Attack outside UK Houses Of Parliament — No speculation — Read 1st post

Snake Plisken

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody is trying to exonerate, or diminish what he did. Stop with the wilful misinterpretation.

If it turns out that his problem was more to do with the 'guidance of British culture' (highly likely imo) and a disaffection from it, then ranting and outrage about ISIL is a bit redundant.

So it's the Britis/Western culture that's at fault lol! you people are getting desperate to move the blame away from Islam!

FrancieBrady

Snake Plisken wrote: »

So it's the Britis/Western culture that's at fault lol! you people are getting desperate to move the blame away from Islam!

Aren't you one of those who is going on about 'integration' and the lack there of?
When the mob starts baying 'it's them Muslims' again it doesn't really help the old integration melarky.:rolleyes:

Snake Plisken

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Aren't you one of those who is going on about 'integration' and the lack there of?
When the mob starts baying 'it's them Muslims' again it doesn't really help the old integration melarky.:rolleyes:

This same individual made one of his daughters convert to Islam and wear a burka so much for free will! Integration was never high on this scumbag's list of priorities

Widdershins

ilkhanid wrote: »

Please yourself.



Yes, and then you somehow chart a path from western actions to these atrocities. I repeat, How did Western bombings "make" Jihadis murder Shias or Yazidis? Jihadis were murdering Westerners (and not just British, Americans and French-the guilty ones, apparently) well before 9/11. In 1997, at the Valley of the Kings, they killed Germans, Colombians and Japanese tourists. What crime did the Japanese government commit for their citizens to deserve this?



There is no nuance there, Your point is simplistic. Their propaganda only has traction with those who are already inclined that way. Do you imagine that it has any effect on Shias or other Muslims who are victims of the Jihadis? It doesn't. Jihadis murder Muslim people by the hundred yet, you imagine ordinary Muslims are impressed by their spiel that it's the fault of the West that they are dying.
The fact is, these justifications, excuses, special pleadings melt away like the dew when put under scrutiny. We have twisted people who seem to think that they belong to some imagined community and are avenging acts half a world away, when these acts have nothing to do with them, their community, their country of origin or the country in which they live.
We have people whinging about discrimination when others suffer far more than they do. I rember well an interview with a Congolese immigrant in Brussels in the wake of the murders there. He had nothing but contempt for the local radicalised Muslims. To paraphrase, he said that they had no notion of what it meant to be discriminated against, that young black men were continually stopped, harassed and searched by the gendarmes looking for drugs. He ended by saying that Black Belgians didn't use their frustrations as an excuse for mass murder.

Good points, well made. I'm afraid all of it is ''irrelevant'' and only civilian casualties of western air strikes, regardless of isis using them as a human shield, are deemed relevant in assessing the case of jihadism.

Snake Plisken wrote: »

This same individual made one of his daughters convert to Islam and wear a burka so much for free will! Integration was never high on this scumbag's list of priorities

He took to Islam with a heart and a half then.

FrancieBrady

Snake Plisken wrote: »

This same individual made one of his daughters convert to Islam and wear a burka so much for free will! Integration was never high on this scumbag's list of priorities

Now ask yourself why a man with a pronounced history of violence sought out radical Islam.
I have all sorts of questions as to why he was so indiscrimately and inherently violent first and I guarantee it was because he was disaffected from the culture into which he was born.
Is it not clear that the Hen came before the Egg here?

Widdershins

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Now ask yourself why a man with a pronounced history of violence sought out radical Islam.
I have all sorts of questions as to why he was so indiscrimately and inherently violent first and I guarantee it was because he was disaffected from the culture into which he was born.
Is it not clear that the Hen came before the Egg here?

because it was the perfect fit for his personality? Or rather his definition of islam was, and that's not to say he was any less correct than the most peaceful of muslims! Islamic text is riddled with things to support either viewpoint.

Are you referring to the culture in Kent Or Britain? Most people born in Britain are perfectly functional, non violent individuals, happy to have a moan when the are disgruntled. It is a lot more supportive a culture than many others around the world.

Professor Moriarty

ilkhanid wrote: »

Then why is it only certain murders that cause radicalisation, and only certain Muslims that are radicalised? I make the point yet again. Jihadis have murdered North African people in multiples of any numbers caused by Western intervention, but you seem to think that these don't count. Apparently somebody is killed by some,say, French action (and by the way, you have yet to state what these terrible Western actions in North africa are) and according to you it's natural for people to be radicalised. Yet these same people see their neighbours butchered by Jihadis, tourists that provide their livelihood murdered, bombs go off in their streets, cultural relics dating back to medieval times torn down to the ground, their religious practises denounced as being archaic, pagan, superstitious, heretical, musicians beaten, industrial installations sabotaged, priceless manuscripts burnt.....and yet these actions produce no consequence in the minds of the people of these countries. They also see their own authorities co-operate with the French against the Jihadis, and if I recall correctly,when French troops entered Mali in 2013 to fight the Jihadis, they were welcomed by ordinary people. "But, never mind those irrelevant incidents, it's the French we need to kill".
And to repeat yet again an old point: Why are we seeing no Shia mass-murders if this reaction is so natural? Shias often have gripes with the West, their mother country (in the religious sense) Iran, is often in a state of confrontation with the USA, Shia militias fought a long, bitter struggle with American and British troops in Iraq.



What aspect of British culture provides a model for mowing down people and then attacking the police in a suicidal assault? His actions previous to this were standard British (same as Irish or anywhere really) thuggery and small-scale criminality. But after he converted his actions conformed to a model we've in other countries. Unless you believe that his actions and his conversion are just coincidental and that Derek Bird was his model and not Jihadism....and I'll wager that when his communications, Web history, reading are investigated, I'll be proved right.

Don't you read the newspapers??? Here is an example from just last week. Dunno who you're quoting about killing French people but it sounds like mad stuff. No offence, but yet again your post is just repetition with a few strange assumptions thrown in.

ilkhanid

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Don't you read the newspapers??? Here is an example from just last week.

Yes, I saw that. I also saw the statistic that "The US has conducted nearly 3,000 airstrikes against Isis targets in northern Syria, with thousands more in Iraq in support of national forces" which would indicate that until the recent Trump-led loosening of engagement rules (with which I strongly disgree), the rate of civilian deaths was probably as low as intelligence could make it and hardly the bloodthirsty,indiscriminate campaign of massacre and butchery that IS are characterising it as. This is a campaign where US forces are fighting alongside Muslim allies;The Baghdad government and Kurdish and other forces. This isn't some "Kill em' all" rampage. Even before the Trump loosening, you'd have been complaining too about Obama....but suddenly it appears he wasn't as bad after all.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Dunno who you're quoting about killing French people but it sounds like mad stuff. No offence, but yet again your post is just repetition with a few strange assumptions thrown in.

This is your quotation.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm afraid the only charting is being done in your own head. So the deaths of innocent North African women and children by western bombing doesn't contribute to the radicalisation of people in those countries? Ok,

Professor Moriarty

ilkhanid wrote: »

This is your quotation.

What? What are you talking about?

FrancieBrady

Widdershins wrote: »

because it was the perfect fit for his personality? Or rather his definition of islam was, and that's not to say he was any less correct than the most peaceful of muslims! Islamic text is riddled with things to support either viewpoint.

Are you referring to the culture in Kent Or Britain? Most people born in Britain are perfectly functional, non violent individuals, happy to have a moan when the are disgruntled. It is a lot more supportive a culture than many others around the world.

'Most of...but clearly, not all.

ilkhanid

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What? What are you talking about?

THIS IS YOUR QUOTATION! Put your glasses on


Originally Posted by Professor Moriarty
"I'm afraid the only charting is being done in your own head. So the deaths of innocent North African women and children by western bombing doesn't contribute to the radicalisation of people in those countries? Ok,"

Professor Moriarty

ilkhanid wrote: »

THIS IS YOUR QUOTATION! Put your glasses on


Originally Posted by Professor Moriarty
"I'm afraid the only charting is being done in your own head. So the deaths of innocent North African women and children by western bombing doesn't contribute to the radicalisation of people in those countries? Ok,"

Yes, that's from a post of mine. Your point is?

Widdershins

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Most of...but clearly, not all.

It's not clear at all. It's your opinion. Simply because there is an official version and natural cynicism is in overdrive, you're looking for anything but the official conclusion, despite no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Would disaffection as you suspect he suffered from, also cause him to make his daughter convert to islam and wear a burqa, as has been recently reported?

Whereas mass murder isn't typical of people who are in some way discontent, and those people have supports and plenty of other channels they can go through for redress in Britain, jihadism has existed since Islam began. You don't have any grounds to refute his allegiance to Isil, do you?

ilkhanid

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes, that's from a post of mine. Your point is?

So on the one hand we have...
Originally Posted by Professor Moriarty
"So the deaths of innocent North African women and children by western bombing doesn't contribute to the radicalisation of people in those countries"?

And then

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Dunno who you're quoting about killing French people......

I'm beginning to see what Widdershins was going on about......

Widdershins wrote: »

I have been quoting you almost verbatim throughout, do I need to press the Quote button in order for you to recognise what you yourself typed? You could also re-read your own comments that I am referring to, since they're not that far back in the thread.
I'm suspecting a bit of almost trollish self amusement about this now.

Professor Moriarty

ilkhanid wrote: »

So on the one hand we have...
Originally Posted by Professor Moriarty
"So the deaths of innocent North African women and children by western bombing doesn't contribute to the radicalisation of people in those countries"?

And then


I'm beginning to see what Widdershins was going on about......

I fail to see the connection between the two posts. Can you elaborate?

FrancieBrady

Widdershins wrote: »

It's not clear at all. It's your opinion. Simply because there is an official version and natural cynicism is in overdrive, you're looking for anything but the official conclusion, despite no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Would disaffection as you suspect he suffered from, also cause him to make his daughter convert to islam and wear a burqa, as has been recently reported?

Whereas mass murder isn't typical of people who are in some way discontent, and those people have supports and plenty of other channels they can go through for redress in Britain, jihadism has existed since Islam began. You don't have any grounds to refute his allegiance to Isil, do you?

Clearly, not all people in Britain are 'perfectly functional, non violent individuals',

These rampages happen periodically - Dunblane, Hungerford, Cumbria, action against ISIL will not make them go away.

Driving a further wedge between the Muslim community and the natural British one won't help either.

ilkhanid

You were the one who brought up North Africa, and then acted bewildered when I ran with it.

You were lumping the French in with everbody else. Despite the fact that the French opposed the inasion of Iraq, they are targets too.

Depp

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Clearly, not all people in Britain are 'perfectly functional, non violent individuals',

These rampages happen periodically - Dunblane, Hungerford, Cumbria, action against ISIL will not make them go away.

Driving a further wedge between the Muslim community and the natural British one won't help either.

so what you're saying here is mass murder is a fact of life anyway we should leave isis alone?!?!? sorry but thats categorically wrong

FrancieBrady

Depp wrote: »

so what you're saying here is mass murder is a fact of life anyway we should leave isis alone?!?!? sorry but thats categorically wrong

Where did I say, leave ISIL alone?
You need to calm down there and stop making things up.

Far as I know there are more Muslims than anyone else fighting ISIL. Britain should be concentrating on their own people and trying to solve the integration problems spoken of by you guys.
You don't need state of the art jets, carriers and weapons for that.

Depp

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where did I say, leave ISIL alone?
You need to calm down there and stop making things up.

Far as I know there are more Muslims than anyone else fighting ISIL. Britain should be concentrating on their own people and trying to solve the integration problems spoken of by you guys.
You don't need state of the art jets, carriers and weapons for that.

My apologies I misunderstood where you said;

FrancieBrady wrote: »

action against ISIL will not make them go away.

You're correct the vast majority of forces fighting isis are iraqis and syrians. Dont agree that they should be left at it as unfortunately the iraqi and syrian forces are relatively poorly equipped and trained, personally I think the air campaign should be stopped and replaced with boots on the ground fighting alongside these guys. Re the integration concern integration is actually very good among 90% of more moderate muslims, the problem is slightly more radical followers of the faith who refuse to integrate, and in my opinion this is then blown hugely out of proportion by certain elements of the right. Its next to impossible to make someone integrate when they refuse to. Also believe this is not a problem intervention from non muslims can fix effectively it will have to come from reformists muslims within the faith. The government trying to force them to integrate will only make the problem worse.

Widdershins

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Clearly, not all people in Britain are 'perfectly functional, non violent individuals',

These rampages happen periodically - Dunblane, Hungerford, Cumbria, action against ISIL will not make them go away.

Driving a further wedge between the Muslim community and the natural British one won't help either.

Generally, they are. In terms of ''disaffection'' which you keep talking about, anyway. Killing sprees are rare, and there's no real connection between them, so they're just not an appropriate comparison.

Well no it would not help so it's just as well nobody's doing that.

Professor Moriarty

ilkhanid wrote: »

You were the one who brought up North Africa, and then acted bewildered when I ran with it.

You were lumping the French in with everbody else. Despite the fact that the French opposed the inasion of Iraq, they are targets too.

I didn't act nor was I bewildered.

Regarding "lumping the French in with everbody else". Without even mentioning Algeria, three facts:

French planes bombed Syria and Iraq last year.
French troops, ships and planes were involved in the Gulf War.
French planes bombed Libya in 2011.

If we pretend that Syria, Iraq and Libya don't exist, you're right, I shouldn't be "lumping the French in with everbody else".

FrancieBrady

Widdershins wrote: »

Generally, they are. In terms of ''disaffection'' which you keep talking about, anyway. Killing sprees are rare, and there's no real connection between them, so they're just not an appropriate comparison.

Well no it would not help so it's just as well nobody's doing that.

Ooooookkkk.

Carry on.

Depp

absolutely dead on, well worth a watch!

Professor Moriarty

Depp wrote: »

absolutely dead on, well worth a watch!

Very interesting person. From his Wiki page:

Born in Southend-on-Sea, Essex to a British Pakistani family, Nawaz is a former member of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. This association led to his arrest in Egypt in December 2001, where he remained imprisoned until 2006. Reading books on human rights and interacting with Amnesty International, which adopted him as a prisoner of conscience, resulted in a change of heart. This led Nawaz to leave Hizb-ut-Tahrir in 2007, renounce his Islamist past and call for a "Secular Islam".

Depp

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Very interesting person. From his Wiki page:

Born in Southend-on-Sea, Essex to a British Pakistani family, Nawaz is a former member of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. This association led to his arrest in Egypt in December 2001, where he remained imprisoned until 2006. Reading books on human rights and interacting with Amnesty International, which adopted him as a prisoner of conscience, resulted in a change of heart. This led Nawaz to leave Hizb-ut-Tahrir in 2007, renounce his Islamist past and call for a "Secular Islam".

Very interesting guy alright and I'm a big fan of his, his analysis and ideas for islam are spot on imo its a pity more people arent aware of him!

Another interesting video from the same channel, know katie hopkins is a highly divisive figure but the muslim guy who calls in raises some very good points

donkeykong5

Depp wrote: »

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Very interesting person. From his Wiki page:

Born in Southend-on-Sea, Essex to a British Pakistani family, Nawaz is a former member of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. This association led to his arrest in Egypt in December 2001, where he remained imprisoned until 2006. Reading books on human rights and interacting with Amnesty International, which adopted him as a prisoner of conscience, resulted in a change of heart. This led Nawaz to leave Hizb-ut-Tahrir in 2007, renounce his Islamist past and call for a "Secular Islam".

Very interesting guy alright and I'm a big fan of his, his analysis and ideas for islam are spot on imo its a pity more people arent aware of him!

Another interesting video from the same channel, know katie hopkins is a highly divisive figure but the muslim guy who calls in raises some very good points

Very interesting and informative.

Widdershins

Majid seems to get regular threats. They are creepily focused on his eyes :O

He used to be into Hip Hop, you can see it in his gestures when he talks Sensible man, though. He participated in a few debates with Aayan Hirsi Ali.

Boom_Bap

MOD NOD
This thread haspretty much stopped discussing the topic and has moved on to a discussion of religion, immigration and every other terror incident in history.

Back onto the topic of the incident in London please.

ilkhanid

Depp wrote: »

You're correct the vast majority of forces fighting isis are iraqis and syrians. Dont agree that they should be left at it as unfortunately the iraqi and syrian forces are relatively poorly equipped and trained...

And lacking in morale and poorly officered. The fact is the Iraqi army a few years ago was a disaster. They outnumbered IS by several multiples yet they legged it when IS attacked. Right now, they need American advisors and special forces as the hard edge of the sword. Without Americans they would take two years to capture Mosul. And the same process operates for the Syrians and the Russians. The real battle-hardened, effective soldiery on the Muslim side are the Kurds....but they can't officer the Iraqi or Syrians for obvious reasons.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I didn't act nor was I bewildered.
Regarding "lumping the French in with everbody else". Without even mentioning Algeria, three facts:
French planes bombed Syria and Iraq last year..

To be precise. French planes bombed Islamic State in Syria and Iraq last year and I have no problem with that nor should anybody. More power to them.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

French troops, ships and planes were involved in the Gulf War.

If you are referring to the First Gulf war then it's far back ye're going. In any case, that was a perfectly legitimate endeavour,in which France had Muslim allies. I doubt many of the current crop of Jihadis were even born then, and care less about it. It's the Bush/Blair War that counts and the French kept out of that...not that they get much gratitude for it.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

French planes bombed Libya in 2011.

Yes, they did. The jihadis should be grateful for that, they were no friends of Ghadaffi and quickly took advantage of it, to (temporarily) establish a base in the country. The French air attacks were directed at command centres, air bases, tanks, artillery and ammunition dumps, not civilians.

As for Algeria, so? There's been a lot of water under the bridge since the French were there.