I believe Shayper was handing out some sensible advice rather than threatening with a ban.
You are one angry little soul aren't you.
RIP Chris Kyle
- Thread starter Daze
- Start date
I believe Shayper was handing out some sensible advice rather than threatening with a ban.
You are one angry little soul aren't you.
This was indeed the case.
You overdone it with the shandy son?
Yes I feel the need to head shot some Afgans because what they have done to me.
He's been abused by his teachers? We'll have to forgive him for his drug taking it helps him blot out reality.
NO DRUGS TALK.
No they don't
It seems they are through you tonight..... surely nobody babbles crap like this without some medicinal aid?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
The context was provided by the nature of the conversation I was joining, that being a discussion about whether our current presence in the Middle East is actively making our lives safer in Britain.
I still stand by the overall point made by my first post that it hasn't and the 7/7 attacks, the copycat attempt and the Glasgow Airport attack which all happened after 2001 show that to be false. Unfortunately instead of debating the merits of that point of view, as per usual with yourself we have to go off on a tangent having a semantics argument over a sentence that wasn't central to my main point (or rather doesn't affect my conclusion even if I accept your examples).
So I'm not allowed to clarify my statement but you are allowed to change Britain to 'The West'? Yeah OK.
Which 'legal authorities'? The police? MI5? The judiciary? The Secretary of State?
You said "the idea that Islamist Terrorism is not politically motivated just illustrates how little you understand what Islamism is".
I never claimed nor implied that Islamist Terrorism is never , or can't be. politically motivated. I never argued that your examples were politically motivated so therefore cannot be terrorist attacks, I said the examples you gave were more like politically motivated target assassinations than [what I would consider] terrorism. As a linguist I'm surprised you can't see the difference.
Once again it's one rule for me and another for you. You make a demonstrably false claim when read literally and you get to state your case again whereas I am just, according to you, trying to obfuscate an error on my part.
Then we have a different definition of terrorism. Yours seems to be 'any politically motivated killing', mine is more 'Any indiscriminate attempt at mass murder that targets (or disregard the lives of) citizens for any motivation'.
Again, I've never claimed that terrorist acts can't be politically motivated.
Did you miss the bit where I conceded it was an acceptable example of 'Islamist terrorism' in my quote?
But, bringing it back to the actual line of debate (i.e Are our forces currently making life safer for us) that compared to the attacks we've had since our recent invasions of Afghanistan/Iraq is not a good example because clearly we've had far more deadly attempts.
I must have missed that one. Was it a bloke who had a Islamic sounding name letting off a firework which scared a cat?
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one then.
Last edited:
If you fly from say Heathrow to say Singapore / Kualar Lumpur / SE Asia generally you fly right over Afghanistan pretty close to Kandahar whether it be it BA, SIA, KLM or whatever (usually half full of infidels). Now apparently Afgans are crazy terroristz nutters - beat the crap out of the Ruskies...must have easily enough captured ruskie surface to air missiles to shoot the infidels out of the skies. But 10 times a day as an infidel you can 747 it over Kandahar unmolested. How does that work?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Why would the 'Ruskies' have used surface to air missiles in Afghanistan?
Did they think expect Mujahedin to be moving around on flying carpets?
No they have magic poppy plants and a wannabe oil pipeline - that's what you and the heros are paying for. Under the guise of terrorism.
Last edited:
There was no such discussion until you introduced it. The discussion was relating to the death of a renowned sniper, not whether our presence in Afghanistan makes the UK safer or not, although I concede that you did go on in your second paragraph to make this point, although I am not sure that you can argue what might have happened had we left Afghanistan to its own devices, neither does it impact the point I raised about your statement in regards to when Islamist terrorism affected the UK.
I questioned the rather emphasised "Funny how we'd had no Islamist terrorism in the UK until AFTER we went to Afghanistan/Iraq then isn't it?" in your original post.....it was and remains inaccurate. I never suggested or debated that our involvement in subsequent operations has increased our visibility to Islamic terrorism or that one incident was magnitudes worse than another. You are the one forcing this into tangents and semantics....I simply disagreed with the statement that we had no Islamist terrorism in the UK until after we got involved in Afghanistan and subsequent operations in 2001. I gave examples as evidence why I disagreed. That is about the size of it....anything else you have introduced.
The attack was against the west, which includes the UK and it happened in the UK based on operations that were orchestrated from the UK. It isn't changing anything, it is simply stating the position.
The Courts and The Government....who are the legal authorities in the UK.
I did not claim that you stated such a thing either, I stated that politically motivated assassinations by recognised islamist groups are still terrorism which you implied they were not, as you have done so again above, in fact by definition Islamism is politically motivated and the examples I offered do indeed fulfil the criteria of Islamist terrorism. This is circular, you are simply attempting to reword the same flawed defence.
Once again it's one rule for me and another for you. You make a demonstrably false claim when read literally and you get to state your case again whereas I am just, according to you, trying to obfuscate an error on my part.
If you say so.....although I stated a very simple and demonstable criticism of your original statement and anything else has come from you.
Then you are simply misinterpreting what my 'definition' is. I gave only examples of accepted terrorist activity.
However, you seemed to state that they do not fit in with your definition of terrorism....can targeted assassination attempts be acts of terrorism or are they not in your opinion?
No, did you miss the point that it makes your original statement inaccurate.
This was not the actual line of debate in which I engaged. Nor was it the basis of my valid criticism of your statement in regards to Islamist terrorism prior to 2001.
Disingenuous and simply supports my opinion of your attitude to a valid criticism of any point you make.
Quite.
Last edited: