Attacks in Paris

urban genie said:
So 3 days on when emotions are now more calm this thread has turned this into a right v left pissing contest.

Drones strikes do kill many civilians so I would not like britain to use them, Di'ash if anyone has watched some of the special reports on them have a well set up system that mixes civilians with their members in villages, towns and cities they control, they are not just some fundamental nutters arsing about in the desert, they are ex high ranking and highly trained members of saddam old army and elite guard and well trained jihadi fighters that assad released from prison to fight his enemies, but then pissed off into the desert and joined the other fuckers. Bombimg the fuck out of them will not solve the problem though it does help weake some strategic positions
Firstly the west and russia should stop having a proxy cock fight in Syria and get the Assad government and rebels to settle their differences temperally and join together to fight these ****, while at the same time europe needs to tell turkey to get involved more with NATO support while we need to support the Kurds who, when helped have made good gains against them.
Lastly instead of pandering to the saudi's and treating Iran with caution we need to get them fully involved in supporting the Iraqi army, syria and kurds.

Only letting the local nations fight this (with our support) rather than we ourselves sending troops will this be sorted, settled governments and stability will defeat these twats.

This isn't a left/right - tory v corbyn issue this is a global problem as Di'ash/boko harem/al-shabaab are not only in syria/iraq/nigeria/egypt they are further afield and we need to deal with them globally not turn this into political point scoring
Click to expand...
Good post, much better than lets just go and nuke the cunts
 
KenTheLandlord said:
As i said they are talking to someone, make no bones about that. It might not suit the west's narrative but they are known to the US and they are not stupid.
Click to expand...

I don't think talking is on the ISIS agenda and it certainly has no part in Jihad Unless when you say talk you actually mean we all should convert to Islam? The Koran says anyone wishing to convert should be spared it never mentions negotiation with the infidel.
I am curious as you say they are speaking to someone but you neglected to mention whom. So who do you actually think they are in discussions with?
 
KenTheLandlord said:
2cffdy1.jpg
Click to expand...
I’m always puzzled by the sort of argument (if one can give it that name) that seems to be occurring online yet again. Whenever people complain about or criticise (or sympathise with the victims of) event A, someone pops up to say “Hey, but what about event B?”, as though the existence of event B somehow meant that event A was less bad, followed by the cry “why aren’t you criticising the perpetrators of event B?”.
The implication here is that it is wrong for anyone to criticise an evil action unless at the same time one criticises all the other evil actions in existence. (It seems to be especially wrong to criticise an evil action done nearby, if one has failed to make an equivalent criticism of a similar action done far away – the assumption here is that is wrong to have any special concern for those closest to you.) So if you sympathised about event A and failed to mention event B (not to mention events C-Z) you must be some kind of hypocrite.
These arguments parallel the ‘defence’ offered by government A or its supporters whenever it is accused of doing a bad thing: “hey, but what about government B? They also do bad things!” as though this made whatever government A had done less bad and unworthy of being criticised. Try getting away with this defence in court. (“Yes, I murdered him. But why are you picking on me? Lots of other people commit murder too! I don’t hear you criticising them!”)
It is a sad day when the sound of people weeping is drowned out by the noise of axes being ground.
 
George Hannah said:
I’m always puzzled by the sort of argument (if one can give it that name) that seems to be occurring online yet again. Whenever people complain about or criticise (or sympathise with the victims of) event A, someone pops up to say “Hey, but what about event B?”, as though the existence of event B somehow meant that event A was less bad, followed by the cry “why aren’t you criticising the perpetrators of event B?”.
The implication here is that it is wrong for anyone to criticise an evil action unless at the same time one criticises all the other evil actions in existence. (It seems to be especially wrong to criticise an evil action done nearby, if one has failed to make an equivalent criticism of a similar action done far away – the assumption here is that is wrong to have any special concern for those closest to you.) So if you sympathised about event A and failed to mention event B (not to mention events C-Z) you must be some kind of hypocrite.
These arguments parallel the ‘defence’ offered by government A or its supporters whenever it is accused of doing a bad thing: “hey, but what about government B? They also do bad things!” as though this made whatever government A had done less bad and unworthy of being criticised. Try getting away with this defence in court. (“Yes, I murdered him. But why are you picking on me? Lots of other people commit murder too! I don’t hear you criticising them!”)
It is a sad day when the sound of people weeping is drowned out by the noise of axes being ground.
Click to expand...

What about if Event B is linked to Event A?
 
whp.blue said:
I don't think talking is on the ISIS agenda and it certainly has no part in Jihad Unless when you say talk you actually mean we all should convert to Islam? The Koran says anyone wishing to convert should be spared it never mentions negotiation with the infidel.
I am curious as you say they are speaking to someone but you neglected to mention whom. So who do you actually think they are in discussions with?
Click to expand...

If you talk to a Muslim, ISIS aren't reading the Koran anyway, so i think that is a misleading path.

They came out of the cells of Abu Ghraib and became very influential very quickly. They got their weapons and logistics sorted very quickly. Not sure who gave them the leg up, whether it was the Saudis and they are using them them as a military arm of Wahhabism or the west who are happy to keep the ME and Islam as the bogeyman. I think these bomb proof passports are a strange re-occurance. Or maybe ISIS are happy to play the Saudis off against the West for their own gains. As i said until someone blinks, not much will change.
 
George Hannah said:
I’m always puzzled by the sort of argument (if one can give it that name) that seems to be occurring online yet again. Whenever people complain about or criticise (or sympathise with the victims of) event A, someone pops up to say “Hey, but what about event B?”, as though the existence of event B somehow meant that event A was less bad, followed by the cry “why aren’t you criticising the perpetrators of event B?”.
The implication here is that it is wrong for anyone to criticise an evil action unless at the same time one criticises all the other evil actions in existence. (It seems to be especially wrong to criticise an evil action done nearby, if one has failed to make an equivalent criticism of a similar action done far away – the assumption here is that is wrong to have any special concern for those closest to you.) So if you sympathised about event A and failed to mention event B (not to mention events C-Z) you must be some kind of hypocrite.
These arguments parallel the ‘defence’ offered by government A or its supporters whenever it is accused of doing a bad thing: “hey, but what about government B? They also do bad things!” as though this made whatever government A had done less bad and unworthy of being criticised. Try getting away with this defence in court. (“Yes, I murdered him. But why are you picking on me? Lots of other people commit murder too! I don’t hear you criticising them!”)
It is a sad day when the sound of people weeping is drowned out by the noise of axes being ground.
Click to expand...

Fair response George but i think you are missing the point a bit. No one has any problem with support of victims. The victims in Paris need to be remembered however there are lots of people murdered on both sides of all wars, disputes and violent aggression. It is not so much a case of an argument for certain murders being highlighted but ALL murders highlighted, no matter who the victim is. The victim is the important person here and it is the mounting number of victims that needs to be stopped.
 
KenTheLandlord said:
If you talk to a Muslim, ISIS aren't reading the Koran anyway, so i think that is a misleading path.

They came out of the cells of Abu Ghraib and became very influential very quickly. They got their weapons and logistics sorted very quickly. Not sure who gave them the leg up, whether it was the Saudis and they are using them them as a military arm of Wahhabism or the west who are happy to keep the ME and Islam as the bogeyman. I think these bomb proof passports are a strange re-occurance. Or maybe ISIS are happy to play the Saudis off against the West for their own gains. As i said until someone blinks, not much will change.
Click to expand...
It was essentially a jail break out of Abu Ghraib by a few hundred, who then persuaded other Sunnis to join them. I have heard Arabs say that it is a Western Plot but I am struggling to understand what has been gained or what was this masterplan. It has strengthened Iran's hand and made Israel look like an irrelevance. So I'll stick with the track record, which is of Wahabbis from Saudi sponsoring and inciting as many as they can because, as was Bin Laden's goal, they want to chase the infidels out of Arabia.
 
KenTheLandlord said:
If you talk to a Muslim, ISIS aren't reading the Koran anyway, so i think that is a misleading path.

They came out of the cells of Abu Ghraib and became very influential very quickly. They got their weapons and logistics sorted very quickly. Not sure who gave them the leg up, whether it was the Saudis and they are using them them as a military arm of Wahhabism or the west who are happy to keep the ME and Islam as the bogeyman. I think these bomb proof passports are a strange re-occurance. Or maybe ISIS are happy to play the Saudis off against the West for their own gains. As i said until someone blinks, not much will change.
Click to expand...
Call me synical but they would say that wouldn't they
If the never read the Koran, I find it a bit strange that their flag contains the quote "there is no god but Allah" which I am pretty sure comes from the koran
That is just a big coincidence them?
 
coleridge said:
It was essentially a jail break out of Abu Ghraib by a few hundred, who then persuaded other Sunnis to join them. I have heard Arabs say that it is a Western Plot but I am struggling to understand what has been gained or what was this masterplan. It has strengthened Iran's hand and made Israel look like an irrelevance. So I'll stick with the track record, which is of Wahabbis from Saudi sponsoring and inciting as many as they can because, as was Bin Laden's goal, they want to chase the infidels out of Arabia.
Click to expand...

It is as good a theory as any Coleridge as we dont know all the facts.
 
whp.blue said:
Call me synical but they would say that wouldn't they
If the never read the Koran, I find it a bit strange that their flag contains the quote "there is no god but Allah" which I am pretty sure comes from the koran
That is just a big coincidence them?
Click to expand...

ISIS are clearly Muslims but it does not make all Muslims members of ISIS.
There is a song sung in the UK called God Save the queen. Does that make all Brits christian and supporters of the queen or is it a rallying call to attract people to try and support the way of life they want. Namely God queen and country when the overwhelming majority of people clearly do not support ALL three?
 
George Hannah said:
I’m always puzzled by the sort of argument (if one can give it that name) that seems to be occurring online yet again. Whenever people complain about or criticise (or sympathise with the victims of) event A, someone pops up to say “Hey, but what about event B?”, as though the existence of event B somehow meant that event A was less bad, followed by the cry “why aren’t you criticising the perpetrators of event B?”.
The implication here is that it is wrong for anyone to criticise an evil action unless at the same time one criticises all the other evil actions in existence. (It seems to be especially wrong to criticise an evil action done nearby, if one has failed to make an equivalent criticism of a similar action done far away – the assumption here is that is wrong to have any special concern for those closest to you.) So if you sympathised about event A and failed to mention event B (not to mention events C-Z) you must be some kind of hypocrite.
These arguments parallel the ‘defence’ offered by government A or its supporters whenever it is accused of doing a bad thing: “hey, but what about government B? They also do bad things!” as though this made whatever government A had done less bad and unworthy of being criticised. Try getting away with this defence in court. (“Yes, I murdered him. But why are you picking on me? Lots of other people commit murder too! I don’t hear you criticising them!”)
It is a sad day when the sound of people weeping is drowned out by the noise of axes being ground.
Click to expand...

They also miss the point that in point B civilian casualties are seen as a big mistake which a government will be criticised heavily for both internally and externally by everyone involved people may even lose their jobs.

In point A what do you think is happening? They set out to target civilians and they will be singing the praises of those involved in the attack because this is what they want. In point B their aim was to stop people like this from doing what they do more often than not and we have hipster apologists trying to claim they are doing the same things? Clueless. If nobody takes the fight to them what are they supposed to do, wait till they come to their own soil and kill more civilians before engaging with them? Everyone thinks they know best how to handle these situations without properly thinking it through... how would you really handle it if the decisions were up to you?
 
KenTheLandlord said:
It is as good a theory as any Coleridge as we dont know all the facts.
Click to expand...
No and we will probably never know. I am just a fan of the bleeding obvious and have no time for conspiracy theories. All I do know is that the open wound that erupted after the first Gulf War [following the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, of course] needs to be closed somehow. Sadly, this is going to cost many innocent lives but, for the long term good of the Middle East, it needs dealing with now. I have the feeling that France is going to drag everyone along into this 'war', including the UK.
 
KenTheLandlord said:
ISIS are clearly Muslims but it does not make all Muslims members of ISIS.
There is a song sung in the UK called God Save the queen. Does that make all Brits christian and supporters of the queen or is it a rallying call to attract people to try and support the way of life they want. Namely God queen and country when the overwhelming majority of people clearly do not support ALL three?
Click to expand...

Clearly you seem a little confused; I never said all Muslims were ISIS what I said was ISIS are fighting Jihad as per the Koran and That same Koran does not give them the option of entering Negotiation with Infidels Infidels either convert to Islam or are to be killed

My original point was ISIS are not interested in negotiating
 
whp.blue said:
Clearly you seem a little confused; I never said all Muslims were ISIS what I said was ISIS are fighting Jihad as per the Koran and That same Koran does not give them the option of entering Negotiation with Infidels Infidels either convert to Islam or are to be killed

My original point was ISIS are not interested in negotiating
Click to expand...

The same Quran that says No one should be forced to believe in Islam “There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned.” (Holy Quran: 2/ 256) Like all holy books it is multiple choice so your reliance on the Quran would explain your confusion.

You have no idea what ISIS are thinking. Neither do i but they are talking to someone.
 
KenTheLandlord said:
The same Quran that says No one should be forced to believe in Islam “There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned.” (Holy Quran: 2/ 256) Like all holy books it is multiple choice so your reliance on the Quran would explain your confusion.

You have no idea what ISIS are thinking. Neither do i but they are talking to someone.
Click to expand...
you keep saying they are talking to people but you never seem to want to actually state who they are talking to
is that also a guess? or do you actually have any facts to back that up?
 
coleridge said:
No and we will probably never know. I am just a fan of the bleeding obvious and have no time for conspiracy theories. All I do know is that the open wound that erupted after the first Gulf War [following the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, of course] needs to be closed somehow. Sadly, this is going to cost many innocent lives but, for the long term good of the Middle East, it needs dealing with now. I have the feeling that France is going to drag everyone along into this 'war', including the UK.
Click to expand...

You say it is the bleeding obvious but your refusal to think there could be other ways or conspiracy theories if you don't like them will always drive you down the same path. Long before the Gulf War, maybe they should not have been given western guns and training.
 
whp.blue said:
you keep saying they are talking to people but you never seem to want to actually state who they are talking to
is that also a guess? or do you actually have any facts to back that up?
Click to expand...

Well if they aren''t talking to anyone they have a far superior manufacturing sector than the UK does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top