its typical of people that get all their info online and from sources that skew based on a particular viewpoint, bit like some talking head saying Birmingham is a no go Muslim only city.
Manchester Bombing *** Please remain respectful and refrain from antagonising posts ***
- Thread starter omnomnom
- Start date
The mind goes into full anti immigrant hate mode then the news comes in he is british born and then the mind is stopped in it's tracks and thinks 'so what now?'
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,736
To be honest, if there was no religion in the world they would still be doing the same only under a different name
Religion, land grabbing, resource control, money and greed, mankind will always find some excuse and reason for us to kill each other over
Why is it more valuable? He doesn't offer any solutions, just whinges about the current responses. He is also flat out wrong when it comes to saying politicians are immune to it.
How is what he said in any way useful?
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Despicable that people think it is acceptable to twist such horrific events to a grand scale for the sake of drama and inciting a reaction. People have family and loved ones there and Scorza claims a city has been claimed by ISIS?
No different from those douche-bags after the Manchester bombing that were posting fake news about hundreds of children being taken to various Holiday Inns when theyor that xxx and yyy was missing when they werent. Just fake stuff designed to whip up worry.
For people still clinging to the hope that changing our foreign policy will stop the attacks on us, think again. This is from an article in the Islamic State's own magazine entitled "Break the Cross"
In other words, the only way to stop us from attacking you is for you to submit to us - as I said yesterday.
In other words, the only way to stop us from attacking you is for you to submit to us - as I said yesterday.
It took 17 attempts for Muslims to invade India and the mogul rule came to a bloody end with the Sikh and Hindus uniting. But not before 100 million Hindus and Sikhs had been slaughtered.
even east Pakistan army now Bangladesh killed 7 million non-muslims.
even east Pakistan army now Bangladesh killed 7 million non-muslims.
One thing that confuses me, is how the government write legislation forcing social media companies to remove hate speech from their platforms, (don't have a problem with that) but it's apparently perfectly ok, for the main news outlets to publish information about the bomber, names, (no doubt a picture will appear) and directly quote ISIS propaganda - such as the bombing of 'crusaders' in Manchester. As if all of that is perfectly fine and acceptable.
So again I ask, how is it valuable?
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Can you explain your 'honesty' in your earlier post about a city of 200,000 being taken by ISIS?
Not really - not that I'm opposed to refugees in general (in fact I'd see families welcomed here rather than single men) but if I did oppose refugees from Islamic countries I could point out that his parents were refugees from Libya. If we didn't have muslims migration (over the past few decades) we'd have fewer attacks, simply because there would be a smaller muslim community from which potential attackers could be radicalised. But then likewise if we didn't have a strong military and the ability to project power/intervened in conflicts around the world (or indeed support the invasion/overthrow of a regime in Iraq) then that wouldn't have acted as a catalyst for attacks - it would be naive to expect we wouldn't have any attacks but we'd probably lower the risk of any particular muslim form a **** our muslim population of becoming radicalised.
But frankly I don't think terrrorism should be allowed to change either. We should accept some refugees along with other developer countries and carry on providing aid for even more and we should still stand up and take action when groups like ISIS are massacring thousands. To change our policies because we're threatened by some minority of terrorists would be wrong.
I don't know what gutter he is trawling now for his fake news because even Breitbarts take on the conflict is this
Breitbart said:
not necessarily 'the same' - granted there can still exist plenty of violence without religion, though to deliberately target human civilians requires a mentality that doesn't place much value on human life (or at least the human life of those you're targeting - somehow considering them sub humans or infidels etc..) and would generally still require some form of extremist ideology. So you could replace Islam with fascism or communism and perhaps you might see some of the same (maybe not via a suicide attack though) but I suspect that as education improves and fewer people chose to follow religions then the chances of these sorts of attacks occurring will decrease.
If you find your opinions aligning with Piers Morgan, Paul Joseph Watson, Alex Jones, Katie Hopkins, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage then you can be reasonably safe in the knowledge that you haven't actually found some enlightened perspective on things.
Loony lefty here. At least we have an opinion for positive change. Get back to your joints. Clueless
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2005
- Posts
- 1,842
- Location
- Lymington
Which elements of the army could be deployed? Are we talking Paras, Marines, SFSG or regular army? Reminds me of 2003 when Blair sent "tanks" to protect Heathrow airport.