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

Widdershins

Scaremongering.

FrancieBrady

Depp wrote: »

Yeah but the thing is none of the people you are currently arguing with actually represent this and people saying that were in the minority of serious posters in this thread. Look up Maajid Nawaz on what he calls the voldemort effect, all this insistance that these islamist extremists are dissaffected or benefit cuts or whatever else you want to come up with does untold harm to actual reformist muslim voices who wish to speak up against islamism. We need to understand that islamism exists, its 100% is contributing to these attacks in a major way and calling out islamism is completely seperate from calling out islam or all muslims.

Was it not only today that Muslim women in an act of solidarity with the victims were ridiculed by people posting now, with comment about 'Miss World' (which shows a remarkable ignorance of why modern western Muslim women dress the way they do and choose to)
Spare me the concern for Muslim reformists when that is allowed pass.


Anyway, I will leave youse to it, contrary opinion is obviously not liked in these here parts.

Depp

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Was it not only today that Muslim women in an act of solidarity with the victims were ridiculed by people posting now, with comment about 'Miss World' (which shows a remarkable ignorance of why modern western Muslim women dress the way they do and choose to)
Spare me the concern for Muslim reformists when that is allowed pass.


Anyway, I will leave youse to it, contrary opinion is obviously not liked in these here parts.

so because someone other than me made a joke earlier in the thread you're going to dismiss my point out of hand? Muslims left right and center are decrying this insistence that ''these terrorists are this that and the other but it couldnt possibly be islamism causing it'' and how doing so is completely ignoring the problem islamism has become.

donkeykong5

Depp wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Was it not only today that Muslim women in an act of solidarity with the victims were ridiculed by people posting now, with comment about 'Miss World' (which shows a remarkable ignorance of why modern western Muslim women dress the way they do and choose to)
Spare me the concern for Muslim reformists when that is allowed pass.


Anyway, I will leave youse to it, contrary opinion is obviously not liked in these here parts.

so because someone other than me made a joke earlier in the thread you're going to dismiss my point out of hand? Muslims left right and center are decrying this insistence that ''these terrorists are this that and the other but it couldnt possibly be islamism causing it'' and how doing so is completely ignoring the problem islamism has become.

A fee people made light hearted comments Specsavers miss world etc ....so what at least we didn't tool up and kill innocent people. Get over it . .

Widdershins

The problem is that some people can't compare and contrast. They just can't see the difference between Isil and the Ira, their aims and agenda and MO, and they think that if you just don't give them publicity, they will eventually give up and go away, and it will spare the feelings of other Muslims at the same time. This is a sad delusion at this point. Obfustication won't help.

Bubbaclaus

I haven't been following this thread. I assume we are blaming 1.6 billion muslims for the actions of one of them in London as per?

ohnonotgmail

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I haven't been following this thread. I assume we are blaming 1.6 billion muslims for the actions of one of them in London as per?

pretty much.

silverharp

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I haven't been following this thread. I assume we are blaming 1.6 billion muslims for the actions of one of them in London as per?

alternatively you could blame the religion they follow , had the guy been a member of one of the other 2000 man made religions , hed have just had a nice English breakfast and gone about his day

Widdershins

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I haven't been following this thread. I assume we are blaming 1.6 billion muslims for the actions of one of them in London as per?

Do you know what they say about assumptions?

Depp

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I haven't been following this thread. I assume we are blaming 1.6 billion muslims for the actions of one of them in London as per?

Far from it tbh, unless you have difficulty comprehending the differences between Islam an Islamism, then we're all horrible racists :rolleyes:

Will I Am Not

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

pretty much.

No. The other poster can be forgiven for jumping to conclusions (thought that was the worst thing in the world to do according to this thread by the way) but you have no excuse.

ohnonotgmail

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

No. The other poster can be forgiven for jumping to conclusions (thought that was the worst thing in the world to do according to this thread by the way) but you have no excuse.

the thread degenerated into the usual muslim bashing. A mod had to put it back on track.

Boom_Bap

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the thread degenerated into the usual muslim bashing. A mod had to put it back on track.

And it's gone off track again

ohnonotgmail

Boom_Bap wrote: »

And it's gone off track again

apologies. I'm bowing out of this thread.

Depp

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the thread degenerated into the usual muslim bashing. A mod had to put it back on track.

so calling out elements of islam is muslim bashing then is it?

ceadaoin.

Depp wrote: »

so calling out elements of islam is muslim bashing then is it?

It is if you continuously wilfully misinterpret posts to make it seem that way. Perhaps we need a "not all Muslims" disclaimer on every post to make it clear.

BalcombeSt4

"Radical Islam" barely existed before the 1980's as a political force, thanks to UK policy they helped to foster this monster & in some cases armed it. Britain brought this on itself.

Widdershins

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

"Radical Islam" barely existed before the 1980's as a political force, thanks to UK policy they helped to foster this monster & in some cases armed it. Britain brought this on itself.

It did, since the beginning of Islam, they were the Khawarij. I agree that they helped armed them and have made things much worse, but disagree that they have brought it upon themselves.
They had their sights on the rest of the world for a long time anyway.

Not to mention the Ottoman Empire.

FrancieBrady

Widdershins wrote: »

I agree that they helped armed them and have made things much worse, but disagree that they have brought it upon themselves.

Sorry, what does this contradiction mean?
The British sow discontent around the world as they pillaged and bombed (usually) people into the 'acceptance of their gifts' and generally left their colonies in a political mess and they didn't 'bring it on themselves'?
Does the small notion of taking responsibility for your actions not apply to Britain?

Widdershins

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, what does this contradiction mean?
The British sow discontent around the world as they pillaged and bombed (usually) people into the 'acceptance of their gifts' and generally left their colonies in a political mess and they didn't 'bring it on themselves'?
Does the small notion of taking responsibility for your actions not apply to Britain?

It means that innocent civilians did not do anything to invite jihadists to attack them.

BalcombeSt4

Widdershins wrote: »

It did, since the beginning of Islam, they were the Khawarij. I agree that they helped armed them and have made things much worse, but disagree that they have brought it upon themselves.
They had their sights on the rest of the world for a long time anyway.

Not to mention the Ottoman Empire.

Well by that token you might as well say Radical Judaism existed since the begining of Judaism.

I was refering more to the Mujahideen type movments in the Middle East that the west supported in attempt to fight Arab nationalist and socialist movements.

And I don't mean the actually people killed brought on themselves but the British state brought upon itself.

Widdershins

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Well by that token you might as well say Radical Judaism existed since the begining of Judaism.

I was refering more to to the Mujahideen type movments in the Middle East that the west supported in attempt to fight Arab nationalism.

Strange comparison.

Well that's applicable to the first example.

Billy86

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, what does this contradiction mean?
The British sow discontent around the world as they pillaged and bombed (usually) people into the 'acceptance of their gifts' and generally left their colonies in a political mess and they didn't 'bring it on themselves'?
Does the small notion of taking responsibility for your actions not apply to Britain?

You're not giving the US and Soviets enough credit either... for some reason, the people of Iran didn't seem to be happy being put in the middle of a battle for their gas resources with a puppet left in charge of the country. Very odd that, I'm sure so many of us here would love that situation and not take any action against.

That said, the spread of Wahhabism out of Saudi also played a considerable role.

FrancieBrady

Widdershins wrote: »

It means that innocent civilians did not do anything to invite jihadists to attack them.

And when did the British worry about civilians when it suited them.

This is what happens when the chickens come home to roost as they always do. There is never anything rational when violence is answered with violence.

Hence the point that the west needs to address what it has done and is doing if it has any chance of solving the problems back in Britain, America etc with radical Islamic activity.

Widdershins

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And when did the British worry about civilians when it suited them.

This is what happens when the chickens come home to roost as they always do. There is never anything rational when violence is answered with violence.

Hence the point that the west needs to address what it has done and is doing if it has any chance of solving the problems back in Britain, America etc with radical Islamic activity.

Could you define what you mean by ''address what it has done''

I suppose there's no point repeating the points about the many targets of Isil with no connection, whatsoever, to these ''chickens''.

FrancieBrady

Widdershins wrote: »

Could you define what you mean by ''address what it has done''

I suppose there's no point repeating the points about the many targets of Isil with no connection, whatsoever, to these ''chickens''.

ISIL are free to target who they like, ever heard of multi pronged attacks?

I was reacting to your comment washing Britain's hands of some of the responsibility for this attack.

If you need lessons on what motivates a lot of radical Islamists (a trenchant hatred of the west because of what it has done) then I am certainly not going there on this thread. there has already been a mod notification.

Widdershins

FrancieBrady wrote: »

ISIL are free to target who they like, ever heard of multi pronged attacks?

I was reacting to your comment washing Britain's hands of some of the responsibility for this attack.

If you need lessons on what motivates a lot of radical Islamists (a trenchant hatred of the west because of what it has done) then I am certainly not going there on this thread. there has already been a mod notification.

If I needed lessons I would take them from someone who is knowledgeable, thank you.

FrancieBrady

Widdershins wrote: »

If I needed lessons I would take them from someone who is knowledgeable, thank you.

You need to stop, jumping to conclusions, generally then.

Depp

FrancieBrady wrote: »

ISIL are free to target who they like, ever heard of multi pronged attacks?

I was reacting to your comment washing Britain's hands of some of the responsibility for this attack.

If you need lessons on what motivates a lot of radical Islamists (a trenchant hatred of the west because of what it has done) then I am certainly not going there on this thread. there has already been a mod notification.

So radical islamists are attacking shia muslims because they hate the west then? you do realise attacks in the west account for about 10% of isis attacks at the minute?

FrancieBrady

Depp wrote: »

So radical islamists are attacking shia muslims because they hate the west then? you do realise attacks in the west account for about 10% of isis attacks at the minute?

Maybe you too need to study the idea of 'multi pronged' campaigns.
Irish men were fighting for Britain in WW1 while the British were fighting Irish men back in Ireland.

Crazy complicated old world sometimes.