Is Islam, the new Nazi ?

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Is Islam, the new Nazi ?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 26 of 41 < 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 >

Stirlingsays 22 Jun 14 3.31pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2014 3.24pm Indeed, and I think this gets to the core of the problem of 'Liberal Interventionism' itself, the idea that values can be imposed on other nations, that do not have a cultural basis in that nation. The idea of liberal democracy in the west, flourished really only in the post war period. Really prior to then the concept of an 'all inclusive democracy' is more or less revisionist. The nature of democracy is a progression of conflict resolution, from violence resolution to political resolution through inclusion. Democracy has to be seen to be successful in resolving conflicts between social groups through mutual self interest and inclusion. Indeed the existence of democracy flourished in Ancient Athens, because of the battle of Samaras, in which the allied Greeks, with their first ever democratically appointed Admiral, devastated a superior Persian fleet. The recent situation in Iraq is a test for democracy, as it will need to repell the Isis and its allies, without retaliating against the Sunni population, in order to really gain a foothold in the Northern Provinces. Any force needs to become 'liberators' of those captured provinces. For Iraq to become democratic, it has to move away from the idea of being Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, Christian, to being Iraqi (something the Baathists were ironically quite successful at). I see the Shia winning with help from the Kurds and Iran.....What happens after that I have little idea....But I'll be amazed if they don't remain a democracy. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

22 Jun 14 3.31pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2014 3.24pm

Indeed, and I think this gets to the core of the problem of 'Liberal Interventionism' itself, the idea that values can be imposed on other nations, that do not have a cultural basis in that nation. The idea of liberal democracy in the west, flourished really only in the post war period. Really prior to then the concept of an 'all inclusive democracy' is more or less revisionist.

The nature of democracy is a progression of conflict resolution, from violence resolution to political resolution through inclusion. Democracy has to be seen to be successful in resolving conflicts between social groups through mutual self interest and inclusion.

Indeed the existence of democracy flourished in Ancient Athens, because of the battle of Samaras, in which the allied Greeks, with their first ever democratically appointed Admiral, devastated a superior Persian fleet.

The recent situation in Iraq is a test for democracy, as it will need to repell the Isis and its allies, without retaliating against the Sunni population, in order to really gain a foothold in the Northern Provinces. Any force needs to become 'liberators' of those captured provinces.

For Iraq to become democratic, it has to move away from the idea of being Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, Christian, to being Iraqi (something the Baathists were ironically quite successful at).

I see the Shia winning with help from the Kurds and Iran.....What happens after that I have little idea....But I'll be amazed if they don't remain a democracy.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jun 14 3.34pm
Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 3.03pm Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 2.25pm Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 1.33pm Huffington Post 24 May 2007: "25% of US Muslims under 30 support suicide bombings in some capacity. As a 26 year old American-Muslim, I am concerned about these findings. The Pew Center for Research recently released the findings of a comprehensive survey about US Muslims, entitled "Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream." The study confirms the already obvious -- that US Muslims are mostly well integrated and quite well off. There is no reason to celebrate this "discovery" because US Muslims have known this for quite some time. The focus must be on the problems discovered. 13% of US Muslims of all ages feel that there are scenarios in which suicide bombings are justified. Only 40% of all US Muslims believe that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks. US Muslims, in comparison with all Americans, favor governmental intrusion in morality almost 2 to 1. Numbers show that the Blackamerican Muslim population does not share the financial success or the social optimism of immigrant Muslims. Homosexuals are reviled. A large number of youth, almost three times as many as in pakistan, believe that there is an inherent conflict between faith and modern life." I agree that Muslims....shock shock....Have sympathy with other Muslims around the world. Attacking your own country though is a completely different ball game. Again, this isn't an answer to my observation. Why don't Americans have anything like the same level of attacks on American soil by American Muslims? You haven't got an answer. I have and it's bleeding obvious. But some on the left can't deal with it and wish to obfuscate and minimize the reality. Their ideology contributed to our mess. How many attacks on British soil in the last 5 years? How many attacks on US soil? The flaw in the analysis is trying to push every event through a simplistic and narrow left/right, I don't like multiculturalism, prism. 11/5/2009 USA Ft. Hood, TX A Muslim psychiatrist guns down thirteen unarmed soldiers while praising Allah. 12/4/2009 USA Binghamton, NY A non-Muslim Islamic studies professor is stabbed to death by a Muslim grad student in revenge for 'persecuted' Muslims. 4/14/2010 USA Marquette Park, IL After quarrelling with his wife over Islamic dress, a Muslim convert shoots his family members to 'take them back to Allah' and out of the 'world of sinners'. 4/30/2011 USA Warren, MI A 20-year-old woman is shot in the head by her stepfather for not adhering to Islamic practices. 9/11/2011 USA Waltham, MA Three Jewish men have their throats slashed . 1/15/2012 USA Houston, TX A 30-year-old Christian convert is shot to death by a devout Muslim. 2/7/2013 USA Buena Vista, NJ A Muslim targets and beheads two Christian Coptic immigrants. 3/24/2013 USA Ashtabula, OH A Muslim convert walks into a church service with a Quran and guns down his Christian father while praising Allah. 4/15/2013 USA Boston, MA Foreign-born but US resident Muslims detonate two bombs packed with ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and causing several more to lose limbs. 4/19/2013 USA Boston, MA Then, one gun down a university police officer sitting in his car. 8/4/2013 USA Richmond, CA A convert "on a mission from Allah" stabs a store clerk to death. Problem is you need to provide a context, some of those are much more likely to be psychiatric rather than Jihadist Islamist. You can find plenty of cases of tragic events in which someones religion / beliefs / undiagnosed psychiatric problems are an issue, without it being cultural. If for example you compared the number of US Christians killing other US Christians or Muslims / Gays / Jews etc you'd find a large number of cases. Just because some muslims are bad people, doesn't mean multiculturalism has failed. There are c**ts in every walk of life, and culture. Maybe three of those are specifically Islamist issues (Boston, Ft Hood and maybe Waltham), and arguably Ft Hood was during the first night of the 2003 Shock and Awe campaign. Killing 'unarmed' soldiers or those soldiers unable to fire back, is the nature of any war (consider those Iraqi soldiers blown to pieces in those first hours, by missiles they couldn't see or hear, its much the same as being unarmed). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Jun 14 3.34pm

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 3.03pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 2.25pm

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 1.33pm

Huffington Post 24 May 2007:

"25% of US Muslims under 30 support suicide bombings in some capacity. As a 26 year old American-Muslim, I am concerned about these findings.

The Pew Center for Research recently released the findings of a comprehensive survey about US Muslims, entitled "Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream." The study confirms the already obvious -- that US Muslims are mostly well integrated and quite well off. There is no reason to celebrate this "discovery" because US Muslims have known this for quite some time.

The focus must be on the problems discovered. 13% of US Muslims of all ages feel that there are scenarios in which suicide bombings are justified. Only 40% of all US Muslims believe that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks. US Muslims, in comparison with all Americans, favor governmental intrusion in morality almost 2 to 1. Numbers show that the Blackamerican Muslim population does not share the financial success or the social optimism of immigrant Muslims. Homosexuals are reviled. A large number of youth, almost three times as many as in pakistan, believe that there is an inherent conflict between faith and modern life."

I agree that Muslims....shock shock....Have sympathy with other Muslims around the world. Attacking your own country though is a completely different ball game.

Again, this isn't an answer to my observation. Why don't Americans have anything like the same level of attacks on American soil by American Muslims?

You haven't got an answer. I have and it's bleeding obvious. But some on the left can't deal with it and wish to obfuscate and minimize the reality.

Their ideology contributed to our mess.

How many attacks on British soil in the last 5 years?
How many attacks on US soil?

The flaw in the analysis is trying to push every event through a simplistic and narrow left/right, I don't like multiculturalism, prism.

11/5/2009 USA Ft. Hood, TX A Muslim psychiatrist guns down thirteen unarmed soldiers while praising Allah.

12/4/2009 USA Binghamton, NY A non-Muslim Islamic studies professor is stabbed to death by a Muslim grad student in revenge for 'persecuted' Muslims.

4/14/2010 USA Marquette Park, IL After quarrelling with his wife over Islamic dress, a Muslim convert shoots his family members to 'take them back to Allah' and out of the 'world of sinners'.

4/30/2011 USA Warren, MI A 20-year-old woman is shot in the head by her stepfather for not adhering to Islamic practices.

9/11/2011 USA Waltham, MA Three Jewish men have their throats slashed .

1/15/2012 USA Houston, TX A 30-year-old Christian convert is shot to death by a devout Muslim.

2/7/2013 USA Buena Vista, NJ A Muslim targets and beheads two Christian Coptic immigrants.

3/24/2013 USA Ashtabula, OH A Muslim convert walks into a church service with a Quran and guns down his Christian father while praising Allah.

4/15/2013 USA Boston, MA Foreign-born but US resident Muslims detonate two bombs packed with ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and causing several more to lose limbs.

4/19/2013 USA Boston, MA Then, one gun down a university police officer sitting in his car.

8/4/2013 USA Richmond, CA A convert "on a mission from Allah" stabs a store clerk to death.

Problem is you need to provide a context, some of those are much more likely to be psychiatric rather than Jihadist Islamist.

You can find plenty of cases of tragic events in which someones religion / beliefs / undiagnosed psychiatric problems are an issue, without it being cultural. If for example you compared the number of US Christians killing other US Christians or Muslims / Gays / Jews etc you'd find a large number of cases.

Just because some muslims are bad people, doesn't mean multiculturalism has failed. There are c**ts in every walk of life, and culture.

Maybe three of those are specifically Islamist issues (Boston, Ft Hood and maybe Waltham), and arguably Ft Hood was during the first night of the 2003 Shock and Awe campaign. Killing 'unarmed' soldiers or those soldiers unable to fire back, is the nature of any war (consider those Iraqi soldiers blown to pieces in those first hours, by missiles they couldn't see or hear, its much the same as being unarmed).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 22 Jun 14 3.37pm
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am Interesting. [Link] More worrying than interesting. Where does it say ISIS were formed? Iraq! Why Iraq? I'd wager it's because the country was destabilised after the invasion which was started by that well known lefty, George Bush junior. Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise. As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am) "Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise". So, in your mind, the Anfal campaign, using chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Kuwait invasion which involved the burning of one billion barrels of oil by the Iraqi Army, the violent repression of the Sh'iite uprising and the subsequent massacre of the Marsh Arabs was a form of acceptable social control? I would suggest that in Sadaam's day there was plenty of fundamentalist groups, the difference is that under the Democratic Iraq, they can stand to run the country in a democratic process and not be subjected to the tyranny experienced in his time. The fact that don't, is their doing and is not a symptom of democracy, it is a symptom of their inability to proceed in life in a civilised fashion. Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation. So you think it would be okey dokey to leave it and let Saddam continue with his whimsical murders? You think it ok to allow him to create one of the largest environmental disasters of all time? You think it ok for the people to be deprived the chance to forge their own future by voting on the people they want to run their country? This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation. So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion. Do you think it's okay for fracking companies to cause environmental disasters? I'm not saying what saddam did was ok, my point is that by invading and winning hearts and minds, we have opened a pandoras box which has resulted in the rise of extremism in this country. As for an alternative-I don't know, nor do I pretend to. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm) Should you not know what the alternative is, do you not think you run the risk of being viewed as an empty kettle? Most Iraqis are very glad Saddam is gone. However, the left ignore this and continue to peddle the limp wristed, do nothing, self righteousness of 'not in my name'. Talk to an Iraqi and ask him. Should you ever wander out of nice Chislehurst, pop in the Porter and Sorter and speak to the Kurdish guy who drinks in there. He will show you the whip marks on his arms and back he got from the Ba'ath Party for refusing national conscription and the chance to use chemical weapons on his own people. He is delighted we invaded. Has Saudi Arabia used chemical weapons on its own people or set fire to over seven hundred oil pumps? What about your comrades in China? I don't see you criticising them and they arguably have a far more repressive regime than Saudi Arabia? When has Fracking caused a disaster close to Sadaam's actions in Kuwait (sure, you will trot out the Pennslyania spill, but that is nowhere near it)? The dangers of Fracking have not been proved. Like most of your empty rhetoric, it is theory. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 22 Jun 14 3.37pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]

More worrying than interesting.
Where does it say ISIS were formed? Iraq!
Why Iraq? I'd wager it's because the country was destabilised after the invasion which was started by that well known lefty, George Bush junior.
Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise.

As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am)

"Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise".

So, in your mind, the Anfal campaign, using chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Kuwait invasion which involved the burning of one billion barrels of oil by the Iraqi Army, the violent repression of the Sh'iite uprising and the subsequent massacre of the Marsh Arabs was a form of acceptable social control?

I would suggest that in Sadaam's day there was plenty of fundamentalist groups, the difference is that under the Democratic Iraq, they can stand to run the country in a democratic process and not be subjected to the tyranny experienced in his time. The fact that don't, is their doing and is not a symptom of democracy, it is a symptom of their inability to proceed in life in a civilised fashion.

Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation.

So you think it would be okey dokey to leave it and let Saddam continue with his whimsical murders? You think it ok to allow him to create one of the largest environmental disasters of all time? You think it ok for the people to be deprived the chance to forge their own future by voting on the people they want to run their country?

This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation.

So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion.

Do you think it's okay for fracking companies to cause environmental disasters?
I'm not saying what saddam did was ok, my point is that by invading and winning hearts and minds, we have opened a pandoras box which has resulted in the rise of extremism in this country.
As for an alternative-I don't know, nor do I pretend to.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm)

Should you not know what the alternative is, do you not think you run the risk of being viewed as an empty kettle? Most Iraqis are very glad Saddam is gone. However, the left ignore this and continue to peddle the limp wristed, do nothing, self righteousness of 'not in my name'. Talk to an Iraqi and ask him. Should you ever wander out of nice Chislehurst, pop in the Porter and Sorter and speak to the Kurdish guy who drinks in there. He will show you the whip marks on his arms and back he got from the Ba'ath Party for refusing national conscription and the chance to use chemical weapons on his own people. He is delighted we invaded.

Has Saudi Arabia used chemical weapons on its own people or set fire to over seven hundred oil pumps? What about your comrades in China? I don't see you criticising them and they arguably have a far more repressive regime than Saudi Arabia? When has Fracking caused a disaster close to Sadaam's actions in Kuwait (sure, you will trot out the Pennslyania spill, but that is nowhere near it)? The dangers of Fracking have not been proved. Like most of your empty rhetoric, it is theory.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 22 Jun 14 3.42pm
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 2.57pm We haven't had an attack for a while, so by your logic, there are no extremists! You said (and I paraphrase)that there are no extremists (muslim that is-I'm sure we'd both agree that there are other extremists there)in America. My link showed that there are. As an aside to something else you said; you hate multiculturalism-does this mean you espouse a monocultural society? - perhaps the thread title should be -Is Stirling the new Nazi? We have gone through a quiet period.....Probably due to the considerable success run we have had in breaking up plots.....However, any comment from our internal security chiefs makes it very plain what the situation on the ground is like here. As for your question....Note, Nick...I'm going to answer your question. I disagree with the 'promotion' of multiculturalism as a good thing. Which for decades has been a left wing idea. I don't agree with forcing people into a monoculture. But I do agree with encouragement into British culture and values. Every immigrant who intends to stay here should be encouraged to be as British as they can be.... and their children English or Scottish, Welsh or whatever. I don't expect first generation immigrants to forget their homeland and culture....But I do expect them to assimilate and fit in. To not do this worsens an already bad situation. The children of immigrants here should definitely view themselves as apart of what British is. That encouragement would be through undertaking the same educational system, which taught the same values and identity. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 3.46pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

22 Jun 14 3.42pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 2.57pm

We haven't had an attack for a while, so by your logic, there are no extremists!
You said (and I paraphrase)that there are no extremists (muslim that is-I'm sure we'd both agree that there are other extremists there)in America. My link showed that there are.

As an aside to something else you said; you hate multiculturalism-does this mean you espouse a monocultural society? - perhaps the thread title should be -Is Stirling the new Nazi?

We have gone through a quiet period.....Probably due to the considerable success run we have had in breaking up plots.....However, any comment from our internal security chiefs makes it very plain what the situation on the ground is like here.

As for your question....Note, Nick...I'm going to answer your question. I disagree with the 'promotion' of multiculturalism as a good thing. Which for decades has been a left wing idea.

I don't agree with forcing people into a monoculture. But I do agree with encouragement into British culture and values. Every immigrant who intends to stay here should be encouraged to be as British as they can be.... and their children English or Scottish, Welsh or whatever.

I don't expect first generation immigrants to forget their homeland and culture....But I do expect them to assimilate and fit in.

To not do this worsens an already bad situation.

The children of immigrants here should definitely view themselves as apart of what British is.

That encouragement would be through undertaking the same educational system, which taught the same values and identity.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 3.46pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jun 14 3.43pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 3.31pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2014 3.24pm Indeed, and I think this gets to the core of the problem of 'Liberal Interventionism' itself, the idea that values can be imposed on other nations, that do not have a cultural basis in that nation. The idea of liberal democracy in the west, flourished really only in the post war period. Really prior to then the concept of an 'all inclusive democracy' is more or less revisionist. The nature of democracy is a progression of conflict resolution, from violence resolution to political resolution through inclusion. Democracy has to be seen to be successful in resolving conflicts between social groups through mutual self interest and inclusion. Indeed the existence of democracy flourished in Ancient Athens, because of the battle of Samaras, in which the allied Greeks, with their first ever democratically appointed Admiral, devastated a superior Persian fleet. The recent situation in Iraq is a test for democracy, as it will need to repell the Isis and its allies, without retaliating against the Sunni population, in order to really gain a foothold in the Northern Provinces. Any force needs to become 'liberators' of those captured provinces. For Iraq to become democratic, it has to move away from the idea of being Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, Christian, to being Iraqi (something the Baathists were ironically quite successful at). I see the Shia winning with help from the Kurds and Iran.....What happens after that I have little idea....But I'll be amazed if they don't remain a democracy. It depends on how one defines democracy. They'll still have elections, votes etc, but as long as those elections and policies are drawn along sectarianism, its not really a democracy. Iran has elections, doesn't make it democratic. Help from Iran, is essentially a disaster waiting to happen. Its like deciding on supporting oppression by Shiite rather than oppression by Sunni. Ironically, now that Al-Queda is actually a threat in Iraq, the US aren't sending troops and forces (another discussion really). A democracy is really only truly a democracy once it begins to represent the rights and interests of those who disagree (rather than say murder them or imprison them). Or rather maybe the rights of its citizens regardless of who they support. Iraq is really a democratic tyranny. Of course that's pretty much true of all fledgling democracies. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Jun 14 3.43pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 3.31pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2014 3.24pm

For Iraq to become democratic, it has to move away from the idea of being Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, Christian, to being Iraqi (something the Baathists were ironically quite successful at).

I see the Shia winning with help from the Kurds and Iran.....What happens after that I have little idea....But I'll be amazed if they don't remain a democracy.

It depends on how one defines democracy. They'll still have elections, votes etc, but as long as those elections and policies are drawn along sectarianism, its not really a democracy. Iran has elections, doesn't make it democratic. Help from Iran, is essentially a disaster waiting to happen. Its like deciding on supporting oppression by Shiite rather than oppression by Sunni.

Ironically, now that Al-Queda is actually a threat in Iraq, the US aren't sending troops and forces (another discussion really).

A democracy is really only truly a democracy once it begins to represent the rights and interests of those who disagree (rather than say murder them or imprison them). Or rather maybe the rights of its citizens regardless of who they support.

Iraq is really a democratic tyranny. Of course that's pretty much true of all fledgling democracies.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jun 14 3.45pm
Extremist isn't the same as Militant. If it was, we'd have arrested the likes of Ian Paisley decades ago. Some hate speech is always tolerated more than others. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Jun 14 3.45pm

Extremist isn't the same as Militant. If it was, we'd have arrested the likes of Ian Paisley decades ago. Some hate speech is always tolerated more than others.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jun 14 3.48pm
Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 3.37pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am Interesting. [Link] More worrying than interesting. Where does it say ISIS were formed? Iraq! Why Iraq? I'd wager it's because the country was destabilised after the invasion which was started by that well known lefty, George Bush junior. Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise. As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am) "Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise". So, in your mind, the Anfal campaign, using chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Kuwait invasion which involved the burning of one billion barrels of oil by the Iraqi Army, the violent repression of the Sh'iite uprising and the subsequent massacre of the Marsh Arabs was a form of acceptable social control? I would suggest that in Sadaam's day there was plenty of fundamentalist groups, the difference is that under the Democratic Iraq, they can stand to run the country in a democratic process and not be subjected to the tyranny experienced in his time. The fact that don't, is their doing and is not a symptom of democracy, it is a symptom of their inability to proceed in life in a civilised fashion. Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation. So you think it would be okey dokey to leave it and let Saddam continue with his whimsical murders? You think it ok to allow him to create one of the largest environmental disasters of all time? You think it ok for the people to be deprived the chance to forge their own future by voting on the people they want to run their country? This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation. So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion. Do you think it's okay for fracking companies to cause environmental disasters? I'm not saying what saddam did was ok, my point is that by invading and winning hearts and minds, we have opened a pandoras box which has resulted in the rise of extremism in this country. As for an alternative-I don't know, nor do I pretend to. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm) Should you not know what the alternative is, do you not think you run the risk of being viewed as an empty kettle? Most Iraqis are very glad Saddam is gone. However, the left ignore this and continue to peddle the limp wristed, do nothing, self righteousness of 'not in my name'. Talk to an Iraqi and ask him. Should you ever wander out of nice Chislehurst, pop in the Porter and Sorter and speak to the Kurdish guy who drinks in there. He will show you the whip marks on his arms and back he got from the Ba'ath Party for refusing national conscription and the chance to use chemical weapons on his own people. He is delighted we invaded. Has Saudi Arabia used chemical weapons on its own people or set fire to over seven hundred oil pumps? What about your comrades in China? I don't see you criticising them and they arguably have a far more repressive regime than Saudi Arabia? When has Fracking caused a disaster close to Sadaam's actions in Kuwait (sure, you will trot out the Pennslyania spill, but that is nowhere near it)? The dangers of Fracking have not been proved. Like most of your empty rhetoric, it is theory. Debatable, China isn't reknown for oppressing people who follow its rules - You can experience a degree of freedom provided you don't speak out. Where as in Saudi having the wrong genitals means being repressed. Its like misery poker though, comparing very repressive regions on a sliding scale is a pointless endeavour. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Jun 14 3.48pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 3.37pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]

As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am)

"Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise".

Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation.

This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation.

So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm)

Has Saudi Arabia used chemical weapons on its own people or set fire to over seven hundred oil pumps? What about your comrades in China? I don't see you criticising them and they arguably have a far more repressive regime than Saudi Arabia? When has Fracking caused a disaster close to Sadaam's actions in Kuwait (sure, you will trot out the Pennslyania spill, but that is nowhere near it)? The dangers of Fracking have not been proved. Like most of your empty rhetoric, it is theory.

Debatable, China isn't reknown for oppressing people who follow its rules - You can experience a degree of freedom provided you don't speak out. Where as in Saudi having the wrong genitals means being repressed.

Its like misery poker though, comparing very repressive regions on a sliding scale is a pointless endeavour.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 3.49pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 3.42pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 2.57pm We haven't had an attack for a while, so by your logic, there are no extremists! You said (and I paraphrase)that there are no extremists (muslim that is-I'm sure we'd both agree that there are other extremists there)in America. My link showed that there are. As an aside to something else you said; you hate multiculturalism-does this mean you espouse a monocultural society? - perhaps the thread title should be -Is Stirling the new Nazi? We have gone through a quiet period.....Probably due to the considerable success run we have had in breaking up plots.....However, any comment from our internal security chiefs makes it very plain what the situation on the ground is like here. As for your question....Note, Nick...I'm going to answer your question. I disagree with the 'promotion' of multiculturalism as a good thing. Which for decades as been a left wing idea. I don't agree with forcing people into a monoculture. But I do agree with encouragement into British culture and values. Every immigrant who intends to stay here should be encouraged to be as British as they can be.... and their children English or Scottish, Welsh or whatever. I don't expect first generation immigrants to forget their homeland and culture....But I do expect them to assimilate and fit in. To not do this worsens an already bad situation. The children of immigrants here should definitely view themselves as apart of what British is. That encouragement would be through undertaking the same educational system, which taught the same values and identity. To do this, you need to make people feel part of our culture. I'd argue that the creeping islamophobia in our society actually has the opposite effect. Have you considered that American security security services have done a better job protecting their homeland from muslim attacks. (they could do a better job protecting citizens from school shootings mind)
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 3.49pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 3.42pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 2.57pm

As an aside to something else you said; you hate multiculturalism-does this mean you espouse a monocultural society? - perhaps the thread title should be -Is Stirling the new Nazi?

As for your question....Note, Nick...I'm going to answer your question. I disagree with the 'promotion' of multiculturalism as a good thing. Which for decades as been a left wing idea.

I don't expect first generation immigrants to forget their homeland and culture....But I do expect them to assimilate and fit in.

To not do this worsens an already bad situation.

To do this, you need to make people feel part of our culture. I'd argue that the creeping islamophobia in our society actually has the opposite effect.
Have you considered that American security security services have done a better job protecting their homeland from muslim attacks. (they could do a better job protecting citizens from school shootings mind)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 22 Jun 14 3.50pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2014 3.43pm It depends on how one defines democracy. They'll still have elections, votes etc, but as long as those elections and policies are drawn along sectarianism, its not really a democracy. Iran has elections, doesn't make it democratic. Help from Iran, is essentially a disaster waiting to happen. Its like deciding on supporting oppression by Shiite rather than oppression by Sunni. Ironically, now that Al-Queda is actually a threat in Iraq, the US aren't sending troops and forces (another discussion really). A democracy is really only truly a democracy once it begins to represent the rights and interests of those who disagree (rather than say murder them or imprison them). Or rather maybe the rights of its citizens regardless of who they support. Iraq is really a democratic tyranny. Of course that's pretty much true of all fledgling democracies. Spot on of course and all true.....I have my fingers crossed for them I really do. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

22 Jun 14 3.50pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2014 3.43pm

Ironically, now that Al-Queda is actually a threat in Iraq, the US aren't sending troops and forces (another discussion really).

Iraq is really a democratic tyranny. Of course that's pretty much true of all fledgling democracies.

Spot on of course and all true.....I have my fingers crossed for them I really do.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 3.54pm
Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 3.37pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am Interesting. [Link] More worrying than interesting. Where does it say ISIS were formed? Iraq! Why Iraq? I'd wager it's because the country was destabilised after the invasion which was started by that well known lefty, George Bush junior. Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise. As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am) "Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise". So, in your mind, the Anfal campaign, using chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Kuwait invasion which involved the burning of one billion barrels of oil by the Iraqi Army, the violent repression of the Sh'iite uprising and the subsequent massacre of the Marsh Arabs was a form of acceptable social control? I would suggest that in Sadaam's day there was plenty of fundamentalist groups, the difference is that under the Democratic Iraq, they can stand to run the country in a democratic process and not be subjected to the tyranny experienced in his time. The fact that don't, is their doing and is not a symptom of democracy, it is a symptom of their inability to proceed in life in a civilised fashion. Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation. So you think it would be okey dokey to leave it and let Saddam continue with his whimsical murders? You think it ok to allow him to create one of the largest environmental disasters of all time? You think it ok for the people to be deprived the chance to forge their own future by voting on the people they want to run their country? This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation. So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion. Do you think it's okay for fracking companies to cause environmental disasters? I'm not saying what saddam did was ok, my point is that by invading and winning hearts and minds, we have opened a pandoras box which has resulted in the rise of extremism in this country. As for an alternative-I don't know, nor do I pretend to. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm) Should you not know what the alternative is, do you not think you run the risk of being viewed as an empty kettle? Most Iraqis are very glad Saddam is gone. However, the left ignore this and continue to peddle the limp wristed, do nothing, self righteousness of 'not in my name'. Talk to an Iraqi and ask him. Should you ever wander out of nice Chislehurst, pop in the Porter and Sorter and speak to the Kurdish guy who drinks in there. He will show you the whip marks on his arms and back he got from the Ba'ath Party for refusing national conscription and the chance to use chemical weapons on his own people. He is delighted we invaded. Has Saudi Arabia used chemical weapons on its own people or set fire to over seven hundred oil pumps? What about your comrades in China? I don't see you criticising them and they arguably have a far more repressive regime than Saudi Arabia? When has Fracking caused a disaster close to Sadaam's actions in Kuwait (sure, you will trot out the Pennslyania spill, but that is nowhere near it)? The dangers of Fracking have not been proved. Like most of your empty rhetoric, it is theory. No one is saying that their aren't those that are pleased Saddam was overthrown, I've met a few myself. That's not my argument though. My argument is that the invasion of Iraq by the West, under false pretence of WMD's, has exacerbated the problem of terrorism from muslim extremists in the West. Are you contesting that it hasn't? P. S. I see you are confusing personal opinion with self righteous again. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.57pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 3.54pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 3.37pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]

As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am)

"Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise".

Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation.

This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation.

So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm)

No one is saying that their aren't those that are pleased Saddam was overthrown, I've met a few myself. That's not my argument though. My argument is that the invasion of Iraq by the West, under false pretence of WMD's, has exacerbated the problem of terrorism from muslim extremists in the West. Are you contesting that it hasn't?
P. S. I see you are confusing personal opinion with self righteous again.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.57pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 22 Jun 14 3.56pm
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.49pm To do this, you need to make people feel part of our culture. I'd argue that the creeping islamophobia in our society actually has the opposite effect. Have you considered that American security security services have done a better job protecting their homeland from muslim attacks. (they could do a better job protecting citizens from school shootings mind) In America I mainly put it down to the success of their integration of cultures into what being an 'American' is.....I think that has a massive affect and it is what I'm referring to really....Maybe too aggressively at time. As for the US internal security.....I'd be surprised if they were any better than most....A mixture of excellent and incompetent.....Mind you...I don't know how much money they throw at it to be fair....Maybe they are very good but it's kept quiet. Outside of the elite army units of the US army....I don't have much faith in the US machine in that sense. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 3.56pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

22 Jun 14 3.56pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.49pm

In America I mainly put it down to the success of their integration of cultures into what being an 'American' is.....I think that has a massive affect and it is what I'm referring to really....Maybe too aggressively at time.

As for the US internal security.....I'd be surprised if they were any better than most....A mixture of excellent and incompetent.....Mind you...I don't know how much money they throw at it to be fair....Maybe they are very good but it's kept quiet.

Outside of the elite army units of the US army....I don't have much faith in the US machine in that sense.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 3.56pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 22 Jun 14 3.57pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2014 3.34pm Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 3.03pm Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 2.25pm Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 1.33pm Huffington Post 24 May 2007: "25% of US Muslims under 30 support suicide bombings in some capacity. As a 26 year old American-Muslim, I am concerned about these findings. The Pew Center for Research recently released the findings of a comprehensive survey about US Muslims, entitled "Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream." The study confirms the already obvious -- that US Muslims are mostly well integrated and quite well off. There is no reason to celebrate this "discovery" because US Muslims have known this for quite some time. The focus must be on the problems discovered. 13% of US Muslims of all ages feel that there are scenarios in which suicide bombings are justified. Only 40% of all US Muslims believe that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks. US Muslims, in comparison with all Americans, favor governmental intrusion in morality almost 2 to 1. Numbers show that the Blackamerican Muslim population does not share the financial success or the social optimism of immigrant Muslims. Homosexuals are reviled. A large number of youth, almost three times as many as in pakistan, believe that there is an inherent conflict between faith and modern life." I agree that Muslims....shock shock....Have sympathy with other Muslims around the world. Attacking your own country though is a completely different ball game. Again, this isn't an answer to my observation. Why don't Americans have anything like the same level of attacks on American soil by American Muslims? You haven't got an answer. I have and it's bleeding obvious. But some on the left can't deal with it and wish to obfuscate and minimize the reality. Their ideology contributed to our mess. How many attacks on British soil in the last 5 years? How many attacks on US soil? The flaw in the analysis is trying to push every event through a simplistic and narrow left/right, I don't like multiculturalism, prism. 11/5/2009 USA Ft. Hood, TX A Muslim psychiatrist guns down thirteen unarmed soldiers while praising Allah. 12/4/2009 USA Binghamton, NY A non-Muslim Islamic studies professor is stabbed to death by a Muslim grad student in revenge for 'persecuted' Muslims. 4/14/2010 USA Marquette Park, IL After quarrelling with his wife over Islamic dress, a Muslim convert shoots his family members to 'take them back to Allah' and out of the 'world of sinners'. 4/30/2011 USA Warren, MI A 20-year-old woman is shot in the head by her stepfather for not adhering to Islamic practices. 9/11/2011 USA Waltham, MA Three Jewish men have their throats slashed . 1/15/2012 USA Houston, TX A 30-year-old Christian convert is shot to death by a devout Muslim. 2/7/2013 USA Buena Vista, NJ A Muslim targets and beheads two Christian Coptic immigrants. 3/24/2013 USA Ashtabula, OH A Muslim convert walks into a church service with a Quran and guns down his Christian father while praising Allah. 4/15/2013 USA Boston, MA Foreign-born but US resident Muslims detonate two bombs packed with ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and causing several more to lose limbs. 4/19/2013 USA Boston, MA Then, one gun down a university police officer sitting in his car. 8/4/2013 USA Richmond, CA A convert "on a mission from Allah" stabs a store clerk to death. Problem is you need to provide a context, some of those are much more likely to be psychiatric rather than Jihadist Islamist. You can find plenty of cases of tragic events in which someones religion / beliefs / undiagnosed psychiatric problems are an issue, without it being cultural. If for example you compared the number of US Christians killing other US Christians or Muslims / Gays / Jews etc you'd find a large number of cases. Just because some muslims are bad people, doesn't mean multiculturalism has failed. There are c**ts in every walk of life, and culture. Maybe three of those are specifically Islamist issues (Boston, Ft Hood and maybe Waltham), and arguably Ft Hood was during the first night of the 2003 Shock and Awe campaign. Killing 'unarmed' soldiers or those soldiers unable to fire back, is the nature of any war (consider those Iraqi soldiers blown to pieces in those first hours, by missiles they couldn't see or hear, its much the same as being unarmed). Agreed. context is important as is how we define "jihadist". But, in terms of the argument I was responding to, I think the underlying point is valid in terms of what that Poster was arguing.
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

22 Jun 14 3.57pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2014 3.34pm