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

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

I think I'm beginning to understand you...
For you theres no black/white. Its binary.
Murder is murder
Terrorists are terrorists
Terrorist sympathisers are terrorist sympathisers...

(Ironically the very thing you accuse me of, you are the one guilty!) I fully appreciate why someone would be drawn to a "cause". But here is where we differ substantially, you have absolutely no appreciation or understanding of context, objectives, history, legitimacy, reciprocation.

I do. Its why I appreciate the danger of organisations such as ISIS, and the risk they pose.
Their target is anyone not like them, end game annihilation of anyone not like them.. IRA had a narrow range, with an objective. Were they right?
Morally, they had a legitimate cause. Anyone would agree, overthrowing an oppressor is legitimate...
That you cant see this dinction is worrying, a failure of our education system.

Not sure are you Irish.
What do you understand by "IRA"?
Do you see any distinction between the "old" pre 1921 IRA, and IRA, PIRA, CIRA?

RandRuns wrote: »

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.

Nope.
There you go putting words in my mouth again.

I'm not backing away from any position, from my first post I have pointed out that the cause or objective makes no difference to the victims.

Terrorists are terrorists, I really dont care why they are murdering people.
To you the "why" is important, yet you haven't been able to demonstrate why this or or what purpose this distinction serves.
What is the value in separating one terrorist group from another?
Are you going to treat them differently?
Are you going to punish them differently?

Or is it just that you have commonality with one and not the other?

RandRuns wrote: »

Unsurprisingly the point went over your head.

Let's change it up to make it easier for you then.

If someone breaks into my granny's house and murders her for her pension, is that person morally on par with Hitler, however angry and upset I might be?

According to you, they are.

Given your position, would you argue that a simple one-off murderer, who, say, murders a bank teller in the course of a robbery, derserves the same punishment as a terrorist who kills thousands of people in a bombing?

If not, why not?

It didnt go over my head at all, I just pointed out to you that comparing an accident or homicide to first degree murder isn't of any value in a discussion about murderers.

Both should receive the same "life" sentence, if you want to give the terrorist a life sentence for each death then go ahead but it clearly makes no difference.

Now if the terrorist kills people over multiple events then they would receive multiple punishments, but for a single act that results in death it really doesnt matter to me how many victims there are.

If it did, what punishment would you give someone who murders 1,000 over someone who does 10,000? Howabout someone who does 100,000? Or 1,000,000?
Are you going to give someone 1,000,000 sentences? It makes no sense.

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

I think I'm beginning to understand you...
For you theres no black/white. Its binary.
Murder is murder
Terrorists are terrorists
Terrorist sympathisers are terrorist sympathisers...

Do you disagree? If so why?

(Ironically the very thing you accuse me of, you are the one guilty!) I fully appreciate why someone would be drawn to a "cause". But here is where we differ substantially, you have absolutely no appreciation or understanding of context, objectives, history, legitimacy, reciprocation.

I do. Its why I appreciate the danger of organisations such as ISIS, and the risk they pose.
Their target is anyone not like them, end game annihilation of anyone not like them.. IRA had a narrow range, with an objective. Were they right?
Morally, they had a legitimate cause. Anyone would agree, overthrowing an oppressor is legitimate...
That you cant see this dinction is worrying, a failure of our education system.

Sorry, who has decided this for all mankind? Did I miss a memo on something? Who decides what the global morals are? Is your idea that everyone aligns with your ideas on morality? I know another group who hold beliefs like this, cant put my finger on their name at the moment.

As for over throwing an oppressor making something legitimate, as I pointed out earlier, if you go back far enough, everyone is an oppressor of someone else. The lines of land ownership and rule have changed constantly since the concept first appeared.

Your argument again boils down to "yeah but I kinda agreed with the IRA, so I dont want to compare them to ISIS, coz everyone hates ISIS". There is no logic to back it up at all.

Not sure are you Irish.
What do you understand by "IRA"?
Do you see any distinction between the "old" pre 1921 IRA, and IRA, PIRA, CIRA?

I dont distinguish between any murdering terrorists, thats kinda the been the point all along?:rolleyes:

GreeBo wrote: »

it really doesnt matter to me how many victims there are.

Probably the one sentence that explains your entire argument.

Actually, it would probably be more accurate if it was "It doesn't matter to me how many victims there are if it's an islamic terrorist"

RandRuns wrote: »

Probably the one sentence that explains your entire argument.

Quite possibly.

Actually, it would probably be more accurate if it was "It doesn't matter to me how many victims there are if it's an islamic terrorist"

And what exactly are you basing that idea on?

Care to show any evidence of anything that I have posted that would lead you to believe that I offer any sympathy, understanding for Islamic terrorists or that I condone anything that they do or stand for?

Or is it just more tiresome, baseless thankswhoring?

Its an interesting fact that the same posters who decry ISIS for forcing their beliefs onto others are the very same ones that jump to ad hominem attacks when someone (politely) disagrees with them.
"I can't change their mind with debate or argument, so I will use force"

You might have a bit more in common than you think.

Banana Republic 1

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

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?

Except when it comes to blowing up supermarkets.

In common with this thread, there is a thread about (yet another) muslim child sex abuse gang in the UK that has come to light this week, and there are posters, in some cases the same ones, trying to deflect blame with the usual "but, but, the priests" type of stuff.

What the virtue signalling posters don't realise (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's just virtue signalling, and not anything more sinister), is that their attitude is actively harmful to the very community they think they are defending.

It is this pushback against admitting that islam has a problem with child abuse gangs in the UK, and terrorism pretty much everywhere that has caused inaction, or inefficient action against the guilty parties. The numerous child abuse gangs in the UK have been able to thrive because the authorities have dragged their feet, for fear of getting on the wrong side of the exact same people who post defelction in these threads.
The reason islamic terrorists can walk into concerts with backpack bombs is because these enablers have made it difficult to stop and search muslims carrying backpacks, even if there is a suspicion there may be something wrong.
So, while it may look like they are just sad people looking for attention in online forums, these attitudes cause real damage, and lead to real loss of life in the real world.

While it may feel good to earn justice warrior points, the reality is that these kind of posts do active damage, not only to the victims of islamic terrorism and abuse, but also to the wider muslim community - as long as these crimes are excused, minimised, and deflected from, many people will view the muslim community with a jaundiced eye. A lot of the blame ordinary muslims get for not doing more to condemn and expose the worst excesses of the bad apples, is in fact enabled and encouraged by white, middle-class westerners.

RWCNT wrote: »

Please, for the love of god, do a bit of research into the troubles. I live in the UK and have had to explain this to British people who often have little to no knowledge of their own history and even less about anything that took place outside their own island. It was in no way, part or form a religious conflict.

Btw, what are your thoughts on the Kingsmill massacre and the various other tit-for-tat attacks on Protestants and Catholics by IRA and UDA/F?

Seems kinda religious to me...

RandRuns wrote: »

In common with this thread, there is a thread about (yet another) muslim child sex abuse gang in the UK that has come to light this week, and there are posters, in some cases the same ones, trying to deflect blame with the usual "but, but, the priests" type of stuff.

What the virtue signalling posters don't realise (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's just virtue signalling, and not anything more sinister), is that their attitude is actively harmful to the very community they think they are defending.

It is this pushback against admitting that islam has a problem with child abuse gangs in the UK, and terrorism pretty much everywhere that has caused inaction, or inefficient action against the guilty parties. The numerous child abuse gangs in the UK have been able to thrive because the authorities have dragged their feet, for fear of getting on the wrong side of the exact same people who post defelction in these threads.
The reason islamic terrorists can walk into concerts with backpack bombs is because these enablers have made it difficult to stop and search muslims carrying backpacks, even if there is a suspicion there may be something wrong.
So, while it may look like they are just sad people looking for attention in online forums, these attitudes cause real damage, and lead to real loss of life in the real world.

While it may feel good to earn justice warrior points, the reality is that these kind of posts do active damage, not only to the victims of islamic terrorism and abuse, but also to the wider muslim community - as long as these crimes are excused, minimised, and deflected from, many people will view the muslim community with a jaundiced eye. A lot of the blame ordinary muslims get for not doing more to condemn and expose the worst excesses of the bad apples, is in fact enabled and encouraged by white, middle-class westerners.

I think your comprehension of why and what people are posting is lacking.

Posters like yourself are trying to minimise the very same crimes by constantly saying that ISIS, etc are much worse.
The reality is that it doesn't matter who commits these crimes, be they white, black, muslim, catholic, whatever they should be treated the exact same way.

Failing to do this simple thing is what causes problems as people (rightly) point out the inconsistencies in handling these issues. No one is saying that any party should get away with committing these crimes, but people like you are determined to say that we should focus on the Muslim based ones.

For the life of me I cant understand your "logic" here.

Oh and btw, its not "A muslim child sex abuse gang", its a "child sex abuse gang where (some) people within it were Muslim.
That you cant see the difference is why people like me reply to your posts.

They didnt abuse children because they were Muslim, they did it because they are perverted scum bags.

GreeBo wrote: »

I think your comprehension of why and what people are posting is lacking.

Posters like yourself are trying to minimise the very same crimes by constantly saying that ISIS, etc are much worse.
The reality is that it doesn't matter who commits these crimes, be they white, black, muslim, catholic, whatever they should be treated the exact same way.

Failing to do this simple thing is what causes problems as people (rightly) point out the inconsistencies in handling these issues. No one is saying that any party should get away with committing these crimes, but people like you are determined to say that we should focus on the Muslim based ones.

For the life of me I cant understand your "logic" here.

Oh and btw, its not "A muslim child sex abuse gang", its a "child sex abuse gang where (some) people within it were Muslim.
That you cant see the difference is why people like me reply to your posts.

They didnt abuse children because they were Muslim, they did it because they are perverted scum bags.

Read the links in my post that comprehensively prove what I said.

Perhaps you would do well to step back for a moment and realise that you are wrong, and give some thought to how you look at these issues in future. From claiming that disliking beheading is racist, to demonstrating a complete and utter ignorance of the causes of the crusades, and on to attempting to equate completely different situations, you have shown nothing but ignorance and hubris in this thread.
Have some humility, and see that damage you are doing.

RWCNT

GreeBo wrote: »

Btw, what are your thoughts on the Kingsmill massacre and the various other tit-for-tat attacks on Protestants and Catholics by IRA and UDA/F?

Seems kinda religious to me...

I'm finished talking about it with you, particularly as in your last response you've accused me of attempting to justify the murders carried about by the IRA and a bizarre comparison to domestic violence to boot. Don't bother coming back to try and explain why you're in fact correct - your reasoning is clear to all reading. Understanding of your points is not the issue here.

When people have pointed out that your analysis is completely detached from any reasonable level of understanding of the context and nuances of the conflict your response is to say "Yes of course it is, those things don't matter". I really don't see how you can reasonably expect people to engage with you in a discussion on historical matters under those terms, so I'm out. Sorry.

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you disagree? If so why?

Sorry, who has decided this for all mankind? Did I miss a memo on something? Who decides what the global morals are? Is your idea that everyone aligns with your ideas on morality? I know another group who hold beliefs like this, cant put my finger on their name at the moment.

As for over throwing an oppressor making something legitimate, as I pointed out earlier, if you go back far enough, everyone is an oppressor of someone else. The lines of land ownership and rule have changed constantly since the concept first appeared.

Your argument again boils down to "yeah but I kinda agreed with the IRA, so I dont want to compare them to ISIS, coz everyone hates ISIS". There is no logic to back it up at all.

I dont distinguish between any murdering terrorists, thats kinda the been the point all along?:rolleyes:

Emoji and all.

You've long stopped making any sense. Your whole modus is a mixed bag of gas lighting, strawmanning, false dichotomous, sprinkled with nonsense.

And youre starting to show your hand a bit more than you realise, your response to my last question is telling.

Not only are you unable to contemplate there might be a difference between IRA, PIRA, CIRA, you're unwilling to educate yourself of what they are, yet persist in soap boxing, saying the IRA is the same as ISIS.

You are unable to grasp the nuanced points people (not just me) are making, and persist in misrepresentations or actual misquotes of what they've told you.

Its clear you don't care about contrary viewpoints, only seek to drag the thread off topic for a now very obvious reason.

Going by your recent activity, you're afraid to countenance any criticism of anything committed by a Muslim, for fear of having to deal with some uncomfortable truths, about certain individuals of that faith.

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Emoji and all.

You've long stopped making any sense. Your whole modus is a mixed bag of gas lighting, strawmanning, false dichotomous, sprinkled with nonsense.

And youre starting to show your hand a bit more than you realise, your response to my last question is telling.

Not only are you unable to contemplate there might be a difference between IRA, PIRA, CIRA, you're unwilling to educate yourself of what they are, yet persist in soap boxing, saying the IRA is the same as ISIS.

You are unable to grasp the nuanced points people (not just me) are making, and persist in misrepresentations or actual misquotes of what they've told you.

Its clear you don't care about contrary viewpoints, only seek to drag the thread off topic for a now very obvious reason.

Going by your recent activity, you're afraid to countenance any criticism of anything committed by a Muslim, for fear of having to deal with some uncomfortable truths, about certain individuals of that faith.

I haven't altered my point one iota on this thread.

You can keep strawmanning that I am some Isis sympathiser, without anything to back it up mind you, and yet the fact remains that I have never condoned, pardoned or legitimised a single act they have carried out. Unlike I might point out, yourself and others wrt the IRA.

I have been clear from the start that any terrorists are reprehensible to me, you now accuse me of being afraid to accept truths about some individuals of that faith... Based on what exactly? Based on me condemning then repeatedly?

Why can't you accept that I hold all terrorists to the same level?
Including the IRA and UDF for that matter.

Why would I further segregate terrorists from Northern Ireland into sub divisions? Again what end does that serve?

I have zero problem with people campaigning for a United Ireland or unionism, but bring violence or threats into it and you have already lost. Same for religions, race or anything else.

The uncomfortable truth on this thread is that you and others are willing to condone one group of murdering terrorists because you happen to agree with their goals.
In a sane society we treat all murderers the same way.

Do you think the Spanish tourists murdered in Omagh care for your distinctions between the various incarnations of the IRA or that their families see them any differently to any other terrorists?
Or that you seem to want to hide them all behind the old IRA from 19-22, when clearly they are not under discussion in a thread about terrorists.

GreeBo wrote: »

...distinctions between the various incarnations of the IRA or that their families see them any differently to any other terrorists?
Or that you seem to want to hide them all behind the old IRA from 19-22, when clearly they are not under discussion in a thread about terrorists.

But they're "terrorists" too....
No?

donaghs

seamus wrote: »

I don't give a fvck, they have some justification. There always is.

Do please enlighten us on the justifications for what ISIS do? Maybe set up a new thread. I think this needs to be explored further.

Some of the posters (one in particular) trying to derail, deflect, and outright lie on this thread are up to even more disgusting shenanigans on the muslim rape gang thread. One has to ask why anyone would be so determined to defend the indefensible.

Kivaro

RandRuns wrote: »

Some of the posters (one in particular) trying to derail, deflect, and outright lie on this thread are up to even more disgusting shenanigans on the muslim rape gang thread. One has to ask why anyone would be so determined to defend the indefensible.

I could try to offer an explanation, and you will see it in other facets of life too.
Many defend the indefensible because of Sunk Cost Fallacy. They continue with this behaviour because of the time, effort, dedication, and commitment already devoted to a certain topic/situation in their lives. They will continue down this path because to reverse the course would be too detrimental in their minds, even though it may be the correct thing to do. For people like this, even with irrefutable and conclusive proof shown to them, they will not change their minds.

I think he's avoiding this thread after painting himself into a corner

RandRuns wrote: »

Some of the posters (one in particular) trying to derail, deflect, and outright lie on this thread are up to even more disgusting shenanigans on the muslim rape gang thread. One has to ask why anyone would be so determined to defend the indefensible.

Point to a single post where anyone defends any acts that any Muslim terrorist has carried out?

I'll then share the posts that condone the actions of the IRA.

Kivaro wrote: »

I could try to offer an explanation, and you will see it in other facets of life too.
Many defend the indefensible because of Sunk Cost Fallacy. They continue with this behaviour because of the time, effort, dedication, and commitment already devoted to a certain topic/situation in their lives. They will continue down this path because to reverse the course would be too detrimental in their minds, even though it may be the correct thing to do. For people like this, even with irrefutable and conclusive proof shown to them, they will not change their minds.

What's the irrefutable proof that the IRA murders are different to any other terrorist groups murders?

GreeBo wrote: »

Or that you seem to want to hide them all behind the old IRA from 19-22, when clearly they are not under discussion in a thread about terrorists.

Why wouldn't the old IRA be under discussion in a thread about terrorists.

You wouldn't/couldn't acknowledge a difference between the various IRA factions earlier , something about them all being terrorists...

GreeBo wrote: »

What's the irrefutable proof that the IRA murders are different to any other terrorist groups murders?

Whats the irrefutable proof they are the same?

See, anyone can play your game.

Mr Meanor

Kivaro wrote: »

I could try to offer an explanation, and you will see it in other facets of life too.
Many defend the indefensible because of Sunk Cost Fallacy. They continue with this behaviour because of the time, effort, dedication, and commitment already devoted to a certain topic/situation in their lives. They will continue down this path because to reverse the course would be too detrimental in their minds, even though it may be the correct thing to do. For people like this, even with irrefutable and conclusive proof shown to them, they will not change their minds.

This may go some way to explaining some individuals
A research paper
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886920303238

Quote from the study paper:

(TIV) tendency for interpersonal victimhood

'The study distinguishes TIV from narcissism. Narcissistic individuals also experience moral superiority and vengeful desires, but these feelings tend to spring from the belief that their authority, capability, or grandiosity is being undermined. TIV, on the other hand, is associated with low self-esteem. And while narcissists do not want to be victimized, high-TIV individuals lash out when their victimhood is questioned.'

RandRuns wrote: »

Whats the irrefutable proof they are the same?

See, anyone can play your game.

They are both murdering terrorist groups.
Or perhaps you don't agree that the IRA are terrorists who murder people?

GreeBo wrote: »

They are both murdering terrorist groups.
Or perhaps you don't agree that the IRA are terrorists who murder people?

Hitler and Che Guevara were both murderers with facial hair, are they the same?