ISIS and Islamic militants - discussion

Yes, it is quite simple actually. Just because someone claims to do something in "the name of" does not transfer blame nor responsibility onto that.

IRA - should all of the Irish be to blame for their terrorism? No. Of course not.

What bigoted nonsense you spout to fit your prejudice agenda.

There's one of three things happening here.

1. I haven't been clear in my point.
2. You're not understanding what I am saying.
3. Both of the above.

Not sure how me, a Muslim, saying Muslims should collectively stand against ISIS is bigoted nonsense.
 
Just watched the last segment of that video. It is HORRIFIC. Anyone wanting to watch it, really, DONT. Don't know how i'm going to get over watching that. Foolish thing to do.

Everyone should watch it, this is what Fundamentalist Islam is all about. There will be people in the UK right now cheering and laughing.

A pity we didn't know these people better twenty years ago, before the liberals told us everything was going to be rainbow sparkles and skipping.
 
There's one of three things happening here.

1. I haven't been clear in my point.
2. You're not understanding what I am saying.
3. Both of the above.

Not sure how me, a Muslim, saying Muslims should collectively stand against ISIS is bigoted nonsense.

Lets say the Una Bomber is/was Christian. Should the Pope take up arms?

IRA - the Irish?

etc.
 
The IRA weren't engaged in a religious war.

What a convenient little technicality you have there. So as long as they are fighting for a religious ideal, it is the fault of the religion. Yet if someone fights for a political ideal, it's nothing to do with that ideal. Do you realise how ridiculous that differentiation is? Rhetorical, as you obviously wouldn't have said it otherwise.

They still fought "in the name" of some ideology.

Besides which the troubles around the Orange March is very much a protestant vs catholic conflict.
 
Last edited:
Una Bomber is/was Christian. Should the Pope take up arms?

IRA - the Irish?

etc.

I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

There's historical examples here. Fourth caliph fights against Khawarij extremists who were very much like the modern jihadi problem. Other Caliphs do the same. Islam as a religion dictates that rebels, extremist groups etc be brought under control.

You didn't say how I am a bigot.

Clearly the Irish should take no responsibility for addressing the IRA in your world.
 
What a convenient little technicality you have there. So as long as they are fighting for a religious ideal, it is the fault of the religion. Yet if someone fights for a political ideal, it's nothing to do with that ideal. Do you realise how ridiculous that differentiation is? Rhetorical, as you obviously wouldn't have said it otherwise.

They still fought "in the name" of some ideology.

Besides which the troubles around the Orange March is very much a protestant vs catholic conflict.

There was sectarian violence but that was not the remit under what the PIRA and Sinn Fein operated.
 
I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

There's historical examples here. Fourth caliph fights against Khawarij extremists who were very much like the modern jihadi problem. Other Caliphs do the same. Islam as a religion dictates that rebels, extremist groups etc be brought under control.

You didn't say how I am a bigot.

Clearly the Irish should take no responsibility for addressing the IRA in your world.

Actually I did point out where you have a bigoted view... right in the same post where I call it your prejudiced agenda.

For every violent example, there are many, many more non-violent examples. Still the question stands though - what stance are you (and anyone else demanding Islam take a stance) expecting them to take?

You're drawing a false dichotomy, and claim I'm the one arguing for arguing's sake.
 
Repeating thyself, eh?

What a convenient little technicality you have there. So as long as they are fighting for a religious ideal, it is the fault of the religion. Yet if someone fights for a political ideal, it's nothing to do with that ideal. Do you realise how ridiculous that differentiation is? Rhetorical, as you obviously wouldn't have said it otherwise.

They still fought "in the name" of some ideology.

Besides which the troubles around the Orange March is very much a protestant vs catholic conflict.
 
I couldn't even imagine this level of evil before the rise of IS.

not quite medieval cruelty yet the most wicked and cruel torture devices ever invented by man are far worse than ISIS has done so far.

Just travel in time a few hundred years witness the Judas Cradle
4jYTuvN.jpg

You sit on that thing...
, Pear of Anguish, brazen bull or many more inventive ways to kill someone
 
not quite medieval cruelty yet the most wicked and cruel torture devices ever invented by man are far worse than ISIS has done so far.

Just travel in time a few hundred years witness the Judas Cradle
4jYTuvN.jpg

You sit on that thing...
, Pear of Anguish, brazen bull or many more inventive ways to kill someone

This is a key point.
 
Jihadi John is British. Why don't all Brits take a stand against him?

pretty sure the prevailing opinion outside of immigrant Muslim communities in Britain is that he should be hung if we ever find him.

short of building a gallows not sure how much more of a stand the common man can make?

suppose they could beat the living **** out of the ISIS supporters when they come out in thier "protests" but not sure thats the best course of action.
 
Back
Top Bottom