Hundreds of Muslims gather to celebrate funeral of man who beheaded French teacher

biko wrote: »

Remember when IRA took thousands of prisoners, and raped and burned them alive?

I don't, but someone here might. Or maybe someone wants to speak on behalf of IS to explain?

What exactly is your point in posting nonsense things like this?
It seems its purely for thankswhoring and is terribly childish.

take everything

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Don't be that lefty who equates the funeral of a person who fought to remove a foreign occupying force and achieve civil rights etc., with a chap who hacked off the head of a school teacher in a street, because he didn't like what he was teaching in a country he wasn't a native of.

Not this time lads.

It's bizarre.
These posters should really know better but I think they actually believe what they post.

I'm sure they think they know better than the great unwashed who react justifiably (ie with an ounce of humanity) to this.

As someone else said, a poster who does his nothing to see here/whataboutery routine, often never to be seen again in the thread (similar to the Netflix cuties thread where the plebs were admonished by said poster for their supposed overreaction there).

Seriously though any equivalence between hacking an innocent man's head off over discussing cartoons and Thatcher/the IRA where oppression is an actual thing (not that it necessarily justifies violence but still a thing, unlike here where no oppression exists) is gobsmacking in either its mental gymnastics or just hard-of-thinking wokeness.

take everything wrote: »

Seriously though any equivalence between hacking an innocent man's head off over discussing cartoons and Thatcher/the IRA where oppression is an actual thing (not that it necessarily justifies violence but still a thing, unlike here where no oppression exists) is gobsmacking in either its mental gymnastics or just hard-of-thinking wokeness.

The mental gymnastics is to say the teacher is innocent but Mountbatten is a legitimate target because of the extended family he was born into.

The whole point is that neither are legitimate.
No one is saying that the Islamic/IS atrocities should be brought down to the level of the IRA killings, its that we *have* to accept that the IRA killings are up at the same level as the Islamic/IS ones.

They are all equally bad, disagreeing with this *is* apologising and excusing the terrorists that are/were the IRA.

Gervais08

GreeBo wrote: »

What exactly is your point in posting nonsense things like this?
It seems its purely for thankswhoring and is terribly childish.

But posting a photo of Storey’s funeral and going “look look we’re just as bad!!” - is okay with you ?

jmayo

weisses wrote: »

The part you seem to be ignoring is the fact the west was and is occupying Muslim countries and are starting illegal wars to push their agendas. Oil etc

The rise of ISIS was possible because the US invasion in Iraq

If you want Muslims to stop hating people in the west, getting the **** out of their countries would be a first step.

I would happily become a martyr after realizing my family was bombed into oblivion by yet another drone strike accident

Mind reminding us how many of the 911 attackers were from Iraq, Afghanistan all countries that had been invaded by the West (including Russia in here btw) ?

Yes ISIS itself was created by US ineptitude.

But most of those lads claiming to be ISIS were never anywhere near
Abu Ghraib, Iraq or anywhere else that there were Americans.

This is the problem with islamist thinking.
They see or rather use an attack on one group of people of islamic faith as a reason to attack anyone and everyone in the West.
BTW an attack can be a slight, ala someone drawing or showing a cartoon ridiculing their beliefs.
It doesn't have to be drone attacks or missile strikes.

Iraqis have fook all in common with Somalis bar islam.
Likewise Nigerian muslims have fook all bar islam in common with Iraqis or Afghanis.

It would be akin to Catholic Spanards labeling themselves as the much thread referenced PIRA and then attacking Dutch people simply because they were protestant and had somethings in common with Britain.

In my opinion it is ultimately a war now between modern Western secularism and medieval thinking.
Islamists have been growing hugely over the years and it is no longer a side issue because they are a bunch of people in far off lands that can't hurt us.

Problem is modern Western societies allows it's people freedoms, including the freedom to endanger it by welcoming in masses of people who will destablise it and might one day try and destroy the generations of hard work creating the free and open societies.

Ultimately modern Western secularism will not be saved by feminists, LGBTers, liberals, but by people willing to fight and sometimes do some nasty things.

What is the old saying about people sleeping peacefully in their beds because not so nice men ...

GreeBo wrote: »

The mental gymnastics is to say the teacher is innocent but Mountbatten is a legitimate target because of the extended family he was born into.

The straw man argument would be that.

GreeBo wrote: »

No one is saying that the Islamic/IS atrocities should be brought down to the level of the IRA killings, its that we *have* to accept that the IRA killings are up at the same level as the Islamic/IS ones.

They are all equally bad, disagreeing with this *is* apologising and excusing the terrorists that are/were the IRA.

Jesus H. Christ.
Surely this is his magnum opus, his piece de resistance of nonsense.

When you find yourself arguing the IRA are nothing like ISIS, maybe its time to delete the Internet from your phone...

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

When you find yourself arguing the IRA are nothing like ISIS, maybe its time to delete the Internet from your phone...

Apart from both being organisations of misguided murdering scumbags, there's little to compare them. In spite of the desire here by some to link them.

Ideologically very different. Methods very different. Scope of influence over society, very different. End objectives, very different. I could go on, but there's little point. This thread has shown the desire of some people to put their hands over their ears, and shout "la la la la la".

V8 Interceptor

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

When you find yourself arguing the IRA are nothing like ISIS, maybe its time to delete the Internet from your phone...

Erm no. Because they weren't. :rolleyes:

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

Erm no. Because they weren't. :rolleyes:

I know!

Gervais08 wrote: »

But posting a photo of Storey’s funeral and going “look look we’re just as bad!!” - is okay with you ?

Yes, because it was in response to some posters implying that celebrating his death is some inconceivable thing that only some barbaric groups would do.

When shown evidence to the contrary we had pages of posters showing how the IRA are different terrorists, so thats ok.

Btw there is no "we're" or "they're" there are only murdering lunatics.
Dont lump "us" in with the IRA any more than others are trying to lump all Muslims in with the extreme whackjobs.

Gervais08

GreeBo wrote: »

Yes, because it was in response to some posters implying that celebrating his death is some inconceivable thing that only some barbaric groups would do.

When shown evidence to the contrary we had pages of posters showing how the IRA are different terrorists, so thats ok.

Btw there is no "we're" or "they're" there are only murdering lunatics.
Dont lump "us" in with the IRA any more than others are trying to lump all Muslims in with the extreme whackjobs.

Really really don’t get it do you ??

GreeBo wrote: »

Yes, because it was in response to some posters implying that celebrating his death is some inconceivable thing that only some barbaric groups would do.

When shown evidence to the contrary we had pages of posters showing how the IRA are different terrorists, so thats ok.

Btw there is no "we're" or "they're" there are only murdering lunatics.
Dont lump "us" in with the IRA any more than others are trying to lump all Muslims in with the extreme whackjobs.

Well TBF you haven't shown any "evidence" of anything except derail and try get the thread shut, with ill-informed opinions.

And they are, very different. Very.

IRA objective: Brits out of Ireland.
ISIS objective: annihilation of anyone not conforming to their version of Islam, subjugation of women, limited education for girls, strict application of a particularly brutal version of Sharia and its barbaric punishments, execution of homosexuals, erasure of all history not of theirs.
So yea, they're not the same.

Any evidence of anyone lumping all Muslims in with the whackjobs Islamists /Jihadists?

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Any evidence of anyone lumping all Muslims in with the whackjobs Islamists /Jihadists?

Lad thinks objecting to beheadings is racist, and appears to believe the crusades were christians invading the lands of peaceful muslims (possibly in search of oil), so don't be confusing him asking for evidence.
Feelz are what are important, evidence is racist.

RWCNT

GreeBo wrote: »

Sorry, I'm wasn't trying to imply that the troubles were caused by religious differences, they were involved however since it was (largely) Catholic Irish nationalists and Protestant Unionists.

Yes, the fact they were nationalists and unionists being the only part of any relevance. The only people I've ever seen put any stock in the religious bit are people who simply don't know, edgy atheists shoehorning a chance to take a pop at religion into anything, or people trying to draw the absurd ISIS comparison.

GreeBo wrote: »

But as someone not involved in either conflict, your argument is basically that ISIS have been doing it for longer so they are more wrong?
The IRA were "terminating" people who didn't support a United Ireland...the only difference is that "you" believe the IRA had a valid reason for killing people but ISIS dont, that incongruity is all I'm pointing out.

No, that's not my argument. Yes, the IRA killed Unionists. But their stated aim was not to wipe everyone who didn't subscribe to their ideology out of existence. THAT's the difference. The IRA also didn't want to expand beyond Northern Ireland.

GreeBo wrote: »

Despite what a handful of posters are stating, I am in *no way* defending, condoning or absolving any ISIS actions (or in fact anyone who tries to achieve anything by murdering anyone else)
Its really not a great way to convince people to join your cause.

I know you're not defending them. But you're digging on a comparison that only works on the most surface of levels ignoring any and all nuance. When you continuously plow forward with it despite multiple people explaining to you why you're wrong, you can't really blame anyone for thinking your deflecting. Believe it or not, the idea that you actually believe this is an apt comparison is not going to be believable for a lot of people. I'd probably have misgivings myself if it wasn't for my experiences of living in England and having similar conversations with people who just don't have a scooby about what they're talking about.

GreeBo wrote: »

The whole point of my posts is to say that *anyone* who is murdering anyone else on the back on some cause/belief is abhorrent, its far to easy to believe that ISIS (or Pol Pot or either side in Gaza strip for example) are different than the IRA.
The only reason I can see people doing this is that they find it easier to relate to the IRA than these other groups.
But do you really think someone in Sweden for example would think the IRA murders were more legitimate than the ISIS ones? There is bias on here because of what the I in IRA stands for, that really makes no sense to anyone outside.

I find murdering for a cause repugnant, irrespective of the cause of who is doing it.

Good. The absolute thumping overwhelming majority of people believe this. You're being absurdly reductive though. You can condemn violence while still appreciating the context that led to it - which is not the same as justifying it. I supported the peace process in Northern Ireland. I support a peace process between Palestine and Israel. There would never have been a peace process with ISIS. I can't read other posters minds so have no idea if the bias your talking about is at play here. It certainly isn't with me. Whether your inside Ireland outside Ireland or from outer space - you either understand the nuance based on the context of the aims of the organisations or you don't. You fall into the latter camp.

I won't be replying to you anymore. Like I say, I think your heart is in the right place but you just seem determined to cling to your position no matter what.

Deleted User wrote: »

Apart from both being organisations of misguided murdering scumbags

Hallelujah! His eyes opened.
That's *exactly* the point being made.

Ideologically very different. Methods very different. Scope of influence over society, very different. End objectives, very different.

Indeed, but not a drop of that makes any difference to any of the people killed by either side.
Murdering scumbags = murdering scumbags, doesn't matter what you happen to shout before you do it.

Sure the scope is Islam is wider than the IRA, but other than making you more afraid or more likely to become involved what does that matter? To the people who are involved in both they are the same.
You wouldn't say that Pol Pot wasn't as bad as ISIS since he was only killing those in Cambodia for example.

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

W
IRA objective: Brits out of Ireland.
ISIS objective: annihilation of anyone not conforming to their version of Islam, subjugation of women, limited education for girls, strict application of a particularly brutal version of Sharia and its barbaric punishments, execution of homosexuals, erasure of all history not of theirs.
So yea, they're not the same.

And again, this is because your opinion of the IRA is coloured by being close to it.

Do you think any random person from any country other than Ireland or the UK would care why the IRA were blowing people up? Do you think they would draw the distinction that you are drawing?

How do you feel about Eta? How about the PLO?
Who cares *why* the IRA were blowing people up? (other than those who are defending them)

Posters such as yourself go into great details about how barbaric ISIS are and then complement that with an almost casual 1 liner accompanied with a wink about how "shure the IRA were just getting rid of those pesky Brits"

Whats the value in distinguishing these two sets of terrorists based on the reasons behind their terrorism?
It can only be that you are willing to accept and/or defend the legitimacy of one of their actions and not the other. If you have another reason why you dont equate their murders, please enlighten us.

Everyone needs to condemn all terrorists equally or we will never get anywhere and you position is "Those terrorists arent as bad as those ones".

GreeBo wrote: »

You wouldn't say that Pol Pot wasn't as bad as ISIS since he was only killing those in Cambodia for example.

You actually could in certain respect.
Pol Pot (indirectly) slaughtered people in Cambodia. Terrible stuff. A genocide.
But No one drove a truck into a French crowd in his name, slaughterd kids in a rock concert etc. etc...
In certain respects he was worse, he caused the death of more people.

"As bad" is too simplistic. It means nothing.
And before you rehash "the dead are dead etc" sthick , murdered by monsters etc., you need to appreciate context, risk, ideology, impact, objectives etc.

I'm not sure what point you're digging in on anymore. But if you're still unable to accept or understand IRA =/= ISIS , there's nothing that can be done, except pity you.

RWCNT wrote: »

No, that's not my argument. Yes, the IRA killed Unionists. But their stated aim was not to wipe everyone who didn't subscribe to their ideology out of existence. THAT's the difference. The IRA also didn't want to expand beyond Northern Ireland.

But thats such an arbitrary place to take a stance! Not to mention is little relief for those people living in Northern Ireland. Their aim was to kill people until they got what they wanted.

RWCNT wrote: »

I know you're not defending them. But you're digging on a comparison that only works on the most surface of levels ignoring any and all nuance. When you continuously plow forward with it despite multiple people explaining to you why you're wrong, you can't really blame anyone for thinking your deflecting. Believe it or not, the idea that you actually believe this is an apt comparison is not going to be believable for a lot of people. I'd probably have misgivings myself if it wasn't for my experiences of living in England and having similar conversations with people who just don't have a scooby about what they're talking about.

What "nuance" is required when comparing murdering bastards?
"Wrong"? Why would people need to have a scooby what they are talking about to reject all forms of terrorism equally? This is exactly my point, demonstrated over and over again by posters such as yourself. You are *defending* the IRA by trying to minimise their terrorism compared to ISIS.
Murdering Terrorist = Murdering Terrorist.

RWCNT wrote: »

Good. The absolute thumping overwhelming majority of people believe this. You're being absurdly reductive though. You can condemn violence while still appreciating the context that led to it - which is not the same as justifying it.

Sorry, 100% disagree. You are continually minimising the atrocities carried out by the IRA and then talk about condemning it. Again, why draw the distinction if you also say you condemn it? It can only be because you can see some level of justification in why the IRA were murdering people.
If you dont then you cant have any position other than Murdering Terrorist = Murdering Terrorist.

RWCNT wrote: »

I supported the peace process in Northern Ireland. I support a peace process between Palestine and Israel. There would never have been a peace process with ISIS. I can't read other posters minds so have no idea if the bias your talking about is at play here. It certainly isn't with me. Whether your inside Ireland outside Ireland or from outer space - you either understand the nuance based on the context of the aims of the organisations or you don't. You fall into the latter camp.

Again, what difference does nuance make to the victims or either group? You cant admit it to yourself (and you are not alone in this) but your position is basically:
1) Ah I dont agree with killing people, but I can see why the IRA did it like.

It's the equivalent of the "dont make me hit you" spousal abuse from the past. Sure the Brits *made* the IRA blow them up, it was their own fault, yadda yadda yadda. Excusing and legitimising a terrorist organization while also "condemning" violence.

RWCNT wrote: »

but you just seem determined to cling to your position no matter what.

Right back at you chief.

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

You actually could in certain respect.
Pol Pot (indirectly) slaughtered people in Cambodia. Terrible stuff. A genocide.
But No one drove a truck into a French crowd in his name, slaughterd kids in a rock concert etc. etc...
In certain respects he was worse, he caused the death of more people.

"As bad" is too simplistic. It means nothing.

So the murder of innocent Cambodians is different to the murder of an innocent French crowd?
Previously on the thread the IRA werent so bad as they were only in Northern Ireland and they werent at it for that long and they didnt kill so many people. But now ISIS are still worse than Pol Pot, who killed millions for disagreeing with his beliefs?
Consistency much?

And before you rehash "the dead are dead etc" sthick , murdered by monsters etc., you need to appreciate context, risk, ideology, impact, objectives etc.

Why?
Why is content important when discussing murdering terrorists? It can *only* be that you are going to use context to excuse one group over another.

I'm not sure what point you're digging in on anymore. But if you're still unable to accept or understand IRA =/= ISIS , there's nothing that can be done, except pity you.

I never said they were equal, I've continually said that they are as bad as each other, both being murdering terrorists.

.
Its pretty eye opening how posters can convince themselves that they dont condone the IRA actions, yet clearly do, even if they cant bring themselves to admit it.

GreeBo wrote: »

And again, this is because your opinion of the IRA is coloured by being close to it.

Do you think any random person from any country other than Ireland or the UK would care why the IRA were blowing people up? Do you think they would draw the distinction that you are drawing?

How do you feel about Eta? How about the PLO?
Who cares *why* the IRA were blowing people up? (other than those who are defending them)

Posters such as yourself go into great details about how barbaric ISIS are and then complement that with an almost casual 1 liner accompanied with a wink about how "shure the IRA were just getting rid of those pesky Brits"

Whats the value in distinguishing these two sets of terrorists based on the reasons behind their terrorism?
It can only be that you are willing to accept and/or defend the legitimacy of one of their actions and not the other. If you have another reason why you dont equate their murders, please enlighten us.

Everyone needs to condemn all terrorists equally or we will never get anywhere and you position is "Those terrorists arent as bad as those ones".

You know there are people out there who care about these things?

Theres a very simple truth, not all "terrorists" are "equal". Terrorism is a word, but an adjective and a noun. In the context of rationale and reason. Meaningless

Every one has objectives, and end game. Some are "relatively" limited , done have potential global impacts. And this is where the distinction needs to be made.

Compare what ETA want V what ISIS want....
Compare what IRA want v what ISIS want....

Wolfe Tone. Emmert, Pearse. Collins...
All terrorists?

So to your point, defending legitimacy? Yes. In certain circumstances.
This simple fact completely escapes you.

GreeBo wrote: »

So the murder of innocent Cambodians is different to the murder of an innocent French crowd?
Previously on the thread the IRA werent so bad as they were only in Northern Ireland and they werent at it for that long and they didnt kill so many people. But now ISIS are still worse than Pol Pot, who killed millions for disagreeing with his beliefs?
Consistency much?

Why?
Why is content important when discussing murdering terrorists? It can *only* be that you are going to use context to excuse one group over another.

I never said they were equal, I've continually said that they are as bad as each other, both being murdering terrorists.

Its pretty eye opening how posters can convince themselves that they dont condone the IRA actions, yet clearly do, even if they cant bring themselves to admit it.

I'll make this simple:
Do I condone the IRA activities.
Some of it. Not all.
Some of it was reprehensiblable.

But the objective? - yea, id support that.
Current position? Ditto

Tell you what.

Start a thread on IRA supporters

I'll be right over.
Stop derailing

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Tell you what.

Start a thread on IRA supporters

I'll be right over.
Stop derailing

I am virulently opposed to the IRA, always have been, always will be, and have no regard, sneaking or otherwise for them or their aims.

But even I can see that the IRA and ISIS are nothing alike, and find it very difficult to believe anyone couldn't.
Impossible to believe in fact.

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

I'll make this simple:
Do I condone the IRA activities.
Some of it. Not all.
Some of it was reprehensiblable.

But the objective? - yea, id support that.
Current position? Ditto

Finally.

So if we can all see how a presumably normal person can condone some IRA activities that involved murder it's not really such a leap to see how others (some muslims) can condone some of what ISIS do.

And thus we are back to the original point. It cannot be surprising that some Muslims supported this person when we have people in our midst who supported the IRA.

Just because you dont agree with the objective of ISIS doesnt mean that their murdering is worse than the murdering the IRA did because you happen to agree with their objective.

Murder = murder, no ifs ands or buts.

RandRuns wrote: »

I am virulently opposed to the IRA, always have been, always will be, and have no regard, sneaking or otherwise for them or their aims.

But even I can see that the IRA and ISIS are nothing alike, and find it very difficult to believe anyone couldn't.
Impossible to believe in fact.

If you had a family member murdered by the IRA and another murdered by ISIS, how would you distinguish the two acts/groups?

/edit
I think some posters are trying to discredit my posts by saying that I believe their objects are equal or comparable. I clearly (and obviously) dont, but the *outcomes* of both groups are identical. Innocent people dead based on belief (religious or otherwise)

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

You know there are people out there who care about these things?

Theres a very simple truth, not all "terrorists" are "equal". Terrorism is a word, but an adjective and a noun. In the context of rationale and reason. Meaningless

Every one has objectives, and end game. Some are "relatively" limited , done have potential global impacts. And this is where the distinction needs to be made.

Compare what ETA want V what ISIS want....
Compare what IRA want v what ISIS want....

Wolfe Tone. Emmert, Pearse. Collins...
All terrorists?

So to your point, defending legitimacy? Yes. In certain circumstances.
This simple fact completely escapes you.

All people who murder innocent people to get what they want are equal.
Your subsequent post regarding condoning the IRA kinda tells me all I need to know about why you make the distinctions that you do.

The fact that you cant understand that every member of every terrorist group sees their objectives as just as legitimate as the IRAs is worrying and its exactly this blindspot that leads to people joining various terrorist organisations. Each of them believes that they are standing up for something that is right and legitimate, just like you do for the IRA.

GreeBo wrote: »

If you had a family member murdered by the IRA and another murdered by ISIS, how would you distinguish the two acts/groups?

Not sure if this is an reductio ad absurdum or a simple argumentum ad passiones (probably both), but either way, it is a nonsense argument.

If a family member of mine was killed by a drunk driver, I would hate drunk driving, but would that make a drunk driver morally on par with Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot?

Of course not, the proposition is preposterous, as is your argument.

RandRuns wrote: »

Not sure if this is an reductio ad absurdum or a simple argumentum ad passiones (probably both), but either way, it is a nonsense argument.

If a family member of mine was killed by a drunk driver, I would hate drunk driving, but would that make a drunk driver morally on par with Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot?

Of course not, the proposition is preposterous, as is your argument.

Death by a drunk driver is an accident (avoidable but nonetheless an accident), they didnt have an objective of killing people to achieve their goals.

Unlike, ISIS, IRA, Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot.

GreeBo wrote: »

If you had a family member murdered by the IRA and another murdered by ISIS, how would you distinguish the two acts/groups?

/edit
I think some posters are trying to discredit my posts by saying that I believe their objects are equal or comparable. I clearly (and obviously) dont, but the *outcomes* of both groups are identical. Innocent people dead based on belief (religious or otherwise)

Your edit is interesting. You are trying to back away from your earlier position.

It is still nonsense, whether you go at it full-bore or half-heartedly.

Your earlier position (up to your last post) was that "the IRA are just as bad as ISIS" you are now attempting to wriggle out of that and argue that "dead people are just as dead whomever kills them"

A different argument, but little better, and anyway, an argument for another thread as it has nothing to do with the content of this one.