something which amazes me, given the fact that funding for extremist Sunni/Wahhabi militants comes from the Gulf states, as do many of the hate preachers here in the UK.
Click to expand...

which is exactly why we are courting them. It's in an attempt to get those states populations on side, remember it's not the Governments as such, it's the populations. Trouble is being in effect dictatorships, their method of Government breeds decent. Nothing will change until that does, and that wont change by ignoring it.

The Kurds and Turkey. You are on a hiding to nothing there, Turkey's issues with them are historical, and not easily resolved, and the same with Ian, who in it's self is responsible for sponsorship of terrorism, but at Government level.

The issue is that one by one states will fall to the IS type terrorism, look at the current conflicts spread out from the Middle East, many of them revolve around Islam. . The opening words from Special Branch at a Briefing I went to in 1995 was "Forget Paddy, he's finished, it's Islamic fundamentalism we are worried about now". This was long before Good Friday, 9/11 Afghanistan and Iraq 2
 
TCR4x4 said:
If the Syrian people want to get rid of their leader, let them.. Why does it concern us?
If a group of madmen want to go round murdering people who don't follow their ideals, let them. Why does it concern us?
If the Iraqi army wants to try and stop them, then let them. Why does it concern us?
Click to expand...

Oil
Oil
Oil

This is all about who controls what in 25 years , they say there's 100s of years of oil left but they would say that wouldn't they.

Think of how much fuel one town gets through in a day then multiply that by all the towns in the UK then the world

The figure just for daily use must be 100s of millions of gallons

I read the government has plans in place for anarchy in 8 days, because that's all the food we have ready for distribution, if the oil stops flowing and there's no fuel, in 8 days it all starts to fall apart

Look at the panic buying 15 years ago when a couple of refineries got blockaded, they ran out because everybody filled up all at once, imagine the chaos if it started running out for real.

Plans are in place for what happens next, even the UK is building aircraft carriers ready for it, it's not politics, it's survival.



They know it's coming, whoever controls the oil rules the world
 
wack61 said:
Oil
whoever controls the oil rules the world
Click to expand...

Whoever controls the means of power generation rules the world. Within 100 years that won't be oil.

That aside, this is an unbelievably complex subject that can't begin to be covered on an internet forum.

No-one has mentioned the elephant in the room concerning the situation in the middle east and the growth of Islamic radicalism.

A couple of threads have been started on the subject and very quickly closed. I won't knowingly contribute to this thread being closed.
 
Oil
Oil
Oil

This is all about who controls what in 25 years , they say there's 100s of years of oil left but they would say that wouldn't they.

Think of how much fuel one town gets through in a day then multiply that by all the towns in the UK then the world

The figure just for daily use must be 100s of millions of gallons

I read the government has plans in place for anarchy in 8 days, because that's all the food we have ready for distribution, if the oil stops flowing and there's no fuel, in 8 days it all starts to fall apart

Look at the panic buying 15 years ago when a couple of refineries got blockaded, they ran out because everybody filled up all at once, imagine the chaos if it started running out for real.

Plans are in place for what happens next, even the UK is building aircraft carriers ready for it, it's not politics, it's survival.



They know it's coming, whoever controls the oil rules the world
Click to expand...

It's about having the option not to think I need to go to prayers at the Mosque 6 times a day, wear a robe and have a beard.
It's about the choice to drink, to look at women in bikinis, and to be able to say pretty much what I like.

It's about not having Islamic Fundamentalist ideals ruling my life, your life and everyone else's life.

Oil doesn't just come from the Middle East, it also comes from Russia, the US, Nigeria and of course the North Sea. There's potential for it coming from the Falklands and a lot of other places too, so the oil idea, while its a nice easy allegation to make doesn't actually hold water.

We are building 2 carriers because we no longer need to worry about 5th Guards Shock Army taking a trundle over the North German plains, with the express idea of having morning coffee in Antwerp before tea in Dover. The threats could be anywhere now, from the Middle East to South America. We don't need a carrier for the Middle East, we've had an unsinkable one there since we nicked it from the Otterman Empire, it's called Cyprus.

It really is about time people woke up, stopped reading the Guardian and realised that this is not all about oil!
 
Bernie174 said:
It's about having the option not to think I need to go to prayers at the Mosque 6 times a day, wear a robe and have a beard.
It's about the choice to drink, to look at women in bikinis, and to be able to say pretty much what I like.

It's about not having Islamic Fundamentalist ideals ruling my life, your life and everyone else's life.

Oil doesn't just come from the Middle East, it also comes from Russia, the US, Nigeria and of course the North Sea. There's potential for it coming from the Falklands and a lot of other places too, so the oil idea, while its a nice easy allegation to make doesn't actually hold water.

We are building 2 carriers because we no longer need to worry about 5th Guards Shock Army taking a trundle over the North German plains, with the express idea of having morning coffee in Antwerp before tea in Dover. The threats could be anywhere now, from the Middle East to South America. We don't need a carrier for the Middle East, we've had an unsinkable one there since we nicked it from the Otterman Empire, it's called Cyprus.

It really is about time people woke up, stopped reading the Guardian and realised that this is not all about oil!
Click to expand...

1) Muslims pray 5 times a day.
2) Islamic fundamentalists are NEVER going to rule the World - plain scaremongering.
3) Aircraft carriers are just big boy's toys, dinosaurs, and can be taken out just like any other ship, from the air, by submarine or by surface to surface supersonic missile .
4) People can read what they like, because we have freedom of speech and thought, and we would rather not be dictated to by the likes of you.
 
1) Which shows how bad a Muslim I'd make. I have a choice at the moment, and I'd rather not have that limited because some people can't get their heads around what the real issue is. Scaremongering? No.

2) No, they aren't because , because some people in the world can see beyond this silly oil argument. Look at the conflicts spreading from the Middle East, including those states that have no oil industry. There's a common thread.

3) Aircraft carriers are a way of projecting power. But that's a different argument from the point I was answering. Which is if we had only built them to play games in the Middle East, it was a waste of time when we own a huge great RAF station on Cyprus. In other words, to play that game, we don't need carriers. I am therefore disagreeing with the point Darren made that they are being built solely for messing about in the Middle East.

4) I've not said people can't read what they like, so there's no dictation here, simply putting a point over that contradicts the simplistic argument that keeps being uttered of it all being about oil.
 
I think sadly there are just a lot of bad people in the world who'll use any excuse including wealth, religion to fight and kill others as they cannot just get on with their lives.

I don't actually know how this can be stopped but i think it's worrying that people can openly preach hate in this country and nothings been done about it. I think the idea of taking these people's passports from them when they leave to go and fight/train abroad is the least we should be doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top