ISIS Beheads Another Brit

[ChrisL]

You know, I keep hearing people talk about "moderate" Muslims. What is a moderate Muslim. As I see it, Islam is a violent religion. The Koran (as well as the Bible) have calls for violent acts against people who don't convert, or who use Muhammed, Jesus' or whomever "god's" name in vain, etc.

I would think that those who do not follow the words of their holy books would not really be considered a practitioner of said religion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's also possible the US hasn't needed to fight any wars since the end of WWII. Neither Korea,Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, nor Syria posed the slightest existential threat to the US, and it isn't likely IS poses one either. It seems far more likely the US nurtured IS over the past 13 months so that Obama could destroy Syria like Clinton and Bush destroyed Iraq. Eventually these chickens will come home to roost; if so, will you blame Islam or Obama, Clinton, and Bush.

Based on the US's history of messing everything up, it's far more likely ISIS just developed out of a situation the US didn't understand. It has it's convenient points for any US administration interested in keeping the people down though.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You know, I keep hearing people talk about "moderate" Muslims. What is a moderate Muslim. As I see it, Islam is a violent religion. The Koran (as well as the Bible) have calls for violent acts against people who don't convert, or who use Muhammed, Jesus' or whomever "god's" name in vain, etc.

I would think that those who do not follow the words of their holy books would not really be considered a practitioner of said religion.

As you see it isn't how it is.

You've been fed a load of rubbish for the last 13 years, sorry.

Islam manages to be quite peaceful in many areas of the world. Most of the problems appear when Muslims are being stamped on by large govt boots.

In Serbia they wanted Kosovo to be Muslimless. So the Serbs attempted ethnic cleansing/genocide there.
In Chechnya they wanted independence from a Christian country in Russia, just like plenty of other countries had gained. They got pounded.
In XinJiang in the west of China they wanted their own country and not the crazy nut job Mao or the Communists after this. They're getting pounded on right now. You can see women walking around in military style clothing and sticks, they're Han Chinese intimidating the Muslims who will probably only be the majority in the region for a few more years until the govt in Beijing has managed to get enough Han into the region.

I could go on and on and on.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Eternal war is only making the hole deeper.

Which suits the right perfectly. More war, more weapons, more spending on the military, more chances to be tough on terrorism, more chances to pacify the US people and get what the right wants.

 

[ChrisL]

You know, I keep hearing people talk about "moderate" Muslims. What is a moderate Muslim. As I see it, Islam is a violent religion. The Koran (as well as the Bible) have calls for violent acts against people who don't convert, or who use Muhammed, Jesus' or whomever "god's" name in vain, etc.

I would think that those who do not follow the words of their holy books would not really be considered a practitioner of said religion.

As you see it isn't how it is.

You've been fed a load of rubbish for the last 13 years, sorry.

Islam manages to be quite peaceful in many areas of the world. Most of the problems appear when Muslims are being stamped on by large govt boots.

In Serbia they wanted Kosovo to be Muslimless. So the Serbs attempted ethnic cleansing/genocide there.
In Chechnya they wanted independence from a Christian country in Russia, just like plenty of other countries had gained. They got pounded.
In XinJiang in the west of China they wanted their own country and not the crazy nut job Mao or the Communists after this. They're getting pounded on right now. You can see women walking around in military style clothing and sticks, they're Han Chinese intimidating the Muslims who will probably only be the majority in the region for a few more years until the govt in Beijing has managed to get enough Han into the region.

I could go on and on and on.

Sorry, but I see most areas in the world where there is a concentrated population of Muslims to have issues with violence and other things.

 

[ChrisL]

Eternal war is only making the hole deeper.

Which suits the right perfectly. More war, more weapons, more spending on the military, more chances to be tough on terrorism, more chances to pacify the US people and get what the right wants.

Oh, so now you are trying to make this a right versus left thread? Plenty of people on the left would like to wipe out terrorism too. THOSE are the people who are preventing there being any kind of peace in the world. They are the people you should be angry with. It isn't just the US that they start trouble with. They start trouble with EVERYONE. Open your eyes!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sorry, but I see most areas in the world where there is a concentrated population of Muslims to have issues with violence and other things.

Oh, and clearly you seeing something and then making a decision based ONLY on seeing something, without perhaps looking everywhere, that this is then the plain truth?

I don't think so.

Maybe when you've looked at the history, the issues, and all of the places where Muslims live, then maybe you will have a judgement that is closer to the reality.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Eternal war is only making the hole deeper.

Which suits the right perfectly. More war, more weapons, more spending on the military, more chances to be tough on terrorism, more chances to pacify the US people and get what the right wants.

Oh, so now you are trying to make this a right versus left thread? Plenty of people on the left would like to wipe out terrorism too. THOSE are the people who are preventing there being any kind of peace in the world. They are the people you should be angry with. It isn't just the US that they start trouble with. They start trouble with EVERYONE. Open your eyes!

Nope, I'm not.

However I do know that the right, far more than the left, likes to be "tough on...." things. Tough on crime. Tough on terror. It's how they present themselves, it's an easy way for people to associate themselves with a party on the right.

To be tough on stuff it's easier when you make something to be tough on.

Look at what Bush did. It's not much different to internal policies with crime, for example Louisiana making prisons a business then making sure there's enough crime for them to make money from more than enough prisoners.

This isn't about "wiping out terrorism". Terrorism exists, in most cases, because the people have been treated badly enough for them to have the need, desire or some other such thing to risk their life to do this.

You don't wipe out terrorism by invading countries, making power vacuums, disbanding the local army and police etc. You CREATE terrorism, which is exactly what Bush did. Why does he and his party need terrorism?

You tell me, it's not that difficult.

Do they start trouble? Or did trouble start with them. You made the claim, back it up. You find where Muslims started trouble. I'm not saying they didn't, I'm saying in many cases they didn't start it, it started with them.

 

[ChrisL]

Sorry, but I see most areas in the world where there is a concentrated population of Muslims to have issues with violence and other things.

Oh, and clearly you seeing something and then making a decision based ONLY on seeing something, without perhaps looking everywhere, that this is then the plain truth?

I don't think so.

Maybe when you've looked at the history, the issues, and all of the places where Muslims live, then maybe you will have a judgement that is closer to the reality.

Uh, yes. When I see something, I make a decision based upon that. I watch the world news and I also read articles online. There are terrorist attacks (by Islamic terrorists) everywhere in the world every day.

 

[ChrisL]

Eternal war is only making the hole deeper.

Which suits the right perfectly. More war, more weapons, more spending on the military, more chances to be tough on terrorism, more chances to pacify the US people and get what the right wants.

Oh, so now you are trying to make this a right versus left thread? Plenty of people on the left would like to wipe out terrorism too. THOSE are the people who are preventing there being any kind of peace in the world. They are the people you should be angry with. It isn't just the US that they start trouble with. They start trouble with EVERYONE. Open your eyes!

Nope, I'm not.

However I do know that the right, far more than the left, likes to be "tough on...." things. Tough on crime. Tough on terror. It's how they present themselves, it's an easy way for people to associate themselves with a party on the right.

To be tough on stuff it's easier when you make something to be tough on.

Look at what Bush did. It's not much different to internal policies with crime, for example Louisiana making prisons a business then making sure there's enough crime for them to make money from more than enough prisoners.

This isn't about "wiping out terrorism". Terrorism exists, in most cases, because the people have been treated badly enough for them to have the need, desire or some other such thing to risk their life to do this.

You don't wipe out terrorism by invading countries, making power vacuums, disbanding the local army and police etc. You CREATE terrorism, which is exactly what Bush did. Why does he and his party need terrorism?

You tell me, it's not that difficult.

Do they start trouble? Or did trouble start with them. You made the claim, back it up. You find where Muslims started trouble. I'm not saying they didn't, I'm saying in many cases they didn't start it, it started with them.

Lol! Yeah! It's all the right's fault that terrorism exists! Gee whiz. You seem to be truly delusional.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Uh, yes. When I see something, I make a decision based upon that. I watch the world news and I also read articles online. There are terrorist attacks (by Islamic terrorists) everywhere in the world every day.

There are. Does that mean they started it? I'm sorry I don't see the link there.

You do something therefore you started it. Isn't this what we're talking about? Starting it? Not bombing now, but what happened in the beginning to make it start.


Answer this, let's take Iraq and make Iraq the US.

So, the Canadians made the USA and gave the US a king from Cuba. They formed this out of threes different peoples who really didn't want to live in the same country.
The US people thought, sod this, and got rid of the king because he was just a puppet and they put in their own president.

Then Mexico decides that the president of the US really isn't a great president. So they invade, get rid of the police and army and basically the power vacuum is taken up by American rebels who are fighting the Mexican invader. But Mexico also invaded Columbia and some of the Columbian rebels are helping out in the US too.

Then the Mexicans complain that the US are just a bunch of terrorists and they started this whole thing.

What would you say to that? You'd say you didn't start it, right?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lol! Yeah! It's all the right's fault that terrorism exists! Gee whiz. You seem to be truly delusional.

I didn't say it was all the right's fault. I said a lot of it was the right's fault. However there's a lot of history to on here too.

Bush came in to the scene in 2001. What he did, what his party did, was to cause far more terrorism than otherwise would have existed.

Invading Iraq was a masterstroke for the HR department of Islamic extremism.

 

[georgephillip]

Eternal war is only making the hole deeper.

Which suits the right perfectly. More war, more weapons, more spending on the military, more chances to be tough on terrorism, more chances to pacify the US people and get what the right wants.

The right values privacy at least as much as the left, and it's clear "eternal war" requires massive state surveillance of all its citizens.

Ralph Nader gets this part, too:

"Say what you will about Ralph Nader — and most of you probably have — the man is tireless and persistent.

"Now 80, Nader has a new book with the triumphant title of “Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State.”

"And even if you’re not convinced that alliance is emerging, let alone unstoppable, Nader beats on, a relentless, articulate and sometimes very lonely critic of big business, media mediocrity and politicians who put corporate interests ahead of the public interest."

Ralph Nader 8220 The left is seized by fear and the right is driven by brass 8221 - Salon.com

 

[ChrisL]

Uh, yes. When I see something, I make a decision based upon that. I watch the world news and I also read articles online. There are terrorist attacks (by Islamic terrorists) everywhere in the world every day.

There are. Does that mean they started it? I'm sorry I don't see the link there.

You do something therefore you started it. Isn't this what we're talking about? Starting it? Not bombing now, but what happened in the beginning to make it start.


Answer this, let's take Iraq and make Iraq the US.

So, the Canadians made the USA and gave the US a king from Cuba. They formed this out of threes different peoples who really didn't want to live in the same country.
The US people thought, sod this, and got rid of the king because he was just a puppet and they put in their own president.

Then Mexico decides that the president of the US really isn't a great president. So they invade, get rid of the police and army and basically the power vacuum is taken up by American rebels who are fighting the Mexican invader. But Mexico also invaded Columbia and some of the Columbian rebels are helping out in the US too.

Then the Mexicans complain that the US are just a bunch of terrorists and they started this whole thing.

What would you say to that? You'd say you didn't start it, right?

Our country doesn't commit atrocities against it's own citizens. You cannot compare the US to any of those savages.

 

[ChrisL]

Lol! Yeah! It's all the right's fault that terrorism exists! Gee whiz. You seem to be truly delusional.

I didn't say it was all the right's fault. I said a lot of it was the right's fault. However there's a lot of history to on here too.

Bush came in to the scene in 2001. What he did, what his party did, was to cause far more terrorism than otherwise would have existed.

Invading Iraq was a masterstroke for the HR department of Islamic extremism.

Saddam Hussein had been a thorn in the side of the WORLD for a very long time.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Our country doesn't commit atrocities against it's own citizens. You cannot compare the US to any of those savages.

Yeah, the US has never had slavery, has never committed genocide against the Native American peoples. It doesn't execute innocent people and doesn't destroy the very land they're on to get at oil or gas and wouldn't deny people rights based on how they were born.

No, the US would never do any of those things.

But, sarcasm aside, treating others completely differently to US citizens just because they sit on top of oil, well, I'd say it kind of does make the US look like a bunch of savages. Just ones that have just enough intelligence to justify their savagery.

Back in the day, cowboys 'n' injuns and all that, the US citizens managed to justify their genocide. Trail of tears, destroying the buffalo, just hacking native american women and children to death, among many, MANY acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing committed from people like George Washington well into last century, and I could even argue it's still happening now.

But hey, go ahead and justify your savagery. I know you want to.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lol! Yeah! It's all the right's fault that terrorism exists! Gee whiz. You seem to be truly delusional.

I didn't say it was all the right's fault. I said a lot of it was the right's fault. However there's a lot of history to on here too.

Bush came in to the scene in 2001. What he did, what his party did, was to cause far more terrorism than otherwise would have existed.

Invading Iraq was a masterstroke for the HR department of Islamic extremism.

Saddam Hussein had been a thorn in the side of the WORLD for a very long time.

The world? Or just Israel, Iran, Kuwait and a few other neighbors?

The US on the other hand, well, they really have been a thorn in the side of the world for a very long time.

Russia, Korea, China, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela, I don't even think I can list most of the African nations, Iraq, Iraq, oh, should I continue?

 

[ChrisL]

Lol! Yeah! It's all the right's fault that terrorism exists! Gee whiz. You seem to be truly delusional.

I didn't say it was all the right's fault. I said a lot of it was the right's fault. However there's a lot of history to on here too.

Bush came in to the scene in 2001. What he did, what his party did, was to cause far more terrorism than otherwise would have existed.

Invading Iraq was a masterstroke for the HR department of Islamic extremism.

Saddam Hussein had been a thorn in the side of the WORLD for a very long time.

The world? Or just Israel, Iran, Kuwait and a few other neighbors?

The US on the other hand, well, they really have been a thorn in the side of the world for a very long time.

Russia, Korea, China, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela, I don't even think I can list most of the African nations, Iraq, Iraq, oh, should I continue?

Lol! Look at those countries you mentioned. ROFL. Please do continue. Please.

 

[ChrisL]

Saddam Hussein was an evil man who killed more than 20,000,000 Iraqis.

Edit: Oops, there I go, using the word "evil." I should have said a "sick" man. A very, very, very sick, sick, sick man.

 

[Hossfly]

Lol! Yeah! It's all the right's fault that terrorism exists! Gee whiz. You seem to be truly delusional.

I didn't say it was all the right's fault. I said a lot of it was the right's fault. However there's a lot of history to on here too.

Bush came in to the scene in 2001. What he did, what his party did, was to cause far more terrorism than otherwise would have existed.

Invading Iraq was a masterstroke for the HR department of Islamic extremism.

Bush merely was the one who finally put his foot down and said "Enough is enough." If his actions angered and inflamed the terrorists then so be it. In other words, the world has had enough of Islam and it's penchant for causing people to have ten thousand different intrepetations of why each bearded insane maniac thinks it's his duty to force their evil devil worship on everyone else in the world. This is not the end but the end of the beginning, as someone said. Live with it.