Banana Republic 1 wrote: » Moronic statement. These terrorist cults kill far more fellow Muslims than any other grouping.
CinemaGuy45 wrote: » I don't have the answers here and I will admit that. I do know giving into the wishes of evil killers only shows that killing people gets them what they want. Whatever happened to not giving into the demands of terrorists?
Signore Fancy Pants wrote: » Still in Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Mali. Previously in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Palestine, Kuwait...and a few more. Was in Liberia in 05-06, were you there then?
Signore Fancy Pants wrote: » There's really no bargaining to be had with an ideology/theology. What they want is a Caliphate under strict religious rule.
Banana Republic 1 wrote: » Same as American evangelicals
jmreire wrote: » (A) When a long suffering people decide to revolt and throw off the murderous shackles of a despotic regime, would you call them murdering bastards? Because that's what the British did not only here in Ireland, but in any Country they ruled. America, Kenya etc. All fought for their independence. And the Irish Republican Army were instrumental in getting rid of them. And in each case, in each Country, the method was the same: Revolution.
(B) Or put them on the same level of people who kill solely on the instructions of their God to kill the unbelievers?? (C) And in the here and now present time, how would you rate your chances of being killed by an IRA bomb, knife or bullWeet?, versus being killed by an Islamic terrorist in the same manner?
We will extrapolate a little bit further, closer to home. You are attacked in your own home, in the middle of the night by an armed robber, who threatens you and your family with violence, and indeed fires the gun, narrowly missing one of your family, just to impress you that he means business. You tackle him, and in the altercation, you manage to get the gun of him, and in the melee, shoot him dead. Does that make you a murderous bastard
Gervais08 wrote: » There’s been attempts at justification for attacks here.
CinemaGuy45 wrote: » Killing innocent people should bring about the exact opposite of what they evil killers want.
CinemaGuy45 wrote: I do know giving into the wishes of evil killers only shows that killing people gets them what they want. Whatever happened to not giving into the demands of terrorists?
Mr Meanor wrote: » This may go some way to explaining some individuals A research paperhttps://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: » Since the thread seems to have gotten dragged well of the original point, what, exactly is the "ah sure the IRA were worse" posters purpose here?
Let's say you got everyone on the thread to agree that ISIS were no worse than some other terrorist organisation, what then?
Do you feel islamic terrorism should be ignored or excused? If so, why? If not, why are you trying to minimise it?
I'm genuinely curious. You seem to go on to every thread where islamic terrorism or rape are mentioned in an attempt to deflect from it, minimise it, or just drag the thread into endless circular argument. What is your end goal? To get people to accept it as normal?
biko wrote: » Is it possible IS-bots exist?
GreeBo wrote: » Are they worse or are they the same? Seems to me that the point has been they are the same. Then you start to treat all terrorist groups equally. You might prioritize some over others but that would be based on their impact, not the justification of their cause.
GreeBo wrote: » Child Abuse = child abuse. Doesnt matter if the perpetrators are wearing a burka, a swastika or a collar.
GreeBo wrote: » I know another group who don't like people to have opinions that differ from their own...
biko wrote: » Antifa?
GreeBo wrote: » Are they worse or are they the same? Seems to me that the point has been they are the same.
GreeBo wrote: » Then you start to treat all terrorist groups equally. You might prioritize some over others but that would be based on their impact, not the justification of their cause.
GreeBo wrote: » Seriously? Have you read *any* of my posts? Where on earth do you get the idea that I want to ignore, excuse or minimise it?
GreeBo wrote: » Posters like yourself constantly peddle out this narrative that by equating terrorists groups, we are minimising them...its completely made up. I have *constantly* and *repeatedly* denounced any and all terrorist groups, its basically been the entire point of my posts, something that seems to have passed you by somehow.
GreeBo wrote: » Again with the strawman. The goal is not stop distinguishing peoples actions based on their religion. Terrorist murder = terrorist murder. Child Abuse = child abuse. Doesnt matter if the perpetrators are wearing a burka, a swastika or a collar.
RandRuns wrote: » The IRA don't kill anyone anymore though, islam does.
RandRuns wrote: » See above - since islamic terrorism has only continued to ramp up in recent decades (I know, I know, the number of victims doesn't matter) and IRA murders have stopped, why would you treat them equally? Should we put anti-terrorism resources into groups that have disbanded, just so you can achieve some kind of weird equality? Or is the real reason so that it takes the heat off islamic terrorism?
RandRuns wrote: » Because that is what you do constantly. You are trying to downplay islamic terrorism on this thread, and you are trying to downplay islamic mass rape on another one. It is clear to everyone who reads your posts.
RandRuns wrote: » Why would you try to "equate" them at all? Isn't it enough to condemn and discuss islamic terrorism without constantly trying to "equate" it with any other terrorism (with a far lower death toll)? It's like saying "Yeah cancer is bad, but what about shark attacks? It is deflection and minimisation - for what reason, only you can say.
RandRuns wrote: » It does, because the only way we will tackle it is to get to the root cause. People like you want to hide the root cause, for reason we can only guess at.
RandRuns wrote: » See above - since islamic terrorism has only continued to ramp up in recent decades (I know, I know, the number of victims doesn't matter) and IRA murders have stopped, why would you treat them equally? Should we put anti-terrorism resources into groups that have disbanded, just so you can achieve some kind of weird equality
bubblypop wrote: » Republican terrorism is still a threat and we do put plenty of resources into anti terrorism units here. They haven't gone away you know!!
RandRuns wrote: » Good to see you've taken a break from "but others do it too" over on the muslim rape gangs thread to post the same here. You lads wouldn't happen to be mates, would you? Same NGO perhaps?
GreeBo wrote: » The quality of posting from numerous posters on here has gone so childish as to render any reply a waste of my time.
biko wrote: » Antifa? BLM? Boards users in general?
Banana Republic 1 wrote: » Antifa is not a group