Somehow I didn't notice the tanks in the background before. Irrespective though it kind of indicates potential access to military grade explosives which is both concerning in itself but potentially positive in that they might not have perfected making an effective home brew explosive after all so hopefully less chance of subsequent attacks of that nature.
Manchester Bombing *** Please remain respectful and refrain from antagonising posts ***
- Thread starter omnomnom
- Start date
Somehow I didn't notice the tanks in the background before. Irrespective though it kind of indicates potential access to military grade explosives which is both concerning in itself but potentially positive in that they might not have perfected making an effective home brew explosive after all so hopefully less chance of subsequent attacks of that nature.
And that's one of the big factors in why ISIS and the like are doing what they are going. It's the typical ultra conservative (generally "right" wing) viewpoint that what they see as their inailing culture is being "diluted" by outside influences. The youth of today are being liberal ********* and requiring correcting back to a more traditional viewpoint.
It's exactly the same viewpoint as many in this thread complaining about the "islamificarion" of the UK and west, but to them it's the "christianification" and westernization of their culture.
The only difference is the level of violence and coercion being displayed - generally in the west it's more talk and less substance, with the occasional more isolated incidence of violence (such as attacking pregnant women with veils in the street) and terrorist attacks (such as the Norway incident a couple of years ago). That difference in violence can arguably be placed in part at the door of the instability and security vacuum within the Middle East at the moment.
Utterly wrong, i would class those Libyans as disgusting if they supported Qaddafi.
The Qaddafi files are an excellent read. There's lots about it from many sources.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/20/the-qaddafi-files-2/
And out of interest where do you see Syria now if we had invaded after the chemical attacks, rather than forced the destruction of the vast majority of the weapons?
Do you really think it would look much different to today?
Have I? Or do I just not like quotes being thrown around without any consideration for whether they actually hold true in the context in which they're employed?
Whatever.
I'm suggesting there's a contradiction because rather than agree or disagree that the actions and thoughts of some in other religions means there's a fundimental problem in those religions you use the same "deflect" argument. It's not deflection in the slightest and would be easier, rather than claiming deflection, to just answer the question.
From your current statement I take it that you agree there are similar issue with Christianity as Islam then, due to the use of text and interpretation to preach hate and intolerance in the Christian faith?
No, I wouldn't carry on the same "whataboutary" in a thread involving the Catholic Church and child molestation - because the Catholic Church is not Christianity as a whole. Should we blame Christianity as a whole for the actions of those priests? Of course not. Kinda the point I'm making...
Should we blame Islam as a whole for the actions of Islamists? No.
yes, rather a lot different ditto to Iraq had we kept ground troops there for longer
I don't see how highlighting your usual deflections in these sorts of threads is contradictory? You've not really explained that very well at all. What question exactly do you want me to answer?
You can see that engaging in this wahataboutery nonsense would be spurious in the case of the Catholic Church/molestation topic yet you do it frequently in threads about Islamists.
Last edited:
No, but we can blame Islam for claiming Allah will reward martyrs who kill others in holy war, which the radical preachers more than likely use to brain-wash those carrying out these attacks.
No that is exactly what you ascribed and you deliberately avoid the fact that those he disagreed with at the time went against the will of the entire United Nations.
The effect of the Unilateral choice of an awful President and an egotist PM are writ large in Syria right now, though Dowie enjoys pretending ISIS would be identical without half a million dead on our watch in their recruiting ground!
Frankly the post and go nonsense comparisons of dissimilar conflicts, in different regions, with very different outcomes including loss of life at our hands is idiotic. Should we have spent as much effort else where militarily (say preventing genocide in Rwanda) who knows, but then those people didn't bother to live on top of one of the planets largest oil fields!
I'm not sure where you're inferring 'enjoyment' from here nor why you've come to the conclusion that I think ISIS would be identical? But Islamism would still exist whether we invaded Iraq or not.
Perhaps ask the United Nations Security Council, you know the aggregate/consensus opinion of many vested interested nation states?
No I didn't - I grouped him in with people who will only ever push for the soft option regardless of circumstances - I didn't say any of those attributes necessarily applied to him specifically.
While I don't necessarily disagree with quite a lot of what Corbyn says in principle I pity anyone who can't see through to the man he really is. Unfortunately his projected persona seems to fool so many people.
If you keep repeating that Iraq is distinct and separate from conflicts and recruitment that ISIS are involved in, in such a range of increasinly bizarre ways, including throwing in any random dissimilar conflicts etc if you are doing that without enjoyment but through some rational process I'm not sure I could fathom what that could be.
At least it seems you concede that the half a million deaths in Iraq, likely has affected the Syrian conflict, along with the size and capability of ISIS?
Personally I put more stock in a persons choices and actions, call it a preference for substance over style. If you agree so much perhaps what you "feel" you know about him, is simply wrong or a reflection of the press coverage?
Eh no the guy is a charlatan and I hope some day people will broadly see him for the truth.
I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. I've not said that Iraq is distinct and separate from ISIS recruitment, perhaps it would be better if you used to quote facility to highlight whatever you're referring to?
Deleted member 68110
Deleted member 68110
Exactly this (and the rest of your post)...
Look at the reaction of the UK Right to this terrorism, then imagine Eastern equivalents in the midst of the violence there , similarly incapable of bringing intelligent scrutiny to the rhetoric they're being fed, and it's easy to see how we got here.
@stewski No I don't concede that, I never denied that in the first place. If you're going to confuse things then perhaps you should use the quote function as mentioned before - ideally when you read the thing you're confused about rather than trying to remember several pages later....