FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Had to ask..sorry for being political
Had to ask..sorry for being political
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Hey everyone, what's your thoughts on the Gaza situation? Just attended a pro Palestinian demo and were confronted by EDL & pro Israeli groups who chanted "No more schools in Gaza because the kids in Gaza are dead" Palestine has been occupied (illegally) since 1947..if the UK was illegally occupied would you (if you resisted the occupation) consider yourself terrorists or freedom fighters????? " Where was the demo? | |||
 | |||
"EDL have been very quiet recently. Wonder how protesting against school kids in Gaza is going to defend England? "The EDL try to muscle in on anything that's anti-muslim. Pro Israel supporters don't want them there and they certainly don't represent any Jewish or Zionist groups. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"I did like Obama's solution to the Gaza crisis... bomb Iraq "that is ISIS... and nothing to do with this.. shows what you know...
back to gaza/israel... as much as i agree with israel in the right to defend themselves and "iron dome".... I think the offensive side the actions have been disproportionately hard.... and the action is bombing UN buildings is bordering on a war crime, since the UN disclose those co-ordinates and what the purposes of those building are.... to shelter
remember the act that started this.. the murder of 3 isreali students in the west bank.... are the killing of 1,000s worth that... no
the interesting part was the retaliation by the pro jewish groups in that they abducted an arab kid... beat him, took him into a forest and torched him alive before dumping the body.... the israeli reaction to that was minimal...
if there was a way to seperate the sales of missiles for defence (iron dome) from offensive.. and ban those... I would agree with that | |||
"I did like Obama's solution to the Gaza crisis... bomb Iraq
that is ISIS... and nothing to do with this.. "Exactly  Whilst the world is crying out for a solution to Gaza, Obama, who could say something... who could do something... just decides to bomb Iraq instead | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Israel needs to pull back and Hamas needs to stop firing rockets and abide by cease fires. The latest peace talks are already a shambles, Israel won't attend unless Hamas stops firing rockets and Hamas won't attend if Israel wants conditions. Seriously, Hamas think there shouldn't be conditions to a cease fire? They're as deluded as they are cowardly...."  | |||
| |||
"I agree entirely. Israel have offered a ceasefire but Hammas wont have it. Who do they think they are. They have nothing to bargain with. Just a tin pot terrorist group with ideas well above their station. Trying to pump up their own importance using the lives of their own people. Crap isn't it. " And all the while it's only serving to make the suffering of the Palestinian people even worse, which then builds resentment (on a global scale, not only within the region) towards the Israeli's and the Jewish community. | |||
"Hey everyone, what's your thoughts on the Gaza situation? Just attended a pro Palestinian demo and were confronted by EDL & pro Israeli groups who chanted "No more schools in Gaza because the kids in Gaza are dead" Palestine has been occupied (illegally) since 1947..if the UK was illegally occupied would you (if you resisted the occupation) consider yourself terrorists or freedom fighters????? " Cameron is going to lead us both into Gaza and back into Iraq but will wait until October after the independence vote Some countries fight for independence and scotland only has to tick a box, some scots dont even have the courage to do that. . | |||
"I am British through and through although I spent a lot of time in Israel in my younger days. Beautiful place, friendly people and a history that is second to none. The situation there is bloody awful but it comes down to one thing. If one side fires rockets at the other side there will be trouble. If the arabs stopped firing at Israel, Israel would be happy to live and let live. It would be like Wales firing rockets into England. The English would strike back. The only difference is religion which seems to be the reason for all conflicts in the Middle East. Children are children no matter where they are. The situation is beyond stupid but a rocket is also a rocket no matter who fires it for whatever reason I could go on for hours but I wont. " | |||
| |||
"Israel should be a priah state, it has more UN resolutions against it than any other country, Western countries, 17 of which abstained when voting for an investigation into war crimes against Israel. As long as Israel are backed by America with money and armaments nothing will change. Israel will never agree to a 2 state solution as shown by continuing to build on Palastinian land they captured in the 1967 war and the building of walls on occupied territories. In my opinion the Israel's are treating the people in Gaza no better than the Nazi's treated them in the Ghettoes during world war 2. America needs to stop backing Israel and make them come to the table, a 2 State solution is the only thing the Palastinians will accept, along with the return of land occupied after 1967. The people of Gaza have a right to live a free life on their own land without Israel controlling their every day lives. I am British through and through although I spent a lot of time in Israel in my younger days. Beautiful place, friendly people and a history that is second to none. The situation there is bloody awful but it comes down to one thing. If one side fires rockets at the other side there will be trouble. If the arabs stopped firing at Israel, Israel would be happy to live and let live. It would be like Wales firing rockets into England. The English would strike back. The only difference is religion which seems to be the reason for all conflicts in the Middle East. Children are children no matter where they are. The situation is beyond stupid but a rocket is also a rocket no matter who fires it for whatever reason I could go on for hours but I wont. " Thought you were a women because your profile picture lol spot on with your opinion tho | |||
"I find it interesting how the narrative of how this started has changed. Israel originally gave the reason for their attack as the abduction and killing of three children, for which they blamed Hamas - a patently absurd claim, which Hamas denied and even Israeli police and intelligence staff said was highly unlikely in the first week of the offensive. Now the retrospective claim is that it was because of increased rocket fire from Gaza; an increase in rocket attacks that was caused by the abduction and immolation of an Arab child in supposed retribution for the death of the three Israelis. The fact that so few people, especially our government, will not say that the Israeli offensive is disproportionate sickens me. Israel have purposely kept Gaza in horrific conditions and their collective punishment of all Palestinians is a war crime and perhaps worse, counter productive. Such collective punishment radicalises the people and generates even greater support for Hamas. Further to that, as Warsi said in her resignation letter, it radicalises people here, (it is good to see she reads Home Office reports - a couple of my lecturers literally wrote the book on this stuff). For the UK to keep defending Israel when in the last decade they have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians in the name of defense, whilst Palestinian rocket attacks have killed literally a hand full of people (less than 100 Israelis have did in the conflict over the last 10 years and most of them have been soldiers fighting during invasions into Gaza and the West bank) is disgusting. Yes, Hamas are wrong to target civilians, but the truth is they fail spectacularly to actually kill any. In ten years, after firing thousands of rockets, I think they have now killed maybe 12 Israelis. No one wants to live under the treat of a rocket attack but equally Israel have no one but themselves to blame for the attacks which are predicated on the war crimes they commit and the indescrimiant killing of civilians they undertake which only strength Hamas in the long run." | |||
| |||
"Hey everyone, what's your thoughts on the Gaza situation? Just attended a pro Palestinian demo and were confronted by EDL & pro Israeli groups who chanted "No more schools in Gaza because the kids in Gaza are dead" Palestine has been occupied (illegally) since 1947..if the UK was illegally occupied would you (if you resisted the occupation) consider yourself terrorists or freedom fighters????? " Who chanted? The EDL? the what you call 'pro israeli group? ' How many chanted ? 1, 100 , 1000 ? or someone who was trying to deliberately mislead others ? Who ever it was , with a chant as provocative as that , it has no other purpose but to instigate emotional disturbance from the other side and push them into retaliation and appearing aggressive. You could have just asked the last part of your question without the 'bias loaded' run up. | |||
"I would recommend looking up and reading a letter by Peter Schwartz in reply to an open letter from Brian Eno on this subject. There is no simple solution and neither side has the moral high ground. Taking part in demos pro or anti either side only serves to polarise opinion further whereas what is need is for both sides to just stop. Violence can only breed more violence here. " x | |||
"Hey everyone, what's your thoughts on the Gaza situation? Just attended a pro Palestinian demo and were confronted by EDL & pro Israeli groups who chanted "No more schools in Gaza because the kids in Gaza are dead" Palestine has been occupied (illegally) since 1947..if the UK was illegally occupied would you (if you resisted the occupation) consider yourself terrorists or freedom fighters????? " While I don't agree with your premise that Palestine is illegally occupied, neither you or I are likely to change each others views. Ghandi obviously considered that India was unjustifiably occupied by the British but I don't think would be considered as either a terrorist or a freedom fighter. If UK was occupied I would like to be as effective as him | |||
" While I don't agree with your premise that Palestine is illegally occupied, neither you or I are likely to change each others views. Ghandi obviously considered that India was unjustifiably occupied by the British but I don't think would be considered as either a terrorist or a freedom fighter. If UK was occupied I would like to be as effective as him" You may not agree with it, but under international law, Israel are illegal occupiers of a large amount of Palestinian land. And your comparison to India is disingenuous for several reseasons: Gandhi was peaceful, yes, but not everyone in the independence movement was, and the conflict didn't end when Britain gave India independence. The Naxalite movement still continues to this day and seeks greater control and autonomy for certain regions that they perceive are still under an imperial-esque occupation. They are far from peaceful. The situation was significantly different for Gandhi too - he wasn't fighting an entire population that thought it was their right to unhouse all Indians; he was protesting an occupier who accounted for a significantly smaller portion of the population; a population that was largely controlled by their own who happened to be in the pay of a foreign power. Israel does not see Palestine in the same was that Britain saw India. Britain wanted to control India - Israel wants to overrun Palestine. | |||
" While I don't agree with your premise that Palestine is illegally occupied, neither you or I are likely to change each others views. Ghandi obviously considered that India was unjustifiably occupied by the British but I don't think would be considered as either a terrorist or a freedom fighter. If UK was occupied I would like to be as effective as him You may not agree with it, but under international law, Israel are illegal occupiers of a large amount of Palestinian land. And your comparison to India is disingenuous for several reseasons: Gandhi was peaceful, yes, but not everyone in the independence movement was, and the conflict didn't end when Britain gave India independence. The Naxalite movement still continues to this day and seeks greater control and autonomy for certain regions that they perceive are still under an imperial-esque occupation. They are far from peaceful. The situation was significantly different for Gandhi too - he wasn't fighting an entire population that thought it was their right to unhouse all Indians; he was protesting an occupier who accounted for a significantly smaller portion of the population; a population that was largely controlled by their own who happened to be in the pay of a foreign power. Israel does not see Palestine in the same was that Britain saw India. Britain wanted to control India - Israel wants to overrun Palestine." I wasn't comparing India to Palestine? You asked about UK being occupied and would I be a terrorist or freedom fighter if I resisted. I was pointing out that there were other ways of resisting occupation | |||
"I find it interesting how the narrative of how this started has changed. Israel originally gave the reason for their attack as the abduction and killing of three children, for which they blamed Hamas - a patently absurd claim, which Hamas denied and even Israeli police and intelligence staff said was highly unlikely in the first week of the offensive. Now the retrospective claim is that it was because of increased rocket fire from Gaza; an increase in rocket attacks that was caused by the abduction and immolation of an Arab child in supposed retribution for the death of the three Israelis. The fact that so few people, especially our government, will not say that the Israeli offensive is disproportionate sickens me. Israel have purposely kept Gaza in horrific conditions and their collective punishment of all Palestinians is a war crime and perhaps worse, counter productive. Such collective punishment radicalises the people and generates even greater support for Hamas. Further to that, as Warsi said in her resignation letter, it radicalises people here, (it is good to see she reads Home Office reports - a couple of my lecturers literally wrote the book on this stuff). For the UK to keep defending Israel when in the last decade they have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians in the name of defense, whilst Palestinian rocket attacks have killed literally a hand full of people (less than 100 Israelis have did in the conflict over the last 10 years and most of them have been soldiers fighting during invasions into Gaza and the West bank) is disgusting. Yes, Hamas are wrong to target civilians, but the truth is they fail spectacularly to actually kill any. In ten years, after firing thousands of rockets, I think they have now killed maybe 12 Israelis. No one wants to live under the treat of a rocket attack but equally Israel have no one but themselves to blame for the attacks which are predicated on the war crimes they commit and the indescrimiant killing of civilians they undertake which only strength Hamas in the long run." | |||
| |||
"I did like Obama's solution to the Gaza crisis... bomb Iraq
that is ISIS... and nothing to do with this..
Exactly Whilst the world is crying out for a solution to Gaza, Obama, who could say something... who could do something... just decides to bomb Iraq instead "Wow you actually have no idea what you're on about do you? | |||
"As for the op question: when it was founded, hamas considered themselves freedom fighters. They are what is now termed 'old terrorism' because they used those tactics with a political agenda in order to force, or attempt to force, the other side to the bargaining table. There is a shift now to an ideological agenda, i.e. 'new terrorism', and they aren't interested in political solution as in times gone by. Those type of groups don't want to get the other side to the table, they want to blow up the table and demolish the other side in the process. The shift in this conflict isn't complete, yet, but you can see clearly that it's headed that way. " I'm not sure if you're aware, but "Old" and "New" terrorism have very specific definitions in the literature. New Terrorism is characterised by being non-hierarchical, leaderless, fanatical (based usually on religion), indiscriminate, trans-national, and more lethal. Hamas is far from this "New" Terrorism as it is cleared led and has a strict hierarchy. It's certainly part of what could be seen as the fourth wave of terrorism, which is religious terrorism - usually said to have started with the 1979 Iranian revolution and the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets. It followed from: First Wave - Anarchistic terrorism started in the 1880s in Russia, which was typified by assassinations of heads of state, culminating with the assassination of Ferdinand and the starting of WW1. Second Wave - Anticolonialism/Nationalistic terrorism, precipitated by the Versaille treaty and the breaking up of Empires/ Third Wave - the New Left, precipitated by the Vietnam war and typified by highly viable attacks like hostage taking, hijacking planes, etc. | |||
| |||
"As for the op question: when it was founded, hamas considered themselves freedom fighters. They are what is now termed 'old terrorism' because they used those tactics with a political agenda in order to force, or attempt to force, the other side to the bargaining table. There is a shift now to an ideological agenda, i.e. 'new terrorism', and they aren't interested in political solution as in times gone by. Those type of groups don't want to get the other side to the table, they want to blow up the table and demolish the other side in the process. The shift in this conflict isn't complete, yet, but you can see clearly that it's headed that way. I'm not sure if you're aware, but "Old" and "New" terrorism have very specific definitions in the literature. New Terrorism is characterised by being non-hierarchical, leaderless, fanatical (based usually on religion), indiscriminate, trans-national, and more lethal. Hamas is far from this "New" Terrorism as it is cleared led and has a strict hierarchy. It's certainly part of what could be seen as the fourth wave of terrorism, which is religious terrorism - usually said to have started with the 1979 Iranian revolution and the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets. It followed from: First Wave - Anarchistic terrorism started in the 1880s in Russia, which was typified by assassinations of heads of state, culminating with the assassination of Ferdinand and the starting of WW1. Second Wave - Anticolonialism/Nationalistic terrorism, precipitated by the Versaille treaty and the breaking up of Empires/ Third Wave - the New Left, precipitated by the Vietnam war and typified by highly viable attacks like hostage taking, hijacking planes, etc. " I'm very aware of the definitions in literature. It's what I'm studying at the minute. It's argued, as i highlighted above, that there is an evolution at play. That was my point. As for it being non-hierarchical, al-quaeda is seen as new terrorism access yet was very much a hierarchy. The remnants of it still are, as there are definite leaders within the organisations. New terrorism is categorised as much by agenda and motivation as by any other factor, see above about ideological rather than political. I get your points, perhaps i simply haven't _xpressed mine properly. | |||
 | |||
" I'm very aware of the definitions in literature. It's what I'm studying at the minute. It's argued, as i highlighted above, that there is an evolution at play. That was my point. As for it being non-hierarchical, al-quaeda is seen as new terrorism access yet was very much a hierarchy. The remnants of it still are, as there are definite leaders within the organisations. New terrorism is categorised as much by agenda and motivation as by any other factor, see above about ideological rather than political. I get your points, perhaps i simply haven't _xpressed mine properly. " Agenda and motivation haven't really changed though. They still seek a change in social or political direction through the use of violence or the treat of it. That's no different to ETA, IRA, Naxalites or the Black Hand. I'd dispute whether a focus on New Terrorism is worthwhile; it doesn't deliver any greater understanding on how to counter terrorism nor does it invalidate any current understanding of counter terrorism measures. | |||
" I'm very aware of the definitions in literature. It's what I'm studying at the minute. It's argued, as i highlighted above, that there is an evolution at play. That was my point. As for it being non-hierarchical, al-quaeda is seen as new terrorism access yet was very much a hierarchy. The remnants of it still are, as there are definite leaders within the organisations. New terrorism is categorised as much by agenda and motivation as by any other factor, see above about ideological rather than political. I get your points, perhaps i simply haven't _xpressed mine properly. Agenda and motivation haven't really changed though. They still seek a change in social or political direction through the use of violence or the treat of it. That's no different to ETA, IRA, Naxalites or the Black Hand. I'd dispute whether a focus on New Terrorism is worthwhile; it doesn't deliver any greater understanding on how to counter terrorism nor does it invalidate any current understanding of counter terrorism measures." Dispute, and the resulting debate, is a good thing. It makes the world go around. In this instance, it's argued that the isan ideological shift within this conflict. Personally, i can see that shift on both sides. Originally yes i agree it was a political agenda in a bid for (in my. Opinion deserved) recognition, equality, and the protection afforded other sovereign states by the international community. Over time the have become, on both sides, elements apparent that anything less than the full capitulation and destruction of the opposing side is unsatisfactory. That is the shift toward new style terrorism that I'm talking about. The ideological shift toward anything less than complete destruction found in the ideals of 'new terrorism' greatly effect counter terrorism measures when compared to the old terrorism style. Negotiation is ineffective, for instance. How one combats an ideology effectively is distinctly separate from ways to combat a political agenda. I see how things are similar between the two as far as infiltrating the organisations and stopping the acts from happening, but the argument is that with old terrorism it was possible to actually put an end to the motivation behind the terrorism via negotiation, and that with the shift seen in new terrorism that that is no longer possible. | |||
| |||
"Without any bias I suggest some of you read up on who created Hamas. Then ask yourself why they are so ineffective at firing missiles. All of this conflict is being manipulated just like the media coverage Don't believe everything you're told, find out the facts for yourselves." Saying that Hamas' origins 27 years ago explains their ability with rockets is as relevant as saying Ed Miliband has the same view of Britain as his Dad | |||
" While I don't agree with your premise that Palestine is illegally occupied, neither you or I are likely to change each others views. Ghandi obviously considered that India was unjustifiably occupied by the British but I don't think would be considered as either a terrorist or a freedom fighter. If UK was occupied I would like to be as effective as him You may not agree with it, but under international law, Israel are illegal occupiers of a large amount of Palestinian land. And your comparison to India is disingenuous for several reseasons: Gandhi was peaceful, yes, but not everyone in the independence movement was, and the conflict didn't end when Britain gave India independence. The Naxalite movement still continues to this day and seeks greater control and autonomy for certain regions that they perceive are still under an imperial-esque occupation. They are far from peaceful. The situation was significantly different for Gandhi too - he wasn't fighting an entire population that thought it was their right to unhouse all Indians; he was protesting an occupier who accounted for a significantly smaller portion of the population; a population that was largely controlled by their own who happened to be in the pay of a foreign power. Israel does not see Palestine in the same was that Britain saw India. Britain wanted to control India - Israel wants to overrun Palestine." Couldn't agree more, well said.. | |||
"Hey everyone, what's your thoughts on the Gaza situation? Just attended a pro Palestinian demo and were confronted by EDL & pro Israeli groups who chanted "No more schools in Gaza because the kids in Gaza are dead" Palestine has been occupied (illegally) since 1947..if the UK was illegally occupied would you (if you resisted the occupation) consider yourself terrorists or freedom fighters????? Cameron is going to lead us both into Gaza and back into Iraq but will wait until October after the independence vote Some countries fight for independence and scotland only has to tick a box, some scots dont even have the courage to do that. ." Well said, possibly the best comment I've read, thank god there are people out there who are able to think for themselves.. | |||
| |||
"I know that many will consider what I have to say as totally politically unacceptable but maybe its time we stopped thinking about bad it is for the Palestinians and how we should all be backing those opposing Zionist and Zionist backed tyranny and started asking ourselves which would we rather have rule the Middle East, the likes of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and the other radical Islamic Fundamentalists or the likes of the Israeli (or for that matter the Syrian or Iraq Bath party)? I know which I would rather have. I do not pretend that my choice has anything to do with right and wrong , but is it is driven by ENLIGHTENED SELF INTEREST! Fact is, in our usual liberal self deprecating way we are picking the wrong side for the wrong reasons and in the end our children will have to pay in blood for our failure to place our self interest first. " Yep, spot on with that. Oh to go back to the days of Saddam running Iraq, and Gadaffi running Libya. Neither were nice guys but the politicians should remember the old saying "better the devil you know" | |||
"I know that many will consider what I have to say as totally politically unacceptable but maybe its time we stopped thinking about bad it is for the Palestinians and how we should all be backing those opposing Zionist and Zionist backed tyranny and started asking ourselves which would we rather have rule the Middle East, the likes of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and the other radical Islamic Fundamentalists or the likes of the Israeli (or for that matter the Syrian or Iraq Bath party)? I know which I would rather have. I do not pretend that my choice has anything to do with right and wrong , but is it is driven by ENLIGHTENED SELF INTEREST! Fact is, in our usual liberal self deprecating way we are picking the wrong side for the wrong reasons and in the end our children will have to pay in blood for our failure to place our self interest first. " I hear you... but I think your mindset is entrenched in an old world which is quickly vanishing... the world of western dominance. Who would the Chinese prefer to be dealing with in the Middle East.. an anti-western Arab state or a state which is essentially part of America? I think you're likely to find they're pretty neutral. Which one is the worst to the Brazilians... the state which uses advanced weaponry to slowly conduct a low level ethnic cleansing program or the one which uses rusty old swords to behead innocent people? I think they're unlikely to see much of a difference. The new BRIC countries are a breath of fresh air because they do not see the world along the same racist lines we do. African trade, which we have always neglected, is now booming because the Chinese are there and they do not have any racist issues or any colonial past with Africa. It could also be argued that the entire problem of the Middle East is that there is only one nuclear state there when there should be two; that there is a current imbalance of power that prevents the overwhelmingly prevailing power from being checked and muted. Most new states are born out of blood and I'm sure ISIS is no different. But just because a mass of people somewhere else in the world want a way of life that is antagonistic to our own doesn't mean we should overrule that mass and impose something else on them. Indeed the days are drawing to an end when we, in the West, will be able to do that again. Perhaps soon the Chinese will be invading us with a mind of making our democracies more pro-communist? The British Empire is long gone... and the fact is that the American Empire is almost certainly also past it's zenith | |||
"I know that many will consider what I have to say as totally politically unacceptable but maybe its time we stopped thinking about bad it is for the Palestinians and how we should all be backing those opposing Zionist and Zionist backed tyranny and started asking ourselves which would we rather have rule the Middle East, the likes of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and the other radical Islamic Fundamentalists or the likes of the Israeli (or for that matter the Syrian or Iraq Bath party)? I know which I would rather have. I do not pretend that my choice has anything to do with right and wrong , but is it is driven by ENLIGHTENED SELF INTEREST! Fact is, in our usual liberal self deprecating way we are picking the wrong side for the wrong reasons and in the end our children will have to pay in blood for our failure to place our self interest first. I hear you... but I think your mindset is entrenched in an old world which is quickly vanishing... the world of western dominance. Who would the Chinese prefer to be dealing with in the Middle East.. an anti-western Arab state or a state which is essentially part of America? I think you're likely to find they're pretty neutral. Which one is the worst to the Brazilians... the state which uses advanced weaponry to slowly conduct a low level ethnic cleansing program or the one which uses rusty old swords to behead innocent people? I think they're unlikely to see much of a difference. The new BRIC countries are a breath of fresh air because they do not see the world along the same racist lines we do. African trade, which we have always neglected, is now booming because the Chinese are there and they do not have any racist issues or any colonial past with Africa. It could also be argued that the entire problem of the Middle East is that there is only one nuclear state there when there should be two; that there is a current imbalance of power that prevents the overwhelmingly prevailing power from being checked and muted. Most new states are born out of blood and I'm sure ISIS is no different. But just because a mass of people somewhere else in the world want a way of life that is antagonistic to our own doesn't mean we should overrule that mass and impose something else on them. Indeed the days are drawing to an end when we, in the West, will be able to do that again. Perhaps soon the Chinese will be invading us with a mind of making our democracies more pro-communist? The British Empire is long gone... and the fact is that the American Empire is almost certainly also past it's zenith "Just to say that both as individuals and as a state, the Chinese are (in my experience) extremely racist. You are right that they have little African colonial past but huge influence since the 70s and not all positive. Eg in Zimbabwe | |||
"I know that many will consider what I have to say as totally politically unacceptable but maybe its time we stopped thinking about bad it is for the Palestinians and how we should all be backing those opposing Zionist and Zionist backed tyranny and started asking ourselves which would we rather have rule the Middle East, the likes of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and the other radical Islamic Fundamentalists or the likes of the Israeli (or for that matter the Syrian or Iraq Bath party)? I know which I would rather have. I do not pretend that my choice has anything to do with right and wrong , but is it is driven by ENLIGHTENED SELF INTEREST! Fact is, in our usual liberal self deprecating way we are picking the wrong side for the wrong reasons and in the end our children will have to pay in blood for our failure to place our self interest first. I hear you... but I think your mindset is entrenched in an old world which is quickly vanishing... the world of western dominance. Who would the Chinese prefer to be dealing with in the Middle East.. an anti-western Arab state or a state which is essentially part of America? I think you're likely to find they're pretty neutral. Which one is the worst to the Brazilians... the state which uses advanced weaponry to slowly conduct a low level ethnic cleansing program or the one which uses rusty old swords to behead innocent people? I think they're unlikely to see much of a difference. The new BRIC countries are a breath of fresh air because they do not see the world along the same racist lines we do. African trade, which we have always neglected, is now booming because the Chinese are there and they do not have any racist issues or any colonial past with Africa. It could also be argued that the entire problem of the Middle East is that there is only one nuclear state there when there should be two; that there is a current imbalance of power that prevents the overwhelmingly prevailing power from being checked and muted. Most new states are born out of blood and I'm sure ISIS is no different. But just because a mass of people somewhere else in the world want a way of life that is antagonistic to our own doesn't mean we should overrule that mass and impose something else on them. Indeed the days are drawing to an end when we, in the West, will be able to do that again. Perhaps soon the Chinese will be invading us with a mind of making our democracies more pro-communist? The British Empire is long gone... and the fact is that the American Empire is almost certainly also past it's zenith
Just to say that both as individuals and as a state, the Chinese are (in my experience) extremely racist.
You are right that they have little African colonial past but huge influence since the 70s and not all positive. Eg in Zimbabwe "Yes there are many issues with the BRIC countries, though that block is definitely on the rise. As for the 'American empire', America isn't actually of an imperial mindset. It did, however, seek to stabilise things and make use of its resources after the collapse of the USSR and subsequent end of the cold war. The rise of another superpower, like China or Brazil, won't degrade the American power base. It 'might' stabilise international politics, though, as a bi-polar power base usually does. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I agree entirely. Israel have offered a ceasefire but Hammas wont have it. Who do they think they are. They have nothing to bargain with. Just a tin pot terrorist group with ideas well above their station. Trying to pump up their own importance using the lives of their own people. Crap isn't it. And all the while it's only serving to make the suffering of the Palestinian people even worse, which then builds resentment (on a global scale, not only within the region) towards the Israeli's and the Jewish community." Sorry but have to disagree with you there, Israel does have a lot of support all over the world in that they have the right to defend themselves when hamas are firing rockets into Israel and targeting Israeli civilians. This whole latest episode of violence started with the kidnap and torture/murder of Israelis by Hamas. The continued firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and Hamas tunnels into Israel from which they can launch attacks against Israel. Israel do want peace and they would accept a peace deal (2 state solution) it was on the table many years ago when Bill Clinton was president of the USA, but Arafat refused to accept the peace deal. Truth is many palestinians/muslims don't accept that Israel has a right to exist and refuse to acknowledge the sovreign state of Israel in the region. Until they accept that Israel is there to stay there will be no peace. | |||
"I believe that everyone is ignoring the Elephant in the room and are desperately looking for reasons for to justify their selective blindness that really are not there. Firstly China is an insular country that does not trust or wish to have contact with the outside world beyond what is necessary. The fact is those China send abroad and those it allows interact with the outside world are considered to be tainted and are never trusted with power. Fact is now that the 'communist' dynasty is now established China will do what China has always done. It will trade with the rest of the world provided it is beneficial to China. I believe that the jury is out on South and Central America, but it seems to me that they too are more interested in internal politics. However that is not the case with the Middle East. As I have said before, as far as you go back in history the Middle East has been a hotbed of extremist expansionist megalomaniacs. Since the time of Mesopotamia and Ancient Persia to today the middle East has believed in the use of absolute power in everything. And when not ruled and handled with an iron fist it sees that as weakness and an invitation to take over. The simple fact is there is a reason that Arabs have been stripped of power time and time again in history. We fail to learn this lesson at our peril." I think you vastly over-estimate the ability of a small band of despots in the Middle East to have anything more than a limited local impact... and I think you vastly under-estimate China's desire to become a dominant world power. China once ruled the world, or at least that's how many Chinese see it... and they haven't forgotten that. China, in Chinese, is called Zhonghua... literally meaning "Central Kingdom" i.e. the center of the world. Nothing would please the Chinese more than to watch the Western world descend into a protracted and expensive unwinnable war to save some kind of imaginary moral high ground. Just as America profited out of Europe's descent into the chaos of WWII, have no doubt about it... China is watching with great interest, waiting for it's moment. | |||
| |||
"No nation has the right to exist. Each must continually earn that right from it's people and their neighbors." You mean like the ex-president of Iran (ahmadinnerjacket i think his name was?) who and i quote said..."Israel should be wiped off the face of the map". Yes that is the attitude Israel has to deal with from its Neighbours. | |||
| |||
"I've kept very quiet about the whole thing in almost every situation I've found myself in when the topic gets brought up..." Well thank you for speaking up  I thought your post was very insightful. People are too quick to imagine that Israel and the Jews are the same thing. Instead there is a strong and vibrant culture in Judaism of peaceniks and anti-Zionists who are at complete odds with most of what Israel have been doing over these past decades. Unfortunately their voice has been thoroughly marginalised and left largely unheard.
"Unfortunately, the only way peace will ever prevail is when one side is entirely wiped off the face of the earth." Or until there is a balance of power in the region. | |||
| |||
"Its outrageous what is happening but its the western world that caused this situation. Is it true that the EDL are part funded by a jewish organisation too? "I have no idea, but there is no doubt extremist views and actions on one side leads to extremist views and actions on the opposing side leading to a cycle of hate and segregation which can only be bad. | |||
"I believe that everyone is ignoring the Elephant in the room and are desperately looking for reasons for to justify their selective blindness that really are not there. Firstly China is an insular country that does not trust or wish to have contact with the outside world beyond what is necessary. The fact is those China send abroad and those it allows interact with the outside world are considered to be tainted and are never trusted with power. Fact is now that the 'communist' dynasty is now established China will do what China has always done. It will trade with the rest of the world provided it is beneficial to China. I believe that the jury is out on South and Central America, but it seems to me that they too are more interested in internal politics. However that is not the case with the Middle East. As I have said before, as far as you go back in history the Middle East has been a hotbed of extremist expansionist megalomaniacs. Since the time of Mesopotamia and Ancient Persia to today the middle East has believed in the use of absolute power in everything. And when not ruled and handled with an iron fist it sees that as weakness and an invitation to take over. The simple fact is there is a reason that Arabs have been stripped of power time and time again in history. We fail to learn this lesson at our peril. I think you vastly over-estimate the ability of a small band of despots in the Middle East to have anything more than a limited local impact... and I think you vastly under-estimate China's desire to become a dominant world power. China once ruled the world, or at least that's how many Chinese see it... and they haven't forgotten that. China, in Chinese, is called Zhonghua... literally meaning "Central Kingdom" i.e. the center of the world. Nothing would please the Chinese more than to watch the Western world descend into a protracted and expensive unwinnable war to save some kind of imaginary moral high ground. Just as America profited out of Europe's descent into the chaos of WWII, have no doubt about it... China is watching with great interest, waiting for it's moment." You think I vastly over-estimate the ability of a small band of despots in the Middle East to have anything more than a limited local impact... Really! In that one sentence you prove my point! That small band have destabilised the whole of Saharan and Sub Saharan N. Africa, the Horn of Africa, Northern Nigeria, Afghanistan, N Pakistan, The Xinjiang Provence of China, Turkmenistan, Syria, Iraq and parts of Indonesia! Not quite such a small group and not really the local is it! | |||
| |||
"That small band have destabilised the whole of Saharan and Sub Saharan N. Africa, the Horn of Africa, Northern Nigeria, Afghanistan, N Pakistan, The Xinjiang Provence of China, Turkmenistan, Syria, Iraq and parts of Indonesia! Not quite such a small group and not really the local is it! " Are you just listing countries and areas which have a Muslim population? If so that's just racist imo. Islam is not the "small band of despots" to which I was referring. I was referring to the various dictators of the Middle East whose nefarious goals are almost always limited to the Middle East, if not just a small region of it. There is, indeed, a culture in the Middle East of having strong leaders. This predates Western interference to my knowledge. So, with us gone, this might continue. But the only evidence of any form of expansionism is purely Pan-Arabic and, therefore, entirely isolated to the Middle East... a worry to Israel... but not us. Islam does have a desire to convert the whole world to Islam, just as Christianity does. Is that an expansionist ideology? Yes. But so are most things, like Coke or McDonalds, that want global reach. To confuse Islam with the likes of ISIS and Al-Qaida is to confuse a limited yet ruthlessly bloody politically motivated rebellion with a message of Love. We should strip the word Islam from these people's badges of honour. They are just common thugs who know nothing of true religion... they are certainly not servants of any God. | |||
| |||
"That small band have destabilised the whole of Saharan and Sub Saharan N. Africa, the Horn of Africa, Northern Nigeria, Afghanistan, N Pakistan, The Xinjiang Provence of China, Turkmenistan, Syria, Iraq and parts of Indonesia! Not quite such a small group and not really the local is it! Are you just listing countries and areas which have a Muslim population? If so that's just racist imo. Islam is not the "small band of despots" to which I was referring. I was referring to the various dictators of the Middle East whose nefarious goals are almost always limited to the Middle East, if not just a small region of it. There is, indeed, a culture in the Middle East of having strong leaders. This predates Western interference to my knowledge. So, with us gone, this might continue. But the only evidence of any form of expansionism is purely Pan-Arabic and, therefore, entirely isolated to the Middle East... a worry to Israel... but not us. Islam does have a desire to convert the whole world to Islam, just as Christianity does. Is that an expansionist ideology? Yes. But so are most things, like Coke or McDonalds, that want global reach. To confuse Islam with the likes of ISIS and Al-Qaida is to confuse a limited yet ruthlessly bloody politically motivated rebellion with a message of Love. We should strip the word Islam from these people's badges of honour. They are just common thugs who know nothing of true religion... they are certainly not servants of any God." Funny at no point have I mentioned any religion because I am fully aware that the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving and want nothing more than to be able to get on with living their lives. However EVERY country I listed has a serious Radical Islamist Terrorist problem. If you are saying that you believe that all these extremely violent radical groups are not linked you have to stupid! Further, the fact that you would label me as a racist because I point out this explosion in Radical Fundamentalist terrorism says more about you than it does about me. | |||
| |||
| |||
"What is it on here? It seems that there are so many people who seem to want to defend/excuse/justify Islam at all costs. Are you blind? Can you not see? Islamic State aka IS. ISIS or whatever new name they come up with next week are marauding through the middle east killing, yes I will repeat that, KILLING anyone that does not convert to their religion or they don't like the look of. But it doesn't just stop at killing. They are deliberately trying to find the most barbaric ways of committing murder. If you are lucky you will be thrown into a pit and machine gunned (stir any memories?) if you are unlucky you will be be-headed, or crucified. How long before they start building gas chambers? No doubt there will be many who will say that these people (I use the term very loosely) are extremists and the majority of Muslims are peace loving and do not support them in any way. Well I'm sorry but that argument doesn't wash anymore. There are around 1.5 million Muslims in Britain but condemnations of the barbaric thugs that are committing atrocities that would make Hitler blush are very thin on the ground. In fact I can count on one hand the number I've seen. Yet one cartoon in an obscure Danish magazine managed to bring half of London to a standstill for three weekends (nice to see priorities in order NOT) Where are all these peace loving Muslims I keep hearing about? If they are so disgusted by the actions of IS then let's see them on the streets shouting "Not in my name" They are very quick to protest about pretty much everything else so it shouldn't be too difficult. Maybe we will have to wait for IS or whoever to start snatching people off the streets of Britain and be-heading them live on Twitter, but even then I'd bet they would still sit on their hands. Wake up folks, smell the coffee, this isn't going to end well and needs sorting NOW. " | |||
| |||
"What is it on here? It seems that there are so many people who seem to want to defend/excuse/justify Islam at all costs. Are you blind? Can you not see? Islamic State aka IS. ISIS or whatever new name they come up with next week are marauding through the middle east killing, yes I will repeat that, KILLING anyone that does not convert to their religion or they don't like the look of. But it doesn't just stop at killing. They are deliberately trying to find the most barbaric ways of committing murder. If you are lucky you will be thrown into a pit and machine gunned (stir any memories?) if you are unlucky you will be be-headed, or crucified. How long before they start building gas chambers? No doubt there will be many who will say that these people (I use the term very loosely) are extremists and the majority of Muslims are peace loving and do not support them in any way. Well I'm sorry but that argument doesn't wash anymore. There are around 1.5 million Muslims in Britain but condemnations of the barbaric thugs that are committing atrocities that would make Hitler blush are very thin on the ground. In fact I can count on one hand the number I've seen. Yet one cartoon in an obscure Danish magazine managed to bring half of London to a standstill for three weekends (nice to see priorities in order NOT) Where are all these peace loving Muslims I keep hearing about? If they are so disgusted by the actions of IS then let's see them on the streets shouting "Not in my name" They are very quick to protest about pretty much everything else so it shouldn't be too difficult. Maybe we will have to wait for IS or whoever to start snatching people off the streets of Britain and be-heading them live on Twitter, but even then I'd bet they would still sit on their hands. Wake up folks, smell the coffee, this isn't going to end well and needs sorting NOW. " You seem to be confusing ISIS/IS with Hamas. The thread is about Israel/Palestine not what's happening in Syria, Iraq and parts of Turkey. I will say this though. Protests and condemnations won't do a thing with regards to IS. They have a singular view of Islam and would rather kill anyone who thinks differently than listen to their arguments or condemnations. Even fellow Muslims. I will also agree that the time for action is now and all nations should unite to rid the world of these barbarians. | |||
| |||
" Where are all these peace loving Muslims I keep hearing about? If they are so disgusted by the actions of IS then let's see them on the streets shouting "Not in my name" They are very quick to protest about pretty much everything else so it shouldn't be too difficult. Maybe we will have to wait for IS or whoever to start snatching people off the streets of Britain and be-heading them live on Twitter, but even then I'd bet they would still sit on their hands. Wake up folks, smell the coffee, this isn't going to end well and needs sorting NOW. "I agree with much that you say but just because people dont March against violence does not mean they aren't against it. There weren't m(any) marches in Dublin against the IRA or in London against the Parachute Regiment after Bloody Sunday or post the London riots | |||
All this is, of course, just my opinion.. so take it with a pinch of salt... but I thought there was enough difference between what I believe and what others have posted here to make for some perspective shifting interesting reading | |||
| |||
"What is it on here? It seems that there are so many people who seem to want to defend/excuse/justify Islam at all costs. Are you blind? Can you not see? Islamic State aka IS. ISIS or whatever new name they come up with next week are marauding through the middle east killing, yes I will repeat that, KILLING anyone that does not convert to their religion or they don't like the look of. But it doesn't just stop at killing. They are deliberately trying to find the most barbaric ways of committing murder. If you are lucky you will be thrown into a pit and machine gunned (stir any memories?) if you are unlucky you will be be-headed, or crucified. How long before they start building gas chambers? No doubt there will be many who will say that these people (I use the term very loosely) are extremists and the majority of Muslims are peace loving and do not support them in any way. Well I'm sorry but that argument doesn't wash anymore. There are around 1.5 million Muslims in Britain but condemnations of the barbaric thugs that are committing atrocities that would make Hitler blush are very thin on the ground. In fact I can count on one hand the number I've seen. Yet one cartoon in an obscure Danish magazine managed to bring half of London to a standstill for three weekends (nice to see priorities in order NOT) Where are all these peace loving Muslims I keep hearing about? If they are so disgusted by the actions of IS then let's see them on the streets shouting "Not in my name" They are very quick to protest about pretty much everything else so it shouldn't be too difficult. Maybe we will have to wait for IS or whoever to start snatching people off the streets of Britain and be-heading them live on Twitter, but even then I'd bet they would still sit on their hands. Wake up folks, smell the coffee, this isn't going to end well and needs sorting NOW. " Agree that the IS is a barbaric bunch of murderers who don't want to negotiate a territory, 'right a perceived wrong' etc and need dealing with on a pan global scale by all folks of whatever persuasion.. there are 3 million ish folks who are of the muslim faith and as with Lee Rigby's murder and the 7/7 bombings they have been outspoken in their condemnation of this latest act.. 5 live had a phone in on the subject today and the number of guys who were muslims' and condemning this murder pretty much equated the other callers.. | |||
"What is it on here? It seems that there are so many people who seem to want to defend/excuse/justify Islam at all costs. Are you blind? Can you not see? Islamic State aka IS. ISIS or whatever new name they come up with next week are marauding through the middle east killing, yes I will repeat that, KILLING anyone that does not convert to their religion or they don't like the look of. But it doesn't just stop at killing. They are deliberately trying to find the most barbaric ways of committing murder. If you are lucky you will be thrown into a pit and machine gunned (stir any memories?) if you are unlucky you will be be-headed, or crucified. How long before they start building gas chambers? No doubt there will be many who will say that these people (I use the term very loosely) are extremists and the majority of Muslims are peace loving and do not support them in any way. Well I'm sorry but that argument doesn't wash anymore. There are around 1.5 million Muslims in Britain but condemnations of the barbaric thugs that are committing atrocities that would make Hitler blush are very thin on the ground. In fact I can count on one hand the number I've seen. Yet one cartoon in an obscure Danish magazine managed to bring half of London to a standstill for three weekends (nice to see priorities in order NOT) Where are all these peace loving Muslims I keep hearing about? If they are so disgusted by the actions of IS then let's see them on the streets shouting "Not in my name" They are very quick to protest about pretty much everything else so it shouldn't be too difficult. Maybe we will have to wait for IS or whoever to start snatching people off the streets of Britain and be-heading them live on Twitter, but even then I'd bet they would still sit on their hands. Wake up folks, smell the coffee, this isn't going to end well and needs sorting NOW. " Clearly you've not been out and about enough. I know many, MANY Muslims that have gone out onto the streets and will very openly condemn the acts of what IS, or Hamas, or any other extremist militant branches of Islam. All you're doing in this post is tarring every Muslim with the same brush. That's a very dangerous thing to do, and only outlines a deep sense of ignorance and acceptance to the fact that one person's wrongdoings should never account for the greater majority. | |||
"Clearly you've not been out and about enough. I know many, MANY Muslims that have gone out onto the streets and will very openly condemn the acts of what IS, or Hamas, or any other extremist militant branches of Islam. All you're doing in this post is tarring every Muslim with the same brush. That's a very dangerous thing to do, and only outlines a deep sense of ignorance and acceptance to the fact that one person's wrongdoings should never account for the greater majority." Well said! I do not think the problem is to do with religion (although that is the cover that is used to justify the unjustifiable), personally I believe the problem is in the Arab psychological make-up (note not all Arabs are Muslim, but all Arabs seem to believe that might is right). I have observed a similar mindset in certain parts of the USA. I have also observed that these are also desert areas where water is at a premium. Maybe there is a link... | |||
"Clearly you've not been out and about enough. I know many, MANY Muslims that have gone out onto the streets and will very openly condemn the acts of what IS, or Hamas, or any other extremist militant branches of Islam. All you're doing in this post is tarring every Muslim with the same brush. That's a very dangerous thing to do, and only outlines a deep sense of ignorance and acceptance to the fact that one person's wrongdoings should never account for the greater majority. Well said! I do not think the problem is to do with religion (although that is the cover that is used to justify the unjustifiable), personally I believe the problem is in the Arab psychological make-up (note not all Arabs are Muslim, but all Arabs seem to believe that might is right). I have observed a similar mindset in certain parts of the USA. I have also observed that these are also desert areas where water is at a premium. Maybe there is a link... " I think you'll find the same "might is right" mentality bolstering up the Israeli right wing. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Clearly you've not been out and about enough. I know many, MANY Muslims that have gone out onto the streets and will very openly condemn the acts of what IS, or Hamas, or any other extremist militant branches of Islam. All you're doing in this post is tarring every Muslim with the same brush. That's a very dangerous thing to do, and only outlines a deep sense of ignorance and acceptance to the fact that one person's wrongdoings should never account for the greater majority. Well said! I do not think the problem is to do with religion (although that is the cover that is used to justify the unjustifiable), personally I believe the problem is in the Arab psychological make-up (note not all Arabs are Muslim, but all Arabs seem to believe that might is right). I have observed a similar mindset in certain parts of the USA. I have also observed that these are also desert areas where water is at a premium. Maybe there is a link... I think you'll find the same "might is right" mentality bolstering up the Israeli right wing." Since when did the hard line Zionist in Israel stop being Arabs? (You do realise that Anti Semitism is anti those who descend form the Sumarians and that's all Arabs not just the Jews). "The taklamakan desert inhabitants are mostly Muslim but no conflict. Little in the Namib desert where there are many Muslims. Little conflict in the Antarctic Hate to poo poo your desert theory!" Actually The Taklamakan Desert is in Xinjiang Provence China and there is an active and extremely violent Islamic Fundamentalist uprising in that state that is bombing all over China. As for your Antarctic little red herring as far as I am aware the only indigenous population on the Antarctic are Emperor Penguins and last time I checked they do not count as human. Further the Antarctic is covered in frozen water (that's what all the white stuff is).  | |||
| |||
| |||
"What is it on here? It seems that there are so many people who seem to want to defend/excuse/justify Islam at all costs. Are you blind? Can you not see? Islamic State aka IS. ISIS or whatever new name they come up with next week are marauding through the middle east killing, yes I will repeat that, KILLING anyone that does not convert to their religion or they don't like the look of. But it doesn't just stop at killing. They are deliberately trying to find the most barbaric ways of committing murder. If you are lucky you will be thrown into a pit and machine gunned (stir any memories?) if you are unlucky you will be be-headed, or crucified. How long before they start building gas chambers? No doubt there will be many who will say that these people (I use the term very loosely) are extremists and the majority of Muslims are peace loving and do not support them in any way. Well I'm sorry but that argument doesn't wash anymore. There are around 1.5 million Muslims in Britain but condemnations of the barbaric thugs that are committing atrocities that would make Hitler blush are very thin on the ground. In fact I can count on one hand the number I've seen. Yet one cartoon in an obscure Danish magazine managed to bring half of London to a standstill for three weekends (nice to see priorities in order NOT) Where are all these peace loving Muslims I keep hearing about? If they are so disgusted by the actions of IS then let's see them on the streets shouting "Not in my name" They are very quick to protest about pretty much everything else so it shouldn't be too difficult. Maybe we will have to wait for IS or whoever to start snatching people off the streets of Britain and be-heading them live on Twitter, but even then I'd bet they would still sit on their hands. Wake up folks, smell the coffee, this isn't going to end well and needs sorting NOW. Clearly you've not been out and about enough. I know many, MANY Muslims that have gone out onto the streets and will very openly condemn the acts of what IS, or Hamas, or any other extremist militant branches of Islam. All you're doing in this post is tarring every Muslim with the same brush. That's a very dangerous thing to do, and only outlines a deep sense of ignorance and acceptance to the fact that one person's wrongdoings should never account for the greater majority." Hmmm. Once upon a time there was a little gang that really didn't like the Jews. In the beginning nobody took much notice of them and apart from a few voices in the wilderness nobody really spoke up against them. Their leader was a strange looking chap but he was quite a good speaker and his gang of bully boys made sure that any dissent was crushed. Slowly more and more people started to follow this strange little man until he nearly took over the world. Who am I talking about? Hitler maybe, or Chaudhary and Hamza et al. The lesson from the 30's is what happens when good men do nothing. Which apart from a few solitary voices is exactly what the British Muslim community are doing now. And believe me I get out a damn site more than you think. | |||
"What is it on here? It seems that there are so many people who seem to want to defend/excuse/justify Islam at all costs. Are you blind? Can you not see? Islamic State aka IS. ISIS or whatever new name they come up with next week are marauding through the middle east killing, yes I will repeat that, KILLING anyone that does not convert to their religion or they don't like the look of. But it doesn't just stop at killing. They are deliberately trying to find the most barbaric ways of committing murder. If you are lucky you will be thrown into a pit and machine gunned (stir any memories?) if you are unlucky you will be be-headed, or crucified. How long before they start building gas chambers? No doubt there will be many who will say that these people (I use the term very loosely) are extremists and the majority of Muslims are peace loving and do not support them in any way. Well I'm sorry but that argument doesn't wash anymore. There are around 1.5 million Muslims in Britain but condemnations of the barbaric thugs that are committing atrocities that would make Hitler blush are very thin on the ground. In fact I can count on one hand the number I've seen. Yet one cartoon in an obscure Danish magazine managed to bring half of London to a standstill for three weekends (nice to see priorities in order NOT) Where are all these peace loving Muslims I keep hearing about? If they are so disgusted by the actions of IS then let's see them on the streets shouting "Not in my name" They are very quick to protest about pretty much everything else so it shouldn't be too difficult. Maybe we will have to wait for IS or whoever to start snatching people off the streets of Britain and be-heading them live on Twitter, but even then I'd bet they would still sit on their hands. Wake up folks, smell the coffee, this isn't going to end well and needs sorting NOW. Clearly you've not been out and about enough. I know many, MANY Muslims that have gone out onto the streets and will very openly condemn the acts of what IS, or Hamas, or any other extremist militant branches of Islam. All you're doing in this post is tarring every Muslim with the same brush. That's a very dangerous thing to do, and only outlines a deep sense of ignorance and acceptance to the fact that one person's wrongdoings should never account for the greater majority." Actually on reading you post again. Please give me details of one, yes only one instance of Muslims going out onto the streets to condemn Islamic terrorists. | |||
"Hmmm. Once upon a time there was a little gang that really didn't like the Jews. In the beginning nobody took much notice of them and apart from a few voices in the wilderness nobody really spoke up against them. Their leader was a strange looking chap but he was quite a good speaker and his gang of bully boys made sure that any dissent was crushed. Slowly more and more people started to follow this strange little man until he nearly took over the world. Who am I talking about? Hitler maybe, or Chaudhary and Hamza et al. The lesson from the 30's is what happens when good men do nothing. Which apart from a few solitary voices is exactly what the British Muslim community are doing now. And believe me I get out a damn site more than you think." So essentially what you've just done is completely, and utterly, discounted all the work that the allies did during the Second World War? Because what happened in the '30s was a damn good showing of good men doing something. Great Britain, France, Canada, India and many, many other nations all came together in one great display to prove they would not tolerate what was happening. However, according to you, all the thousands upon thousands that lost their lives fighting for that cause may well have not bothered, because the "good men" were doing "nothing". Hitler and the Nazi party were absolutely nowhere near "taking over the world". The Second World War started when the Nazi party invaded Poland- the adjacent country to Germany. The occupation of the other countries surrounding Germany happened only after the war had started, and the military offensives had started in earnest, and yet again they got nowhere near "taking over the world". Your main point was, essentially, "all Muslims are terrorists because they don't publically denounce the wrongdoings of other Muslims". That is not correct. Not only that, it is damnably so, and it serves no purpose other than to show deep-seated, archaic hatred for your fellow man purely based on their religious beliefs. There are just as many Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists that haven't walked out into the streets to condemn the acts of Hamas/IS/ Al Quieda or any other extremist Islamic militia. Why are you not branding them similarly to Muslims that don't go out and do the same thing? | |||
"What is it on here? It seems that there are so many people who seem to want to defend/excuse/justify Islam at all costs. Are you blind? Can you not see? Islamic State aka IS. ISIS or whatever new name they come up with next week are marauding through the middle east killing, yes I will repeat that, KILLING anyone that does not convert to their religion or they don't like the look of. But it doesn't just stop at killing. They are deliberately trying to find the most barbaric ways of committing murder. If you are lucky you will be thrown into a pit and machine gunned (stir any memories?) if you are unlucky you will be be-headed, or crucified. How long before they start building gas chambers? No doubt there will be many who will say that these people (I use the term very loosely) are extremists and the majority of Muslims are peace loving and do not support them in any way. Well I'm sorry but that argument doesn't wash anymore. There are around 1.5 million Muslims in Britain but condemnations of the barbaric thugs that are committing atrocities that would make Hitler blush are very thin on the ground. In fact I can count on one hand the number I've seen. Yet one cartoon in an obscure Danish magazine managed to bring half of London to a standstill for three weekends (nice to see priorities in order NOT) Where are all these peace loving Muslims I keep hearing about? If they are so disgusted by the actions of IS then let's see them on the streets shouting "Not in my name" They are very quick to protest about pretty much everything else so it shouldn't be too difficult. Maybe we will have to wait for IS or whoever to start snatching people off the streets of Britain and be-heading them live on Twitter, but even then I'd bet they would still sit on their hands. Wake up folks, smell the coffee, this isn't going to end well and needs sorting NOW. Clearly you've not been out and about enough. I know many, MANY Muslims that have gone out onto the streets and will very openly condemn the acts of what IS, or Hamas, or any other extremist militant branches of Islam. All you're doing in this post is tarring every Muslim with the same brush. That's a very dangerous thing to do, and only outlines a deep sense of ignorance and acceptance to the fact that one person's wrongdoings should never account for the greater majority. Actually on reading you post again. Please give me details of one, yes only one instance of Muslims going out onto the streets to condemn Islamic terrorists." Me. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Dubbed China's most radical cult, "The Church of Almighty God" teaches its followers to abandon their families and to hate the Communist party. Yesterday five of its members went on trial for beating a woman to death in a branch of McDonald's just because she refused to give them her phone number. It is a Christian cult. I haven't seen many Christians out on the streets protesting about this cult... therefore all Christians must basically agree with this murder in some way and, as such, are, themselves, brutal murderers just waiting to leap out on us from behind that polite facade of tea and digestive biscuits. Is that what you're suggesting hotlove? "Has it not occurred to you that most Muslims might not consider the actions of these marauding psychopaths to have anything to do with them or their religion. If someone claims Darth Vader spoke to them in a dream and made them do something bad does that really mean we need to go and interview George Lucas? These characters are not religious in the slightest and their actions have nothing to do with Islam... they are merely trying to legitimise their political struggle by clothing it in a fantasy that it is somehow god blessed... when it quite clearly is not. | |||
"Actually I was not joking about the deserts, however I should have expanded what I said and said hot deserts where water is at a premium and there is a culture of ownership. I would personally say the exception to my postulation would have been the Native Australian peoples (note I do not call them Aboriginals, which I find a very offensive term for any native non western people). As for the human population of Antarctica it is an international scientific population that can only survive by being supported from the outside. Further I think you will find that the Emperor Penguin is the only animal that can survive unaided through the Southern winter on the Antarctic continent. " Warm deserts with little water: Atacamba Many in USA The pampas Mongolian Steppes The population of Uk could no longer survive without support from outside. The population of much of Ethiopia needed outside support in the 80s Immature Adelie penguins, blue eyed shams, all manners of marine and amphibian mammals, parasitic land based animals and until reasonably recently a thriving dog population overwinter in Antarctica | |||
"Actually I was not joking about the deserts, however I should have expanded what I said and said hot deserts where water is at a premium and there is a culture of ownership. I would personally say the exception to my postulation would have been the Native Australian peoples (note I do not call them Aboriginals, which I find a very offensive term for any native non western people). As for the human population of Antarctica it is an international scientific population that can only survive by being supported from the outside. Further I think you will find that the Emperor Penguin is the only animal that can survive unaided through the Southern winter on the Antarctic continent. " Warm deserts with little water: Atacamba Many in USA The pampas Mongolian Steppes The population of Uk could no longer survive without support from outside. The population of much of Ethiopia needed outside support in the 80s Immature Adelie penguins, blue eyed shams, all manners of marine and amphibian mammals, parasitic land based animals and until reasonably recently a thriving dog population overwinter in Antarctica | |||
| |||
"Imo this war is a war which wears religious clothes but which requires a political solution. The bulk of these problems come down to poverty and Israel. Solve those and IS, Hamas, and other radical Islamic movements, will fade away into the obscurity they came from imo. This is a problem which can be largely traded out of existence. It's just the same as the Ireland problem. If enough people are prospering and gaining some form of power they'll soon turn against their own militias. Imo it is in our national interests for Israel to develop friendly trading relations with it's neighbors, including a friendly trading relationship with the Palestinians within it's borders. It needs to move away from a globally discredited apartheid system and start letting Palestinians into positions of political office. How can it do this while Hamas is bombing them? Simple... just ignore Hamas and set their own peace agenda. By doing this it can divide and conquer the Palestinian people, with the mass following the most financially beneficial and peaceful route of integration into Israel. If Israel refuses to do this and it continues to fight it's neighbors and oppress it's minorities it will not exist in 100 years time... there'll just be a big crater where it used to be. This course is, therefore, also in Israel's national interest. Similarly it is in the Wests national interests to move away from a blind support for Israel and to instead be seen to be neutral on Middle Eastern issues. We should be keen to open doorways of trade with stable states, such as Iran, and seeking to aid the democratic voice of those in destabilized states. A Muslim Brotherhood Egypt could've been a profound change for good in the region. But that all went pear shaped. However... it goes to show how suddenly this problem could be solved if we let it. If we take this route the West will remain an important voice in world affairs for years to come, creating ties of friendship with several important oil producing countries instead of trying to invade and manipulate them, and Israel will remain in existence. Unfortunately none of what I've written here is likely to happen in my lifetime. So I fully expect Israel to not exist at some point and for the west to sink from power into a quagmire of barbarism similar to the fall of the Roman Empire. The war on Islam or the war on terror is much the same as the war on drugs i.e. the more you fight it the worse it gets. By taking the kind of aggressive path advocated by some on here, and broadly popular across the western world, we are ultimately sealing our own fate imo. This aggressive route is being sold as in our national interests... when it is the exact opposite. Just as the west is about to be eclipsed in power by a bunch of other countries it seeks to maraud around the world pissing people off. Bad idea. Instead we should be looking to make as many friends as possible... pretty soon we're gonna need them
All this is, of course, just my opinion.. so take it with a pinch of salt... but I thought there was enough difference between what I believe and what others have posted here to make for some perspective shifting interesting reading " | |||
"Hmmm. Once upon a time there was a little gang that really didn't like the Jews. In the beginning nobody took much notice of them and apart from a few voices in the wilderness nobody really spoke up against them. Their leader was a strange looking chap but he was quite a good speaker and his gang of bully boys made sure that any dissent was crushed. Slowly more and more people started to follow this strange little man until he nearly took over the world. Who am I talking about? Hitler maybe, or Chaudhary and Hamza et al. The lesson from the 30's is what happens when good men do nothing. Which apart from a few solitary voices is exactly what the British Muslim community are doing now. And believe me I get out a damn site more than you think. So essentially what you've just done is completely, and utterly, discounted all the work that the allies did during the Second World War? Because what happened in the '30s was a damn good showing of good men doing something. Great Britain, France, Canada, India and many, many other nations all came together in one great display to prove they would not tolerate what was happening. However, according to you, all the thousands upon thousands that lost their lives fighting for that cause may well have not bothered, because the "good men" were doing "nothing". Hitler and the Nazi party were absolutely nowhere near "taking over the world". The Second World War started when the Nazi party invaded Poland- the adjacent country to Germany. The occupation of the other countries surrounding Germany happened only after the war had started, and the military offensives had started in earnest, and yet again they got nowhere near "taking over the world". Your main point was, essentially, "all Muslims are terrorists because they don't publically denounce the wrongdoings of other Muslims". That is not correct. Not only that, it is damnably so, and it serves no purpose other than to show deep-seated, archaic hatred for your fellow man purely based on their religious beliefs. There are just as many Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists that haven't walked out into the streets to condemn the acts of Hamas/IS/ Al Quieda or any other extremist Islamic militia. Why are you not branding them similarly to Muslims that don't go out and do the same thing?" Your "damn good showing of good men doing something" is very true, it is just that you are around a decade out on your dates. The lesson from the 30's has nothing to do with the actual execution of WWII (which apart from the first 4 months was in the 40's BTW) other than if good men had spoken up earlier maybe the whole sorry mess could have been avoided. The rise of National Socialism in Germany (which was pretty much for the whole of the 1930's) is very relevant to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism today. I have no hatred for any of my fellow men but anyone with open eyes should be able to see where the real hatred comes from. Do I think all Muslims are terrorists? Of course not. My real "main point" is that the good Muslims are very quiet on this issue and it's about time they stood up and were counted rather than either playing the Ostrich or being scared shitless of the nutters within their community. Why should Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists have to march in the streets? I haven't seen anyone parading with a head on a spike in the name of Buddha recently, have you? Whether you like it or not this is a Muslim problem and it needs a Muslim solution and very strong Muslim action against the Islamic thugs, and playing the racism card at the first sign of any criticism helps no-one. | |||
| |||
"And, if that's not good enough for you, then here: The atrocities that have been carried out in the past by Extremist Muslims, acting under the guise of "religion" and "righteousness of God/Allah/G-d etc." is wrong. It is wholly condemnable, utterly deplorable and should never be justified in any arena. The people that commit such acts should never be granted the right to defend themselves for their actions, and no punishment could be too great. It is wrong, it is wrong, it is wrong. I, and many of my friends, family and work colleagues have said this, or something along those lines. We have said as such both on the streets, in public spaces, to friends/strangers who have asked, and on various Internet forums such as this. Please, I beg of you, look past any barriers of race, colour, creed or religion, and see that there ARE Muslims who do not try and exonerate the deplorable acts of madmen. We are not the same as them, we are regular people, who lead regular lives, and enjoy laughter, friendship and tolerance of everyone around us, no matter who they are, where they come from or what they believe in. Just the same as everyone else." On those points I cannot argue with you, and I do realise that in some communities it is a very brave man who will say it. I do believe there are many Muslims who deplore the actions of IS and others, it's just time they turned up the volume. | |||
"Hey everyone, what's your thoughts on the Gaza situation? Just attended a pro Palestinian demo and were confronted by EDL & pro Israeli groups who chanted "No more schools in Gaza because the kids in Gaza are dead" Palestine has been occupied (illegally) since 1947..if the UK was illegally occupied would you (if you resisted the occupation) consider yourself terrorists or freedom fighters????? " You should not apologise for being political. This is the proper place to raise the issue and you _xpressed yourself in a thoughtful and respectful way-wish more topics were discussed here in the same style. As many have already _xpressed, the dispute between both sides is complicated, but killing civilians does not look good and breeds more resentment (look at the increase in anti-Jewish attacks in France and Britain). Powerful blocks on both sides are not ready for meaningful talks on a settlement. The best we can do is encourage and settlement and stop the region's violence spreading like a disease here. | |||
" Why should Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists have to march in the streets? I haven't seen anyone parading with a head on a spike in the name of Buddha recently, have you? Whether you like it or not this is a Muslim problem and it needs a Muslim solution and very strong Muslim action against the Islamic thugs, and playing the racism card at the first sign of any criticism helps no-one. " Christians and jews lots of examples of them killing others Hindus _ terrorism largely against Muslims and Christians and Sikhs in India and in Sri Lanka Bhuddist Burmese monks killing Muslims in Myanmar Bhuddist terrorists in Nepal Bhuddist terrorists in Tibet Bhuddist terrorism in Cambodia and Laos Bhuddists in the Vietnam Nam war Atheists _ you've got me there | |||
| |||
| |||
"We should be more like china, self sufficient. Export more than we import and let the rest of the world worry about itself. We've been 100years trying to help others only to see English as being shameful (thanks morrissey) , we help out we are interfering we stand by we are cold hearted!!! More people have died in Africa in the last month then Palestine, from terrorist groups, why is this never highlighted?? Ebola gets more coverage yet Boku Horam is taking over whole towns, murdering children and elderly!! The worlds a horrible place, there's mass murders by drugs gangs in South America!! I'm sorry why does no one protest against these too?? We are lucky we live in a country where if someone gets be headed it reviles us, long live Great Britain if I'm allowed to say that these days" I'd rather you said United Kingdom but I agree with your sentiments. Basically it comes down to media coverage. To most people, if it's not on the news everyday, it's not a problem. | |||
| |||
" Atheists _ you've got me there " Idi Amin Pol Pot Stalin Mao Tse Tung | |||
"Your "damn good showing of good men doing something" is very true, it is just that you are around a decade out on your dates. The lesson from the 30's has nothing to do with the actual execution of WWII (which apart from the first 4 months was in the 40's BTW) other than if good men had spoken up earlier maybe the whole sorry mess could have been avoided. The rise of National Socialism in Germany (which was pretty much for the whole of the 1930's) is very relevant to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism today. I have no hatred for any of my fellow men but anyone with open eyes should be able to see where the real hatred comes from. Do I think all Muslims are terrorists? Of course not. My real "main point" is that the good Muslims are very quiet on this issue and it's about time they stood up and were counted rather than either playing the Ostrich or being scared shitless of the nutters within their community. Why should Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists have to march in the streets? I haven't seen anyone parading with a head on a spike in the name of Buddha recently, have you? Whether you like it or not this is a Muslim problem and it needs a Muslim solution and very strong Muslim action against the Islamic thugs, and playing the racism card at the first sign of any criticism helps no-one. " Yeah I was super tired and somehow thought WWII was '29-'35. Silly me. The same thing applies, though. The rise of NS in the 1930's came nowhere near to the extremes if what's going on today. It was only during the war that the real atrocities started. I'd like to think that, because of what happened then, people HAVE learnt their lesson and they ARE reacting to such worrying uprisings much quicker, there have certainly been many examples of that happening post 9/11. But you're not opening your eyes wide enough. The hatred isn't coming from the Muslims. These extremists are NOT Muslims. They're acting under the guise of Islam, but they're not Muslims. Because of their beliefs, and their acts, they aren't Muslims. It's really that simple. As for "good Muslims" being "very quiet", I know this debate isn't about Syria and Iraq, but look at the Muslims that have taken a stand against IS, particularly in the area of Mosul. They're standing up for themselves and fighting against what the perceive to be wrong. They're dying for standing up to this. Yet you're ignoring this point entirely. Why? This is NOT a Muslim problem, not in the slightest. It's a global problem. You think that an Islamic leader can simply waltz into an extremist camp and tell them their beliefs are morally abhorrent and logically flawed, not to mention blasphemous to the teachings of the Qu'ran? Do you think that 10,000 Muslims could do it? Because they couldn't. The world needs to come together as one to completely and utterly condemn them; and even then they still wouldn't listen. The Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, even Jedis if you so choose, need to stand WITH the Muslims that are denouncing the ways of these people to show that they're united in fighting terrorism in any form, and that the rest of the Muslim community should not be punished for the wrongdoings of a minority of people acting under a false guise. Your "criticism" is close-minded and frankly quite offensive given the evidence that's been countered against you. | |||
"And, if that's not good enough for you, then here: The atrocities that have been carried out in the past by Extremist Muslims, acting under the guise of "religion" and "righteousness of God/Allah/G-d etc." is wrong. It is wholly condemnable, utterly deplorable and should never be justified in any arena. The people that commit such acts should never be granted the right to defend themselves for their actions, and no punishment could be too great. It is wrong, it is wrong, it is wrong. I, and many of my friends, family and work colleagues have said this, or something along those lines. We have said as such both on the streets, in public spaces, to friends/strangers who have asked, and on various Internet forums such as this. Please, I beg of you, look past any barriers of race, colour, creed or religion, and see that there ARE Muslims who do not try and exonerate the deplorable acts of madmen. We are not the same as them, we are regular people, who lead regular lives, and enjoy laughter, friendship and tolerance of everyone around us, no matter who they are, where they come from or what they believe in. Just the same as everyone else. On those points I cannot argue with you, and I do realise that in some communities it is a very brave man who will say it. I do believe there are many Muslims who deplore the actions of IS and others, it's just time they turned up the volume." http://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2011/jan/17/filming-british-muslims-fight-extremism | |||
"Your "damn good showing of good men doing something" is very true, it is just that you are around a decade out on your dates. The lesson from the 30's has nothing to do with the actual execution of WWII (which apart from the first 4 months was in the 40's BTW) other than if good men had spoken up earlier maybe the whole sorry mess could have been avoided. The rise of National Socialism in Germany (which was pretty much for the whole of the 1930's) is very relevant to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism today. I have no hatred for any of my fellow men but anyone with open eyes should be able to see where the real hatred comes from. Do I think all Muslims are terrorists? Of course not. My real "main point" is that the good Muslims are very quiet on this issue and it's about time they stood up and were counted rather than either playing the Ostrich or being scared shitless of the nutters within their community. Why should Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists have to march in the streets? I haven't seen anyone parading with a head on a spike in the name of Buddha recently, have you? Whether you like it or not this is a Muslim problem and it needs a Muslim solution and very strong Muslim action against the Islamic thugs, and playing the racism card at the first sign of any criticism helps no-one. Yeah I was super tired and somehow thought WWII was '29-'35. Silly me. The same thing applies, though. The rise of NS in the 1930's came nowhere near to the extremes if what's going on today. It was only during the war that the real atrocities started. I'd like to think that, because of what happened then, people HAVE learnt their lesson and they ARE reacting to such worrying uprisings much quicker, there have certainly been many examples of that happening post 9/11. But you're not opening your eyes wide enough. The hatred isn't coming from the Muslims. These extremists are NOT Muslims. They're acting under the guise of Islam, but they're not Muslims. Because of their beliefs, and their acts, they aren't Muslims. It's really that simple. As for "good Muslims" being "very quiet", I know this debate isn't about Syria and Iraq, but look at the Muslims that have taken a stand against IS, particularly in the area of Mosul. They're standing up for themselves and fighting against what the perceive to be wrong. They're dying for standing up to this. Yet you're ignoring this point entirely. Why? This is NOT a Muslim problem, not in the slightest. It's a global problem. You think that an Islamic leader can simply waltz into an extremist camp and tell them their beliefs are morally abhorrent and logically flawed, not to mention blasphemous to the teachings of the Qu'ran? Do you think that 10,000 Muslims could do it? Because they couldn't. The world needs to come together as one to completely and utterly condemn them; and even then they still wouldn't listen. The Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, even Jedis if you so choose, need to stand WITH the Muslims that are denouncing the ways of these people to show that they're united in fighting terrorism in any form, and that the rest of the Muslim community should not be punished for the wrongdoings of a minority of people acting under a false guise. Your "criticism" is close-minded and frankly quite offensive given the evidence that's been countered against you." You are giving an opinion ! One with very little fact content You seem to think you are superior to others on here . Seem very pompous to me ! | |||
"Your "damn good showing of good men doing something" is very true, it is just that you are around a decade out on your dates. The lesson from the 30's has nothing to do with the actual execution of WWII (which apart from the first 4 months was in the 40's BTW) other than if good men had spoken up earlier maybe the whole sorry mess could have been avoided. The rise of National Socialism in Germany (which was pretty much for the whole of the 1930's) is very relevant to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism today. I have no hatred for any of my fellow men but anyone with open eyes should be able to see where the real hatred comes from. Do I think all Muslims are terrorists? Of course not. My real "main point" is that the good Muslims are very quiet on this issue and it's about time they stood up and were counted rather than either playing the Ostrich or being scared shitless of the nutters within their community. Why should Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists have to march in the streets? I haven't seen anyone parading with a head on a spike in the name of Buddha recently, have you? Whether you like it or not this is a Muslim problem and it needs a Muslim solution and very strong Muslim action against the Islamic thugs, and playing the racism card at the first sign of any criticism helps no-one. Yeah I was super tired and somehow thought WWII was '29-'35. Silly me. The same thing applies, though. The rise of NS in the 1930's came nowhere near to the extremes if what's going on today. It was only during the war that the real atrocities started. I'd like to think that, because of what happened then, people HAVE learnt their lesson and they ARE reacting to such worrying uprisings much quicker, there have certainly been many examples of that happening post 9/11. But you're not opening your eyes wide enough. The hatred isn't coming from the Muslims. These extremists are NOT Muslims. They're acting under the guise of Islam, but they're not Muslims. Because of their beliefs, and their acts, they aren't Muslims. It's really that simple. As for "good Muslims" being "very quiet", I know this debate isn't about Syria and Iraq, but look at the Muslims that have taken a stand against IS, particularly in the area of Mosul. They're standing up for themselves and fighting against what the perceive to be wrong. They're dying for standing up to this. Yet you're ignoring this point entirely. Why? This is NOT a Muslim problem, not in the slightest. It's a global problem. You think that an Islamic leader can simply waltz into an extremist camp and tell them their beliefs are morally abhorrent and logically flawed, not to mention blasphemous to the teachings of the Qu'ran? Do you think that 10,000 Muslims could do it? Because they couldn't. The world needs to come together as one to completely and utterly condemn them; and even then they still wouldn't listen. The Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, even Jedis if you so choose, need to stand WITH the Muslims that are denouncing the ways of these people to show that they're united in fighting terrorism in any form, and that the rest of the Muslim community should not be punished for the wrongdoings of a minority of people acting under a false guise. Your "criticism" is close-minded and frankly quite offensive given the evidence that's been countered against you." I've read lots of opinion but very little evidence, and I think that being in denial that this is an Islamic problem is more than offensive. If evidence is what you are looking for try these. 911 attacks in the US. In the name of Islam. Madrid train bombings. In the name of Islam. 7/7 bombings. In the name of Islam. Murder of Lee Rigby. In the name of Islam. Current attempt at genocide against the Yazidi and Christians in Kurdistan. In the name of Islam. Add to that in Britain much of the radicalisation of young Muslim men is taking place in the mosques. While I fully understand you wanting to defend your faith, and I also do agree that not all Muslims are terrorists. But the "not me guv" argument is long out of date and really doesn't wash any longer. | |||
"To answer the OP I'd consider myself a freedom fighter but then I wouldn't hide behind women and kids to fire missiles at the invader then whine when they fired back." Yes, Hamas do have a knack of hiding in schools, hospitals and mosques, hoping they won't be targeted there, then when they do get hit, they shout at the press and media "look at Israel bombing hospitals, schools and mosques!". Well the message should be don't store weapons in those places and don't use those buildings as hiding places. | |||
" http://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2011/jan/17/filming-british-muslims-fight-extremism " That link is from an article written over 3 years ago. Very little from the same bloke recently. | |||
"A couple of weeks ago, in Cardiff where I live, a demonstration went through the middle of the city centre on a hot Saturday- late afternoon/early evening. They went down a street full of bars and were attacked by a big gang of blokes out on the lash - throwing chairs, tables etc. apparently they were singing "Israel, Israel kill more kids" at the marchers. There's been some arrests and faces of others have been on the front page of the papers. The level of idiocy some people display astounds me sometimes. Personally, I think the situation is hugely complex and there's right and wrong on both sides. It does seem that the state of Israel has done some terrible, disproportionate things in the name of self-defence though. I've met some Israelis - I liked all but one, but they did seem to have a very "closed" view of the world and a deep sense of persecution. In fairness, events in world history may account for that, but the force with which they'd defend their country was eye-opening. We are involved btw - the UK has been a major players in many regions for hundreds of years, wielding influence and sometimes using places to its advantage. The current state of affairs is the product of hundreds of years of geo-politics. We were central in that and that gives us some degree of responsibility for sorting things." | |||
