Printable View
Another day in paradise, people with culture killed 500 people in a single day. Don't know if it is true but they kinda have a record for mutually respecting everything that's not holy and mercifull. Political correct people know, for a fact, that it has nothing to do with... ah fuck it that is also a religion you can't argue with
Oh come now, Kad is absolutely correct. If you believe the Caliph is the Caliph then you must follow his orders, those who do not follow him do not believe he is the Caliph and that means they are not "true" or "right thinking" Muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Now, to be fair, that doesn't mean you automatically kill them but to suggest that killing the infidel and the heretic are not theologically robust responses is disingenuous.
You could have just said, "most people who speak Arabic are not Arabs in the same what that most people in the Roman Empire who spoke Latin were not Latins". If he is from a very old and "pureblooded" Assyrian family he will look different to the majority of the people you see in the middle east in the same way an Aristocratic Spanish (Visgothic) family will look rather different to the average Spaniard today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
There's no God but the Lord.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
This message is brought to you by Caliph rvg.
Follow me, and you are guaranteed a spot in Heaven with your choice of 72 girls/boys/whatevers.
Well, rather surprisingly, it seems that the Mazrpanate of the Saladin Province lied. In Baghdad, they refuse to clarify the fate of Al-Douri, under the pretext of lack of DNA, while a new video has been released, where the Ginger of Nineveh commented on his alleged death, the Persians who try to repeat the battle of Opis, while he also insulted the Caliph.
So, good news for the Iraqi Baathists, I suppose.
http://s1.lemde.fr/image/2015/04/18/...cc5bce6d9d.jpg
https://news.yahoo.com/baath-party-t...165604017.html
For a moment I was wondering again why this picture of an SNP politician is in this thread and what a strange scottish word Mazrpanate is...
For the ones who follow the Caliph or for everyone? If I'm not mistaken Hax was complaining that Kad was basically saying the version of Islam that ISIS preach is the true Islam. The way you sound you agree with Kadagar but in defense of both of you you might mean that for a follower of the Caliph, everyone who isn't a follower of the Caliph is not a true muslim. The way you both worded your posts it sounds as though you are telling millions of muslims that they should join the caliphate if they want to be true muslims, which is quite an absurd statement according to Hax. So this is either a misunderstanding or you and Kadagar claim to know better what Islam is about than all the millions of Muslims on earth who do not want to join ISIS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
It's a bit like a Muslim coming here, saying 'I do understand it from a christian perspective though... America you know, IS god's country (self proclaimed at least)... Any christians against it are thus no true christians...'.
It's either a statement so generic as to be superfluous or indeed quite absurd.
How is IS not the true version of islam? Not all muslims submit to islam, they are just born muslim, but IS absolutily is doing what their holy book tells them to do.
Eh, I thought it was obvious - if you believe in the self-proclaimed Caliphate it follows you have to believe in the Caliph, but the fact that it's self-proclaimed and not generally supported by the Mullah and Mufti's outside ISIS shows it isn't the "Universal Caliphate".Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Maybe I'm just better at reading Kad, or maybe I'm miss reading him. We shall have ti wait until he comes back.
Well, for Fragony it is certainly not that way as you can see above, and since Kad used to defend Fragony a lot, I can see how it is easily confusing. And what is so informative about saying that the people who believe in the caliphate believe in the caliphate and act as the caliphate wishes? If they didn't then they wouldn't believe in the caliphate. Fragony does at least have some sort of message, even if it's wrong, maybe that led Hax to take it that way because otherwise it's not really saying a lot. Not to forget that Kad talks about a muslim perspective and then goes on talking about an ISIS-follower perspective if your interpretation is correct. Fragony clearly claims that ISIS has the only true muslim perspective and therefore all muslims should follow ISIS or they are not true muslims. Except that Fragony thinks ISIS follow Islam and muslims don't so he doesn't really think that, he instead thinks that all followers of Islam should follow ISIS and Muslims follow.....I don't know....muslimism, the religion of musli??Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Just read that ISIS has taken control of Palmyra. What a sad day for historians everywhere.
Well, I don't think Kad was trying to be profound, he was just saying ISIS has a sort of internal logic and he likes the idea of all the Muslim fundies being in one basket, as that makes it easier to know who they are and take them out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I can't really fault that if you think killing all Muslim fundamentalists is the way to go, and I'm not sure it isn't.
Fragony, now Fragony is really quite brilliant and subtle and his underlying argument is entirely lucid and coherent, even when he isn't.
It comes down to this - what makes one a follower of Islam? Fragony believes the answer is following the Koran, and he's correct that doing so brings you much closer to ISIS than a moderate Western Muslim.
nuance spotted sonebody wake me upQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
And following the bible brings you quite a bit closer to a pentecostal than a catholic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
It's quite funny when a dutchman and a swede who are both apparently atheists come and tell us they understand the quran better than thousands of people who studied it and millions of people who try to live by its rules.
And Fragony, I've understood your argument for more than a year now, you just tend to write things that don't sound like you still hold on to it once in a while, creating new confusion.
Am I supposed to make a disclaimer every time? Nobody assumes that when you say something about christians you mean all christians, it's kinda tiring that they do if you say something about muslims
The problem is that you seem to mean completely different things every time you say muslims and a lot of them do not fit what most people mean when they say muslims. If it confuses me, what will new members think who do not know what you usually mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
You cannot expect everyone to read your entire post history before they reply to one of your posts. Just express yourself clearly, it's not tiring if you do it right, sometimes it just takes an additional word or two to make your position clear.
I have made it very clear so many times that I make a difference between muslims and submitting to islam, if they assume otherwise that isn't my fault. You are the moderater, if they report you can set it straight as you understand where I stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I'm not a moderator, I do not warn people and I also won't do your job of explaining what you mean. What kind of silly insinuation is that, am I supposed to clean up behind you or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Pentecostals?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Not even the Amish are that close to the Bible.
Thought you were my bad. But if people can't read, not my problemQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Newsflash: there is no true version of Islam. It's a meaningless statement, there's not going to be a single person that says "oh yeah, I don't follow the true faith".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
If you can't express yourself, not peoples' problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Yes there is, it's IS. Does exactly what the quran tells them to do, litteraly. That most muslims are perfectly harmless and only care about what's for dinner doesn't change that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Newsflash I'm an atheist and hence do not follow the true faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Unless you include Tim Tams because I like totally worship them.
*there is not going to be a single religious person claiming to adhere to religion x, y, z, that says "oh yeah, I don't follow the true faith".
yeah, and what exactly gives you the authority to say that?Quote:
Yes there is, it's IS. Does exactly what the quran tells them to do, litteraly. That most muslims are perfectly harmless and only care about what's for dinner doesn't change that.
Everyday reality? Not all people die from ebola, but a lot do. Does that make ebola harmless?
lol yeah, I'm in Turkey right now, I'll just tell everyone I meet they're all suffering from a super dangerous disease, and if they want to be a true Muslim, they should go to Syria.
man, what the hell is your problem?
Your inability to read, how many times must I repeat that I differentiate between being a muslim and submitting to islam. Look back, you might not be able to read it because your brains blocks the inpuf but it's really there. Focus and you will see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
yeah, only because to a muslim there is no difference. it is literally the meaning of the word "muslim", which you would know if you knew Arabic -- but I mean, let's not get ahead of ourselves haha.
look, your point of view only makes sense -- and it's not completely wrong either -- if you submit (see what I did there) to ISIS' propaganda in the first place, which is indeed that "no islam is violent and if you don't join us, you're not a real muslim", which is a completely retarded statement anyway.
additionally, you mentioned that everything that ISIS does is in the quran: fine, I'll grant you that; but they're also very good at discarding a very sizable part of the quran that does not condone massacring people left and right just because you feel like it. and as a side note, when you actually read the quran, you're gonna find that it's so vague and minimal in terms of lifestyle rules, that you can pretty much just do with it what you want anyway.
just like literally any other religious work
IS is not propaganda, it's what islam tells you to do. You are trying to be clever by saying the quran without mentioning the hadith, everything IS does is what they have to do when submitted to islam. Not just IS, also Boko Haram and Al Shehaab, hundreds of people allahu-hakbarred almost every week. Islam is a vile ideoligy, simple as that. A muslim is just someone born muslim, my sometimes girlfriend is a fine specimen. She does ramadan and we make fun of her when she does that but that's about how great god is for her.
So just to get some more clarification Fragony, are you basically saying that all muslims who do not slaughter us are basically atheists or what would you call the religion they follow? Are you saying they are all unable to read or just lying to themselves? And what would you call the one and only true christian denomination that is the only one actually based on the bible?
No, a muslim is just someone who was born muslim and celebrates ramadan and all that stuff like we celebrate christmas, everybody has a christmas-tree it has nothing to do with christianity it's just a tradition, same for ramadan and sugar-fest for muslims, nothing bad about it. But submitting to islam is something entirely different, the rules and obligations are very clear if you submit, and I don't want it here. Muslims are welcome, the islam is not. Don't forget that the islam is a political ideoligy that is completily at odds with our values, it has no place here, just like communism and nazism. Islam dictates sharia LAW. We already have laws, laws that are much more humane, we don't stone people, we don't kill gays, women are equal, etc etcQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Quote:
IS is not propaganda, it's what islam tells you to do.
You just contradicted yourself.Quote:
You are trying to be clever by saying the quran without mentioning the hadith
So muslims are basically atheists or at best "spiritual people" in most cases even if they read the quran regularly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
And what does the bible want people to do to be true christians? What is required to get to heaven? If you wanted to be a true christian hypothetically, what would you do?
Ah, the 'but christians', such a falacy to compare christianty to islam, christianity is not a political system hiding behind a religion, took a while of course, but why import what is lagging centuries behind and call it 'respect'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Ah the "I'll just ignore your question and answer by repeating what I say all the time to distract from it". You say that christianity once was a political system hiding behind a religion but has changed after a while but Islam has not. That means that you apparently think that the one true interpretation can change? If so, do you think it will change for Islam some time in the future? And what is the one true intepretation of christianity? Why would one book have one true interpretation and the other not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
How would I know if it can change, I can only see what it is right now, and what it has been before right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The problem with Fragony's position on (what we call) Islam is that such a rickety assemblage can only be held together by the invidious device of altogether ignoring all usages of "Islam" other than in the sense of "Salafism".
Thus, he confuses us because he speaks in tautologies. 'Why, of course Salafists are Salafists! It is what it is. How could it be any other way?'
It's sort of like saying that the Greek language is extinct because Homeric Greek is extinct, and that therefore only a relative handful of individuals, mostly scholars, can be said to be "Greek-speakers".
This is what passes for nuance in Fragony's land.
Or maybe there is no one true interpretation and most people go with whatever they like the most? And even if we assume that you are right and ISIS have the one true interpretation, why would you think it were useful to run around and tell everyone that true muslims should kill you? Looking for a Darwin award?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Salafists aren't really keen on IS actually, aparantly there is passage predicting the 'hounds of hell'Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
just saying
I think I get it now. The fulfilment of the prophecy has turned you into an ISIS follower and this whole anti-islam persona is just your taqqiya disguise!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
So, you believe you have found him out on "Methinks he doth protest too much" grounds eh? It is always the "moles" that create the most problems at home....Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
yeahyeah, redicule is so boring because it's so very very normal. It's not clever, it's boringQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Palmyra has fallen.:stwshame:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ontrol-of-isis
Damn, these savages are bound to destroy it
A good comparative perspective on the IS. Clears possibly some of the myths surrounding it and laying the base for a less hysteric analysis.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...nl_cage&wpmm=1
Somebody please stuff his pipe and gently escort him to his library, geez
Gat dam, that's one of the best pieces I've read on anything in a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfZ7...utu.be&t=1m21s
Apparently ISIS says it won't bulldoze the ruins of Palmyra. Thank goodness.
"A good comparative perspective on the IS. Clears possibly some of the myths surrounding it and laying the base for a less hysteric analysis." Good exemplar on how some succeed to normalise the ab-normal... Well done them, the keep the bakeries running after burning people alive... The Nazi did succeed in doing this absolutely amazing things as well, you know, tunneling under the mountains thanks to slavery and death camps...
Hey, IS is selling slaves, perhaps it is just good human resources management for some newspapers...:soapbox:
Israel is supposed to hold a neutral stance concerning the Syrian Civil War, enjoying the fact that the Iranians and their allies are busy fighting the salafists.
Or maybe not, because it is hardly a coincidence that one of the rebels' strongholds is located near the illegally occupied by Israel Golan Heights.
Some say that the salafists use the occupied land to perform military manoeuvres, while Israel also provides them logistical support. After all, even Israel admits that injured Syrians, with rather long beards are admitted to her hospitals.
Well, Al-Nusra started an offensive against the pro-Assad Druze of Syria, resulting in a massacre of some Syrian citizens and the death of three terrorists, which was ended after an intervention of Israel, that tried to solve the misunderstanding.
An ambulance transporting some wounded Syrians was stopped by local Druze of Israel, who had its drivers, members of the IDF beaten, and its occupants lynched. Well, they had it coming, in my opinion...
http://www.timesofisrael.com/several...rying-syrians/
The "blame game" has branched into fantasy:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-for-iraq-isis
Of course we knew this was all Clinton's fault all along...:laugh4:
http://news.yahoo.com/u-woman-hostag...214409079.html
I want to see a successful rescue for a change.
I found an article on the BBC that goes into more detail about the Turkey-Kurd-ISIS situation I was talking about: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33690060
Here's a good map on the current situation in Syria/Iraq: https://twitter.com/LCarabinier/stat...51713509937152
And an interesting article on how ISIS' rise isn't mysterious and they've actually been very adept at using standard guerilla tactics: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...is-no-mystery/
The UAE managed to rescue a British man recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan
Most American and British hostages are murdered because out governments refuse to pay, so unless your family are rich enough to be able to bypass the government you're better off fighting as hard as you can if they try to take you, hope you either get away or they end up shooting you dead because otherwise it's a couple of years on death row and a beheading.
On the other hand, if you're German or French you'll get released after your government pays.
For those who are late to the thread or have just lost overview of the situation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4FIo89Ll4E
That British man was rescued in Yemen, he's now in the UAE.
I hate to admit it but I'm fairly certain that the UAE and the kingdom are in a tactical alliance with AQAP. Embarrassingly obvious. There is no way they could've deployed in Aden if this wasn't the case.
Governments should try to rescue hostages and at the very least mean that there are a lot less of those who were guarding them even if the hostages get killed in the rescue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
~:smoking:
That is the view of the UK and the US - other countries prefer their people alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I suppose it depends on what you want in the world.
I would rather that taking hostages is basically a variant of suicide as opposed to opening a bank account.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
~:smoking:
All these ISIS fellows need is death. Bloody lot of them.
Even if your child were the hostage? Couldn't they pay them and then blow them up? And how do you conduct a raid there with hardly any presence in the area or if they are held in a city full of enemy fighters? What if you end up with more hostages?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Running a society with the rules as if they were your own child is nonsensical. We get this a lot with massively expensive medical treatments that extend life for a month or so - fine if it's your child but ruinous to the whole system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I doubt that it is easy and sometimes yes it would be impossible. Hostages is always an issue when using any form of armed force that isn't a drone. But it should be the first option to rule out rather than a last resort. Barring fanatics who are doing it for their own internal reasons, those who are doing it to get money to finance their activities would soon look elsewhere.
~:smoking:
All excellent points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It comes down to this - pay for the release of your child and the hostage-takers will take five more people because EVERYBODY is someone's child.
Were it my child I'd kill whoever was in my way to get them back because every one I kill is one less hostage-taker, but I wouldn't pay an enable them to take more hostages.
If I refuse to pay and they murder my child I am not responsible - if I pay and they take five more people because of that I AM responsible.
That's not to say I wouldn't scream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head - but it's not a difficult choice to make, morally speaking, just a hard one to live with.
So we should basically put boots on the ground as soon as ISIS take a hostage?
I mean if they hold someone somewhere in a big city in the middle of their territory, how are you going to shoot everyone in the way without basically sending the entire army? Or will you just bomb them? They are already getting bombed, so what should be changed then?
And that you would not feel guilty if you did just do nothing about your child having been kidnapped seems a bit optimistic.
And if we're talking about Yemen instead of ISIS, the UAE have deployed their army there, including their Leclerc tanks, o that wouldn't just seem to be a small rescue operation.
IIRC the US tried a big rescue operation on foreign soil once and even the Great Empire couldn't quite make that a huge success.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
I don't think that would be the kind of operation that discourages further hostage taking so in such situations one may be left with just doing nothing....which is then interpreted as political weakness and lack of decisiveness/action etc.
We should tell everyone that they travel to the middle east at their own risk, and that their government will not hold themselves responsible for anything that happens while they're out there. That includes aid agencies, and everyone who isn't there with government sanction and protection. It will mean that these countries will go to :daisy: for want of help, but that's fine by me. I'd couple that with the declaration that, if anyone does travel there of their own accord, the British government reserves the right to strip them of their UK citizenship. I'd like us to have as little to do with that hellhole as possible, and to make any travelling there a one way affair.
That's not what I said, though it often is what the US and UK do, covertly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I was speaking personally, and I said kill and not shoot. I would personally kill everyone between me and my child, if I could.Quote:
I mean if they hold someone somewhere in a big city in the middle of their territory, how are you going to shoot everyone in the way without basically sending the entire army? Or will you just bomb them? They are already getting bombed, so what should be changed then?
I said "That's not to say I wouldn't cream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head - but it's not a difficult choice to make, morally speaking, just a hard one to live with."Quote:
And that you would not feel guilty if you did just do nothing about your child having been kidnapped seems a bit optimistic.
So maybe you should take the time to read my posts rather than going off half cocked.
The fundamental point is that you can't fund your terrorism against the US or UK by kidnapping the countries' citizens.Quote:
And if we're talking about Yemen instead of ISIS, the UAE have deployed their army there, including their Leclerc tanks, o that wouldn't just seem to be a small rescue operation.
IIRC the US tried a big rescue operation on foreign soil once and even the Great Empire couldn't quite make that a huge success.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
I don't think that would be the kind of operation that discourages further hostage taking so in such situations one may be left with just doing nothing....which is then interpreted as political weakness and lack of decisiveness/action etc.
By your logic you would be responsible - but you would also be absolved through "taking the hit".Quote:
If I refuse to pay and they murder my child I am not responsible
In reality that was to secure the mina of Aden. The government would not risk putting inexperienced Emirati boots on the ground over a British guy. That war is all about Aden port in the first place (for the UAE at least), if they wanted Saleh or the Houthis they would've bombed Saada or Sanaa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I didn't read it that way because you personally going to the middle east and shooting everybody you can to rescue your child sounds like a Rambo movie plot, but I accept your explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I see, that wasn't obvious to me from the short one-liner however, it sounded a bit cold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
It's also not necessarily a given that paying ransom for your child puts others into danger, with a rescue operation you immediately put the entire rescue team into danger, which is not to say that I am always against rescue operations, it depends on the situation. The German government has special forces for these purposes as well, it just seems to be more restrictive in their use.
I think what Pannonian says, to simply say certain regions are off limits and the government won't get you out if you go there is reasonable though. I would assume it is already the case for quite a few cases though. If a german citizen fights for ISIS and gets kidnapped by Al Queda it would be strange if Merkel paid for the release. ~;)
I did read it, as I said, some things did not come across as intended apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Yes, as above, I would try not to get citizens kidnapped or tell them right away that certain regions are only accessible at their own risk as Pannonian suggests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Actually, it's the plot of Taken. The point was the intent, not necessarily the direct action. I would say that "I would kill anyone between me and my child" should evoke an image of me with a minigun rather than me with a headset telling the SAS to use a minigun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair is cold? What do you consider expressive?Quote:
I see, that wasn't obvious to me from the short one-liner however, it sounded a bit cold.
You may well think me strange, but I have considered this issue before and I am decided - there is only one correct decision, and that is not to facilitate the monsters who do these things. The best way to do that is to slit their throats and rip out their windpipes, but failing that not paying accomplishes the same goal.
One should attempt a rescue is it is feasible, it is of course not defensible to get ten soldiers killed to rescue one civilian - though it's more likely all the soldiers get out alive and the civilian is executed.Quote:
It's also not necessarily a given that paying ransom for your child puts others into danger, with a rescue operation you immediately put the entire rescue team into danger, which is not to say that I am always against rescue operations, it depends on the situation. The German government has special forces for these purposes as well, it just seems to be more restrictive in their use.
Actually, we DO do this - the Foreign Office will advise Britons not to travel, and if they do so it is at their own risk. That doesn't mean the government will do nothing if you get captured by IS, but it does mean that if you DO get captured you've been told there's not much they can do.Quote:
I think what Pannonian says, to simply say certain regions are off limits and the government won't get you out if you go there is reasonable though. I would assume it is already the case for quite a few cases though. If a german citizen fights for ISIS and gets kidnapped by Al Queda it would be strange if Merkel paid for the release. ~;)
I honestly find that hard to believe when the last thing in that post was, "... scream and curse and cry and gnash my teach and tear the hair from my head..." sic. I could have said "I would still have been anguished" but I actually painted a picture for you and you still missed it.Quote:
I did read it, as I said, some things did not come across as intended apparently.
No, not at all. If you hold a gun to my mother's head and demand I strangle a little girl I am not responsible for my mother's death if you shoot her - but I am responsible if I kill the little girl. Likewise, if you kidnap a member of my family and demand money to fund your terrorism for their release I am responsible for what you do with that money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
To be a little more technical - I become responsible when I engage with you on your terms, because then I agree your terms are reasonable and I enter into a contract with you, my family member's life for the lives of others.
I think most countries do this, I just wasn't aware of whether it change their behavior a lot when you go to the country anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Yes, I actually must have missed it, twice...my apologies. It did not happen on purpose. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I need to finish my assignment, maybe it's distracting me too much.
Seriously? By my recollection, this makes your position different than in 2012. At any rate, pseudo-solipsism is not a moral device that can rescue the continually-benighted.Quote:
No, not at all. If you hold a gun to my mother's head and demand I strangle a little girl I am not responsible for my mother's death if you shoot her - but I am responsible if I kill the little girl. Likewise, if you kidnap a member of my family and demand money to fund your terrorism for their release I am responsible for what you do with that money.
To be a little more technical - I become responsible when I engage with you on your terms, because then I agree your terms are reasonable and I enter into a contract with you, my family member's life for the lives of others.
But "engaging with them on their terms" sort of defines the entire "War on Terror".
The suspensions of rights, the breaking of the rule of law, torture, deportation and identifying a class of citizen as enemy.
The terrorists have roundly won the battle of ideology.
Engaging the enemy on their terms isn't by definition a bad thing. Engaging them on terms that benefit them is a bad thing. There are any number of ways in which we can engage ISIS on their terms which would harm them and protect us. There are any number of ways in which we can keep to our liberal democratic ideals which would benefit ISIS.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
And Commando.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
That sounds much like the: "well they won't be coming for me" defence. Good luck with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The War on Terror has mission creep written all over it. What exactly is terrorism? What public dissent rates as an act of terror? What communication?
Much of the legislation amounts to "Humpty Dumpty Laws: It means whatever I say it means, no more no less.
And good luck with a challenge. Evidence can be "secret"; though governments have been forced to lift the veil in some cases, that requires a request, a judgement and pretty much the good will of the gov't.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...rorism/277844/
There are Muslim preachers who are taking the :daisy: with our acceptance of all cultures as relative and their knowledge of our liberal tendencies. Promoting the most backward forms of Islam and arguing that it has a place here and so on. I take Ataturk's line on this; there are many cultures, but only one civilisation. If they want to undermine our civilisation, they can bugger off to where their ideas have a history.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
I can't find the url at the moment, but I've read one Guardian interview with one of these preachers, who argued that man and woman were biologically different, and therefore Islam's treatment of the sexes was correct, and our treatment of them was corrupt. Corrupt it may or may not be, but equality of the sexes is also a British thing, and if he doesn't like it, then he can bugger off. If he's actively preaching that we're corrupt because of stuff like that, then we should bugger him off whether he likes it or not.
Well, it is quite easy to deal with these preachers. Apply the law. Ah, I forgot. No law in UK. Hate speeches are the one against religions, not the against the religions that spread hate and discrimination...
And call to murder is freedom of speech as well, no?
In France, to call to kill the gays and the infidels is not considered as an opinion, but an incitement to murder/violence. To wear a burka is not considered as an element of fashion but an element of fascism as the tenets of this faith are against the principles written in the Constitution and basic human rights. So, as such, it is recognised as a political statement from a political party that doesn't respect the Constitution so is not legal.
See, it is easy. Common sense and no hypocrisy.