isis

Page 17 of 85 < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 >

cornwalls palace Torpoint 20 Aug 14 7.46pm
Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 5.15pm Quote The Sash at 20 Aug 2014 5.12pm As they are determined to live in a sharia law infested caliphate then let them create one - move all of them in from whichever country they currently call home and then they can stone each others wives to death and cut off each others heads for blasphemy to their hearts content This is basically what I mean. Let the radicals have their state and then police the borders really well - keep them there and out of more integrated cultures. ...but like all religions, they have to enlighten us. .......has our coach driver done a Poo'yet, without thinking about Gus!
Alert a moderator to this post

cornwalls palace

Torpoint 20 Aug 14 7.46pm

Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 5.15pm

Quote The Sash at 20 Aug 2014 5.12pm

As they are determined to live in a sharia law infested caliphate then let them create one - move all of them in from whichever country they currently call home and then they can stone each others wives to death and cut off each others heads for blasphemy to their hearts content

This is basically what I mean. Let the radicals have their state and then police the borders really well - keep them there and out of more integrated cultures.

...but like all religions, they have to enlighten us.

.......has our coach driver done a Poo'yet, without thinking about Gus!

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 20 Aug 14 7.52pm
Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 5.09pm Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 20 Aug 2014 4.57pm Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 4.46pm I'm surprised by all the calls to wipe them out. I would ask exactly who would you wipe out? People in these situations, when confronted by a force with overwhelming firepower, simply fade away and are driven underground. They begin using guerilla tactics and organising and funding themselves as an Islamic terrorist organisation. Before you know it the problem has spread worldwide to every city/airport/train station/school/university - you get the picture. My suggestion would be to combine a hard response with a deal of some kind. Maybe there could be some legitimate Muslim state run by ISIS where people could go and choose to live under Sharia law etc. if they so wished? Part of the deal could be to hand over anyone proven guilty of atrocities to be tried under international law at the Hague, or some such thing; rather than renditioning. The hard part would be getting them to talk which is why I would first assemble a huge force so they would know we mean business. using your logic though a huge force would be pointless as we wouldnt be able to do anything anyway. Where would you put this state? What country should give up their teritory to house these animals? Maybe somewhere with international jurisdiction like the Antartic? Yes a lot of these people would melt away but as with Pol Pot (to a degree), once the fear of them is removed, the people will rise against anyone who tries to disappear. You cannot be rational with these people. That is why we are always destined to lose unless we do something more drastic. Not really, a huge force would be necessary to get them to the negotiating table. Why else would they bother? They are pretty much doing what they want at present bar the odd air-strike. As for where would the state be, the obvious answer is more-or-less where it is already. I don't really like the idea of some radical Islamic state but if so many people seem to be attracted to it then who are we to stop them? Inevitably there will just be an escalation of the conflict until some solution is found. The doing something more drastic would be something akin to the US in Vietnam, the UN in Korea or everyone in Afghanistan. It would pretty likely never end and cause perhaps millions of casualties. This is not a conventonal force like the Iraqi army in Desert Storm. These are committed, well funded and highly manouverable forces who can quite easily disappear when needed. Dare I say it, I really wouldn't like to see the outcome of a massive US intervention. I say protect the borders of what they already have so they can't expand, step up airstrikes and pressure and then see what the diplomats can come up with when the heat dies down a bit. Edited by ASCPFC (20 Aug 2014 5.10pm) The major difference with Vietnam,Afghanistan,Korea etc is that they were essentially national liberation movements.Here,the underlying ideology is not nationalist but a multinational religious one.So,whether any binding "deal"could be cut (if one gets over whether that's a good idea or not) is,in my view,unlikely. The mere fact of "diplomatic" semi-recognition would give the underlying ideology incredible legitimacy (and support) all over the place... In terms of "sealing off" the territory they already have,do we just,as a part,leave any shia, christians,apostates still located there etc to their grisly fate?
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

20 Aug 14 7.52pm

Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 5.09pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 20 Aug 2014 4.57pm

Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 4.46pm

I'm surprised by all the calls to wipe them out. I would ask exactly who would you wipe out? People in these situations, when confronted by a force with overwhelming firepower, simply fade away and are driven underground. They begin using guerilla tactics and organising and funding themselves as an Islamic terrorist organisation. Before you know it the problem has spread worldwide to every city/airport/train station/school/university - you get the picture.
My suggestion would be to combine a hard response with a deal of some kind. Maybe there could be some legitimate Muslim state run by ISIS where people could go and choose to live under Sharia law etc. if they so wished? Part of the deal could be to hand over anyone proven guilty of atrocities to be tried under international law at the Hague, or some such thing; rather than renditioning. The hard part would be getting them to talk which is why I would first assemble a huge force so they would know we mean business.

using your logic though a huge force would be pointless as we wouldnt be able to do anything anyway.

Where would you put this state? What country should give up their teritory to house these animals? Maybe somewhere with international jurisdiction like the Antartic?

Yes a lot of these people would melt away but as with Pol Pot (to a degree), once the fear of them is removed, the people will rise against anyone who tries to disappear.

You cannot be rational with these people. That is why we are always destined to lose unless we do something more drastic.

Not really, a huge force would be necessary to get them to the negotiating table. Why else would they bother? They are pretty much doing what they want at present bar the odd air-strike. As for where would the state be, the obvious answer is more-or-less where it is already. I don't really like the idea of some radical Islamic state but if so many people seem to be attracted to it then who are we to stop them? Inevitably there will just be an escalation of the conflict until some solution is found.
The doing something more drastic would be something akin to the US in Vietnam, the UN in Korea or everyone in Afghanistan. It would pretty likely never end and cause perhaps millions of casualties. This is not a conventonal force like the Iraqi army in Desert Storm. These are committed, well funded and highly manouverable forces who can quite easily disappear when needed. Dare I say it, I really wouldn't like to see the outcome of a massive US intervention. I say protect the borders of what they already have so they can't expand, step up airstrikes and pressure and then see what the diplomats can come up with when the heat dies down a bit.

Edited by ASCPFC (20 Aug 2014 5.10pm)

The major difference with Vietnam,Afghanistan,Korea etc is that they were essentially national liberation movements.Here,the underlying ideology is not nationalist but a multinational religious one.So,whether any binding "deal"could be cut (if one gets over whether that's a good idea or not) is,in my view,unlikely. The mere fact of "diplomatic" semi-recognition would give the underlying ideology incredible legitimacy (and support) all over the place...

In terms of "sealing off" the territory they already have,do we just,as a part,leave any shia, christians,apostates still located there etc to their grisly fate?

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 20 Aug 14 9.13pm
Quote legaleagle at 20 Aug 2014 7.52pm Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 5.09pm Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 20 Aug 2014 4.57pm Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 4.46pm I'm surprised by all the calls to wipe them out. I would ask exactly who would you wipe out? People in these situations, when confronted by a force with overwhelming firepower, simply fade away and are driven underground. They begin using guerilla tactics and organising and funding themselves as an Islamic terrorist organisation. Before you know it the problem has spread worldwide to every city/airport/train station/school/university - you get the picture. My suggestion would be to combine a hard response with a deal of some kind. Maybe there could be some legitimate Muslim state run by ISIS where people could go and choose to live under Sharia law etc. if they so wished? Part of the deal could be to hand over anyone proven guilty of atrocities to be tried under international law at the Hague, or some such thing; rather than renditioning. The hard part would be getting them to talk which is why I would first assemble a huge force so they would know we mean business. using your logic though a huge force would be pointless as we wouldnt be able to do anything anyway. Where would you put this state? What country should give up their teritory to house these animals? Maybe somewhere with international jurisdiction like the Antartic? Yes a lot of these people would melt away but as with Pol Pot (to a degree), once the fear of them is removed, the people will rise against anyone who tries to disappear. You cannot be rational with these people. That is why we are always destined to lose unless we do something more drastic. Not really, a huge force would be necessary to get them to the negotiating table. Why else would they bother? They are pretty much doing what they want at present bar the odd air-strike. As for where would the state be, the obvious answer is more-or-less where it is already. I don't really like the idea of some radical Islamic state but if so many people seem to be attracted to it then who are we to stop them? Inevitably there will just be an escalation of the conflict until some solution is found. The doing something more drastic would be something akin to the US in Vietnam, the UN in Korea or everyone in Afghanistan. It would pretty likely never end and cause perhaps millions of casualties. This is not a conventonal force like the Iraqi army in Desert Storm. These are committed, well funded and highly manouverable forces who can quite easily disappear when needed. Dare I say it, I really wouldn't like to see the outcome of a massive US intervention. I say protect the borders of what they already have so they can't expand, step up airstrikes and pressure and then see what the diplomats can come up with when the heat dies down a bit. Edited by ASCPFC (20 Aug 2014 5.10pm) The major difference with Vietnam,Afghanistan,Korea etc is that they were essentially national liberation movements.Here,the underlying ideology is not nationalist but a multinational religious one.So,whether any binding "deal"could be cut (if one gets over whether that's a good idea or not) is,in my view,unlikely. The mere fact of "diplomatic" semi-recognition would give the underlying ideology incredible legitimacy (and support) all over the place... In terms of "sealing off" the territory they already have,do we just,as a part,leave any shia, christians,apostates still located there etc to their grisly fate? At one time or another we are going to have the face the facts that Muslim radicalism is here to stay. The alternative is basically a second crusade fought worldwide. As for the fate of people in ISIS controlled territory that would have to be decided. I would prefer if people who didn't want to live there could leave. I don't really want to go on about it but we already have one multi-national, solely religious based territory in the world. Anyway, this is just idle conjecture and I stick to my main point which is that military intervention will not actually work in the long run. There may be a wider war eventually but even then it will be ended by diplomacy rather than anihilation. Any length of time in a conflict involving them these days will prove too long for western sensibilities - hence the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 20 Aug 14 9.13pm

Quote legaleagle at 20 Aug 2014 7.52pm

Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 5.09pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 20 Aug 2014 4.57pm

Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 4.46pm

using your logic though a huge force would be pointless as we wouldnt be able to do anything anyway.

Where would you put this state? What country should give up their teritory to house these animals? Maybe somewhere with international jurisdiction like the Antartic?

Yes a lot of these people would melt away but as with Pol Pot (to a degree), once the fear of them is removed, the people will rise against anyone who tries to disappear.

You cannot be rational with these people. That is why we are always destined to lose unless we do something more drastic.

Edited by ASCPFC (20 Aug 2014 5.10pm)

In terms of "sealing off" the territory they already have,do we just,as a part,leave any shia, christians,apostates still located there etc to their grisly fate?

At one time or another we are going to have the face the facts that Muslim radicalism is here to stay. The alternative is basically a second crusade fought worldwide. As for the fate of people in ISIS controlled territory that would have to be decided. I would prefer if people who didn't want to live there could leave. I don't really want to go on about it but we already have one multi-national, solely religious based territory in the world.
Anyway, this is just idle conjecture and I stick to my main point which is that military intervention will not actually work in the long run. There may be a wider war eventually but even then it will be ended by diplomacy rather than anihilation. Any length of time in a conflict involving them these days will prove too long for western sensibilities - hence the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 20 Aug 14 9.15pm
Quote cornwalls palace at 20 Aug 2014 7.46pm Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 5.15pm Quote The Sash at 20 Aug 2014 5.12pm As they are determined to live in a sharia law infested caliphate then let them create one - move all of them in from whichever country they currently call home and then they can stone each others wives to death and cut off each others heads for blasphemy to their hearts content This is basically what I mean. Let the radicals have their state and then police the borders really well - keep them there and out of more integrated cultures. ...but like all religions, they have to enlighten us. or put us to the sword like the infidel we are Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 20 Aug 14 9.15pm

Quote cornwalls palace at 20 Aug 2014 7.46pm

Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 5.15pm

Quote The Sash at 20 Aug 2014 5.12pm

This is basically what I mean. Let the radicals have their state and then police the borders really well - keep them there and out of more integrated cultures.

...but like all religions, they have to enlighten us.

or put us to the sword like the infidel we are

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 20 Aug 14 10.05pm
Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 9.13pm Quote legaleagle at 20 Aug 2014 7.52pm Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 5.09pm Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 20 Aug 2014 4.57pm Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 4.46pm I'm surprised by all the calls to wipe them out. I would ask exactly who would you wipe out? People in these situations, when confronted by a force with overwhelming firepower, simply fade away and are driven underground. They begin using guerilla tactics and organising and funding themselves as an Islamic terrorist organisation. Before you know it the problem has spread worldwide to every city/airport/train station/school/university - you get the picture. My suggestion would be to combine a hard response with a deal of some kind. Maybe there could be some legitimate Muslim state run by ISIS where people could go and choose to live under Sharia law etc. if they so wished? Part of the deal could be to hand over anyone proven guilty of atrocities to be tried under international law at the Hague, or some such thing; rather than renditioning. The hard part would be getting them to talk which is why I would first assemble a huge force so they would know we mean business. using your logic though a huge force would be pointless as we wouldnt be able to do anything anyway. Where would you put this state? What country should give up their teritory to house these animals? Maybe somewhere with international jurisdiction like the Antartic? Yes a lot of these people would melt away but as with Pol Pot (to a degree), once the fear of them is removed, the people will rise against anyone who tries to disappear. You cannot be rational with these people. That is why we are always destined to lose unless we do something more drastic. Not really, a huge force would be necessary to get them to the negotiating table. Why else would they bother? They are pretty much doing what they want at present bar the odd air-strike. As for where would the state be, the obvious answer is more-or-less where it is already. I don't really like the idea of some radical Islamic state but if so many people seem to be attracted to it then who are we to stop them? Inevitably there will just be an escalation of the conflict until some solution is found. The doing something more drastic would be something akin to the US in Vietnam, the UN in Korea or everyone in Afghanistan. It would pretty likely never end and cause perhaps millions of casualties. This is not a conventonal force like the Iraqi army in Desert Storm. These are committed, well funded and highly manouverable forces who can quite easily disappear when needed. Dare I say it, I really wouldn't like to see the outcome of a massive US intervention. I say protect the borders of what they already have so they can't expand, step up airstrikes and pressure and then see what the diplomats can come up with when the heat dies down a bit. Edited by ASCPFC (20 Aug 2014 5.10pm) The major difference with Vietnam,Afghanistan,Korea etc is that they were essentially national liberation movements.Here,the underlying ideology is not nationalist but a multinational religious one.So,whether any binding "deal"could be cut (if one gets over whether that's a good idea or not) is,in my view,unlikely. The mere fact of "diplomatic" semi-recognition would give the underlying ideology incredible legitimacy (and support) all over the place... In terms of "sealing off" the territory they already have,do we just,as a part,leave any shia, christians,apostates still located there etc to their grisly fate? At one time or another we are going to have the face the facts that Muslim radicalism is here to stay. The alternative is basically a second crusade fought worldwide. As for the fate of people in ISIS controlled territory that would have to be decided. I would prefer if people who didn't want to live there could leave. I don't really want to go on about it but we already have one multi-national, solely religious based territory in the world. Anyway, this is just idle conjecture and I stick to my main point which is that military intervention will not actually work in the long run. There may be a wider war eventually but even then it will be ended by diplomacy rather than anihilation. Any length of time in a conflict involving them these days will prove too long for western sensibilities - hence the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't claim to have any solutions ,just I'm not sure your's would work (though I don't disagree with you re the potential long-term negatives of western large-scale military intervention). The major difference with this potential multi national religious-based state (like it or not and opposed to any others with all their faults) is in its fundamental ideological opposition to any other groups enjoying any role (even being alive?) in "peacetime" other than under a Wahhabi gone crazy-type sharia law allowing only parliamentary voting/representation by religious group (no one citizen, one vote) and a court system where non-muslims couldn't give evidence against a muslim...and death for apostates...etc etc... The multi-national state you may have in mind is ,for all its many many faults ,not multi-national and is (and certainly far from alone in this) based on ethnicity rather than religion and allows for atheism or converting to any other religion you like...... Edited by legaleagle (20 Aug 2014 10.19pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

20 Aug 14 10.05pm

Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 9.13pm

Quote legaleagle at 20 Aug 2014 7.52pm

Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 5.09pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 20 Aug 2014 4.57pm

Quote ASCPFC at 20 Aug 2014 4.46pm

using your logic though a huge force would be pointless as we wouldnt be able to do anything anyway.

Where would you put this state? What country should give up their teritory to house these animals? Maybe somewhere with international jurisdiction like the Antartic?

Yes a lot of these people would melt away but as with Pol Pot (to a degree), once the fear of them is removed, the people will rise against anyone who tries to disappear.

You cannot be rational with these people. That is why we are always destined to lose unless we do something more drastic.

Edited by ASCPFC (20 Aug 2014 5.10pm)

In terms of "sealing off" the territory they already have,do we just,as a part,leave any shia, christians,apostates still located there etc to their grisly fate?

I don't claim to have any solutions ,just I'm not sure your's would work (though I don't disagree with you re the potential long-term negatives of western large-scale military intervention).

The major difference with this potential multi national religious-based state (like it or not and opposed to any others with all their faults) is in its fundamental ideological opposition to any other groups enjoying any role (even being alive?) in "peacetime" other than under a Wahhabi gone crazy-type sharia law allowing only parliamentary voting/representation by religious group (no one citizen, one vote) and a court system where non-muslims couldn't give evidence against a muslim...and death for apostates...etc etc...

The multi-national state you may have in mind is ,for all its many many faults ,not multi-national and is (and certainly far from alone in this) based on ethnicity rather than religion and allows for atheism or converting to any other religion you like......

Edited by legaleagle (20 Aug 2014 10.19pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

bright&wright 21 Aug 14 8.26am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Aug 2014 4.08pm Quote bright&wright at 20 Aug 2014 4.01pm Quote Stirlingsays at 20 Aug 2014 2.58pm Multiculturalism is such a success story isn't it. Cameron telling us that IS are a threat here as well. The British Islamic community - the first to condemn the Israeli's and yet nowhere to be seen when IS do anything. I'll keep saying it (cos it's true) - one rule for Muslims, one rule for everyone else. apart from the collection of imams and leading Muslims who have condemned them along with British Muslims who have gone out to join isis. There has been massive condemnation of Isis by British muslim groups inc the muslim council of britain Cos the family of the 7/7 attackers definitely didn't know what they were up to... Like all the families of the Muslim's who have gone out to fight in Syria have gone running to the police to warn them... 'We are going to make a little bit of history here’ Mr. J. Ertl.
Alert a moderator to this post

bright&wright

21 Aug 14 8.26am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Aug 2014 4.08pm

Quote bright&wright at 20 Aug 2014 4.01pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 20 Aug 2014 2.58pm

Multiculturalism is such a success story isn't it.

Cameron telling us that IS are a threat here as well.

The British Islamic community - the first to condemn the Israeli's and yet nowhere to be seen when IS do anything.

I'll keep saying it (cos it's true) - one rule for Muslims, one rule for everyone else.

apart from the collection of imams and leading Muslims who have condemned them along with British Muslims who have gone out to join isis. There has been massive condemnation of Isis by British muslim groups inc the muslim council of britain

Cos the family of the 7/7 attackers definitely didn't know what they were up to... Like all the families of the Muslim's who have gone out to fight in Syria have gone running to the police to warn them...

'We are going to make a little bit of history here’ Mr. J. Ertl.

Alert a moderator to this post

Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 21 Aug 14 8.36am
Quote bright&wright at 21 Aug 2014 8.26am Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Aug 2014 4.08pm Quote bright&wright at 20 Aug 2014 4.01pm Quote Stirlingsays at 20 Aug 2014 2.58pm Multiculturalism is such a success story isn't it. Cameron telling us that IS are a threat here as well. The British Islamic community - the first to condemn the Israeli's and yet nowhere to be seen when IS do anything. I'll keep saying it (cos it's true) - one rule for Muslims, one rule for everyone else. apart from the collection of imams and leading Muslims who have condemned them along with British Muslims who have gone out to join isis. There has been massive condemnation of Isis by British muslim groups inc the muslim council of britain Cos the family of the 7/7 attackers definitely didn't know what they were up to... Like all the families of the Muslim's who have gone out to fight in Syria have gone running to the police to warn them... I got involved in lots of s*** as a teenager and my family were completely unaware. the dignified don't even enter in the game
Alert a moderator to this post

Y Ddraig Goch

In The Crowd 21 Aug 14 8.36am

Quote bright&wright at 21 Aug 2014 8.26am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Aug 2014 4.08pm

Quote bright&wright at 20 Aug 2014 4.01pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 20 Aug 2014 2.58pm

Multiculturalism is such a success story isn't it.

Cameron telling us that IS are a threat here as well.

The British Islamic community - the first to condemn the Israeli's and yet nowhere to be seen when IS do anything.

I'll keep saying it (cos it's true) - one rule for Muslims, one rule for everyone else.

I got involved in lots of s*** as a teenager and my family were completely unaware.

the dignified don't even enter in the game

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 21 Aug 14 9.44am
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 21 Aug 2014 8.36am Quote bright&wright at 21 Aug 2014 8.26am Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Aug 2014 4.08pm Quote bright&wright at 20 Aug 2014 4.01pm Quote Stirlingsays at 20 Aug 2014 2.58pm Multiculturalism is such a success story isn't it. Cameron telling us that IS are a threat here as well. The British Islamic community - the first to condemn the Israeli's and yet nowhere to be seen when IS do anything. I'll keep saying it (cos it's true) - one rule for Muslims, one rule for everyone else. apart from the collection of imams and leading Muslims who have condemned them along with British Muslims who have gone out to join isis. There has been massive condemnation of Isis by British muslim groups inc the muslim council of britain Cos the family of the 7/7 attackers definitely didn't know what they were up to... Like all the families of the Muslim's who have gone out to fight in Syria have gone running to the police to warn them... I got involved in lots of s*** as a teenager and my family were completely unaware. likewise. Plus i doubt many peoples kids are upfront about it either. At what point do you turn your kids over to special branch. If my kid had gone off to fight i wouldn't turn them in either unless i was sure they were with Isis. They could be with anyone oof a number of Syrian rebel factions or working with support teams etc "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 21 Aug 14 9.44am

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 21 Aug 2014 8.36am

Quote bright&wright at 21 Aug 2014 8.26am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 20 Aug 2014 4.08pm

Quote bright&wright at 20 Aug 2014 4.01pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 20 Aug 2014 2.58pm

Multiculturalism is such a success story isn't it.

Cameron telling us that IS are a threat here as well.

The British Islamic community - the first to condemn the Israeli's and yet nowhere to be seen when IS do anything.

I'll keep saying it (cos it's true) - one rule for Muslims, one rule for everyone else.

I got involved in lots of s*** as a teenager and my family were completely unaware.

likewise. Plus i doubt many peoples kids are upfront about it either. At what point do you turn your kids over to special branch. If my kid had gone off to fight i wouldn't turn them in either unless i was sure they were with Isis. They could be with anyone oof a number of Syrian rebel factions or working with support teams etc

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Catfish Burgess Hill 21 Aug 14 10.25am
This is completely new. We are now at war and will have to defend ourselves but, unlike previous wars, we will not be able to to round up and inter people who are hostile to our interests; "collar the lot" as Churchill put it. The only way in which this can be fought is by massively ramping up our intelligence capability and powers. I think the next 5-10 years will see a huge debate about how far that should be allowed to go. I expect to see the debate about National ID Cards back on the agenda soon and I think we will see some form of internment. Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial
Alert a moderator to this post

Catfish

Burgess Hill 21 Aug 14 10.25am

This is completely new. We are now at war and will have to defend ourselves but, unlike previous wars, we will not be able to to round up and inter people who are hostile to our interests; "collar the lot" as Churchill put it. The only way in which this can be fought is by massively ramping up our intelligence capability and powers. I think the next 5-10 years will see a huge debate about how far that should be allowed to go. I expect to see the debate about National ID Cards back on the agenda soon and I think we will see some form of internment.

Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 21 Aug 14 3.07pm
Isis Bride from Lewisham tweets of ambition to be first UK woman to murder British or US citizen She was thought to have left the UK for Syria in 2012 and before her departure preached at the Lewisham Islamic Centre regularly and worshiped alongside Lee Rigby’s killers Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. [Link] Nice to know this goes on down the road. Would rather be in Bradford.
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

21 Aug 14 3.07pm

Isis Bride from Lewisham tweets of ambition to be first UK woman to murder British or US citizen

She was thought to have left the UK for Syria in 2012 and before her departure preached at the Lewisham Islamic Centre regularly and worshiped alongside Lee Rigby’s killers Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale.

[Link]

Nice to know this goes on down the road. Would rather be in Bradford.

Alert a moderator to this post

hellodah 21 Aug 14 5.28pm
Cue posts from the Comrades telling us they are isolated incidents etc, etc ... 'high-spirited' kids etc - how having someone murdered in the street or blown up now and again is worth the tremendous benefits of having 'diversity'.
Alert a moderator to this post

hellodah

21 Aug 14 5.28pm

Cue posts from the Comrades telling us they are isolated incidents etc, etc ... 'high-spirited' kids etc - how having someone murdered in the street or blown up now and again is worth the tremendous benefits of having 'diversity'.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 21 Aug 14 6.23pm
Quote johnfirewall at 21 Aug 2014 3.07pm Isis Bride from Lewisham tweets of ambition to be first UK woman to murder British or US citizen She was thought to have left the UK for Syria in 2012 and before her departure preached at the Lewisham Islamic Centre regularly and worshiped alongside Lee Rigby’s killers Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. [Link] Nice to know this goes on down the road. Would rather be in Bradford. That's why ISIS are doing so well, they've got the f**king Ninja on their side. Clearly an example of the poverty of education in Sharia for women, as plenty of UK women have murdered British and US citizens. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 21 Aug 14 6.23pm

Quote johnfirewall at 21 Aug 2014 3.07pm

Isis Bride from Lewisham tweets of ambition to be first UK woman to murder British or US citizen

[Link]

Nice to know this goes on down the road. Would rather be in Bradford.

That's why ISIS are doing so well, they've got the f**king Ninja on their side.

Clearly an example of the poverty of education in Sharia for women, as plenty of UK women have murdered British and US citizens.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 17 of 85 < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

isis

Site Map

Sponsors