west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 34,071
I think you've got risk reduction mixed up with appeasement.The logic conclusion to your argument is we all convert to Islam.
I think you've got risk reduction mixed up with appeasement.The logic conclusion to your argument is we all convert to Islam.
Before ISIS I would have been saying the same thing. The Taliban seemed an anomaly to me. It wasn't until ISIS that it became obvious to me that without western intervention, much of the Islamic world would be ruled by something like ISIS. If not the Taliban or ISIS, it would be Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram or Al Shabaab.
There are apparently far worse things than western interventionists. In this case, due to the death toll and widespread human suffering, western intervention is completely justified. I 100% support the west in taking out terrorist training camps, funding centers, recruiters, and mosques that are used as bases. Even if those strikes risk innocent people. The Israelis turned out to be right all along.
We are slaughtering these people daily, we are each paying taxes for the RAF to bomb these countries and innocent people generally die with every strike,
You Sir, have not the slightest fookin' clue of how we monitor terrorism, Have a look at how many people it takes to monitor a single person - look at the raw facts, and then come back to me.That statement tells me you have not the slightest clue about anti-terrorism. It's thankfully not your job and hopefully something you should steer clear of. Leave it alone, or otherwise educate yourself please. It would serve you well, and hopefully help anybody else that may take your clueless comments on board.It makes me fucking laugh,you've got satellites that can pick an ant up having a shit in the desert,but some how you can't pick up 100's of isis marching into citys in Iraq and Syria.
I very much doubt that many of the Islamic extremists have attempted peaceful negotiations and this is their last resort.
It seems far more likely this is their first and only resort.
I am sure that many nations have made some grave mistakes on foreign policy decisions, particularly (but not limited to) the Middle East - but Jihadists aren't saying 'please leave our country' they are saying 'you are infidels and should adopt our way of life or die'. They aren't holding up a banner to say 'leave us alone and we'll leave you alone', they fundamentally oppose our way of life, and we fundamentally oppose theirs.
For 99.99% of the rest of the world, we have differences, some of them fundamental, but we can live together - just. We don't want to kill.
An Islamic Jihadist is no different to a member of the KKK or extreme end of the Nazis (as loathsome as Nazis were, some were not in favour of extermination). They are extremists, and in this case of an Islamic bent. But they are extremists first and foremost. Extreme in view and in behaviour.
There's an argument to say they exist to find some cause, not because they have a cause. i.e. If it wasn't Islam, they'd be fighting for some other radical cause.
The one thing they all have in common, is being Muslim of one extreme or another. Until it happens(which it's probably bound to in current circumstances) . If the threat of being blown up by nutters goes away, so might the pisstaking of mohammex. That's a choice.Weren't the Paris victims French?
Weren't the Orlando victims American?
Weren't the 7/7 victims Londoners? So why do we care? The reason is we all identify with others all across the world and we see attacks like this against the West and our way of life, so it isn't surprising Muslims from here, or Belgium or France identify with Muslims around the world and the perceived treatment of "their" people and their way of life. It cuts both ways I'm afraid. And they may well have family in some of the countries where we've seen military action against the Muslims or in this case a Muslim who drank, gambled, took drugs and ate pork!
I've got it too man, don't let anyone with a tan rent a transit. Phew!! Got a tan you're a wrong un...If there were no Black people in the USA, do you think the members of the KKK would just go about their lives normally? - I don't. I think they'd have found something else to hate.
Ok jamesYou Sir, have not the slightest fookin' clue of how we monitor terrorism, Have a look at how many people it takes to monitor a single person - look at the raw facts, and then come back to me.That statement tells me you have not the slightest clue about anti-terrorism. It's thankfully not your job and hopefully something you should steer clear of. Leave it alone, or otherwise educate yourself please. It would serve you well, and hopefully help anybody else that may take your clueless comments on board.
How do you make the risk Zero?I think you've got risk reduction mixed up with appeasement.
You can't for anything.How do you make the risk Zero?
What about the risk of Dwight Yorke being a good father?You can't for anything.
Am I of the minority that thinks that this had nothing to do with terrorism and the fact that this guy had previous mental health issues was the cause of this tragic incident ?
Am I of the minority that thinks that this had nothing to do with terrorism and the fact that this guy had previous mental health issues was the cause of this tragic incident ?
It's not possible and I never said it was. I also wouldn't suggest anything that could be seen as appeasement.How do you make the risk Zero?
He's a terrorist because he's names Mohammed
When it's a American guy rampaging through college schools and shooting kids. He's just a nutter.
Isis have claimed responsibility - there is a problem with terrorism in Tunisia. Stop looking for excuses for them. How many more attacks do you want to happen in France until you accept there is a terrorist problem?!
We already know they're good at picking and choosing.Wonder how it sits with Isis claiming credit for these murders the us nightclub shooting and the nice truck
Then finding out the killers were bisexual something Isis is totally opposed too ??