You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Is Islam, the new Nazi ?
November 11 2026 6.12am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Is Islam, the new Nazi ?


Page 15 of 25 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >
legaleagle Flag 22 Jun 14 1.01pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 11.51am

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 11.00am

Quote Stirlingsays at 21 Jun 2014 10.55pm


So the BBC say we did something and that's the proof.....Now I'm a fan of the BBC but I don't think it's valid to state something as a fact that in reality is journalism.

If it were as you say it was wouldn't it be more likely to find some discussion of this stuff in Benn's or Thatcher's accounts?


Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Jun 2014 11.08pm)

The Telegraph,30 December 2010,just by way of further example:


"Newly published papers show that one of the country’s top civil servants held a private summit with senior American, French and German politicians at which they decided to provide “discreet support for Afghan guerrilla resistance”.


One faction of the Mujahideen fighters, who were also covertly funded by the CIA, went on to become founding members of the al-Qa’eda terrorist network.


...The Communist superpower had sent troops into Kabul in December 1979 to support a Marxist-Leninist regime that was under threat from Islamic opposition groups known as the Mujahideen.


On January 15th, 1980, Sir Robert Armstrong, the Cabinet Secretary, met Zbigniew Brzezinski, the US National Security Advisor, along with government representatives from France and West Germany at the Palais Marigny in Paris.

A note sent to London afterwards stated: “There was some discussion of support for Afghan resistance to the invading Soviet troops.”

In a restricted memo, Sir Robert told how the Americans suggested supporting refugee camps in pakistan as they were being used as bases by guerrillas opposing the Soviet invasion, and it would “help to keep Afghan resistance alive”.

It was said at the meeting: “If one of the objectives of the West in this crisis was to keep the Islamic world aroused about the Soviet invasion, that would be served by encouraging a continuing guerrilla resistance.”

...The Germans were legally unable to supply arms, but the US, UK and France agreed to help the Mujahideen.

“It was agreed that heads of government should be invited to endorse this conclusion and, if they did so, to authorise discussions at the appropriate level in the agencies involved as to feasibility and methods of providing discreet support for Afghan guerrilla resistance.”

...In a confidential assessment of Soviet strategy, British officials recognised the potential dangers of military action against a guerrilla force in Afghanistan.

...“We trust the Western leaders are prepared for the enormous beneficial possibilities that could just possibly open up if the Afghan rebellion were to succeed.”

..Muslims from around the world travelled to Afghanistan to join the resistance and some Mujahideen veterans who had received weapons and training from Western powers, including Osama Bin Laden, went on to use them against their former supporters in terrorist atrocities".


This information supports my statements on the issue and just reveals yours to have been exaggerated. While I can't know this happened, this makes more realistic sense...At least on a subjective level.

I said, if this happened it would have mainly been a civil service arrangement. Where's the Thatcher commentary on this?....Where is the huge amount of money spent that you referred to?

I don't see any problem with the west supporting the Afghan resistance to the Soviets at the time.....It was the lesser evil.

The mistakes were made after the Soviets left....Not the policy of assistance.

I see no participation in 'billions of dollars', a quote you repeated from the BBC. Not from this country.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 11.52am)


I was simply giving you a further example re the veracity of one aspect since you seemed to doubt even that. I'm unclear quite how what I posted supports your position (or shows mine to have been exaggerated in any way), but if you think so, well, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion.

The "mistake" was letting the genie out of the bottle...that happened from 1979/80 onwards...the mistake was the Cold War warriors being so blinded by being anti-Soviet not to appreciate that what you unleash is not necessarily going to be your poodle and is going to come back and bite you big time...

 
Stirlingsays Flag 22 Jun 14 1.05pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.39pm

[Link]


[Link]


Unfortunately in typical Nick fashion you don't address the post but instead place your own angle.

I repeat America does not have a significant threat from American Muslims on its soil.

For a country with five times the population their threat compared to ours if ridiculously small...It has happened but it's nothing compared to here...I repeat there are no left wing power bases in the US.

You didn't answer that....Instead you post links about Americans going out to fight in foreign wars.

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Stirlingsays Flag 22 Jun 14 1.07pm

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 1.01pm

I was simply giving you a further example re the veracity of one aspect since you seemed to doubt even that. I'm unclear quite how what I posted supports your position (or shows mine to have been exaggerated in any way), but if you think so, well, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion.

The "mistake" was letting the genie out of the bottle...that happened from 1979/80 onwards...the mistake was the Cold War warriors being so blinded by being anti-Soviet not to appreciate that what you unleash is not necessarily going to be your poodle and is going to come back and bite you big time...


So please tell us legal. What exactly should the western response have been to the Soviet invasion of countries?

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Stirlingsays Flag 22 Jun 14 1.11pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm

Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation.


Who imposed democracy?

The constitutions has been created and voted in by Iraqis.

Where is the majority rejection of democracy.....The truth is that the majority were crying out for it.

Where have we forced Iraq to become a democratic country.....If it is forced why is there voter turnout higher than ours even with the threat of death at the polls from the fractions with the country opposed to democracy?

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 1.13pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 1.05pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.39pm

[Link]


[Link]


Unfortunately in typical Nick fashion you don't address the post but instead place your own angle.

I repeat America does not have a significant threat from American Muslims on its soil.

For a country with five times the population their threat compared to ours if ridiculously small...It has happened but it's nothing compared to here...I repeat there are no left wing power bases in the US.

You didn't answer that....Instead you post links about Americans going out to fight in foreign wars.

Apologies, posted the same link twice, try this one
[Link]

 
Stirlingsays Flag 22 Jun 14 1.18pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 1.13pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 1.05pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.39pm

[Link]


[Link]


Unfortunately in typical Nick fashion you don't address the post but instead place your own angle.

I repeat America does not have a significant threat from American Muslims on its soil.

For a country with five times the population their threat compared to ours if ridiculously small...It has happened but it's nothing compared to here...I repeat there are no left wing power bases in the US.

You didn't answer that....Instead you post links about Americans going out to fight in foreign wars.

Apologies, posted the same link twice, try this one
[Link]

Really Nick. If these are extremist organizations where are the attacks Nick?

Please answer points. Links are not answers.

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
legaleagle Flag 22 Jun 14 1.21pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 12.04pm

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 11.24am

Tory governments always encouraged British culture....Blair's government only started talking about the same thing once this country had suffered from these groups......Before then everything they did encouraged multiculturalism....And lots of them still do because their heads are just too wedded to the ideology.

As I stated, this is a country where both the right and left agree with immigration (though disagree with the extent). Both agree with religious freedom and both agree with the idea of political asylum.

However, unlike the left.....The right have never....Let me repeat that...Never agreed with multiculturalism....The idea that it's alright for groups to exist within their own mindsets without reference to the wider community. For decades the left defended that practice.

It was the left that that gave the space for these groups to flourish. Many on the left have altered their tune now but they can't re-write history.

Like I said, accusations of racism or bigotry were leveled at pretty much any criticisms or interventions about these matters.

The left created that 'culture of fear' in addressing these areas not the right.



Again you refer to a foreign government's policy waffle and relate it to here.

What you don't seem to understand is that warm words put out in an official document and reality are two very different things.

These words kind of represent an idea of how many of us would like these things to work. It doesn't match up to the reality. They are put out there for cohesion and because many immigrants do assimilate and play their part.....And that's the ideal.

But the reality is pursuing a policy of multiculturalism in the real world is a conclave of differing values, isolationism and separatism. Still there's a refusal to see the cause and effect.


Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 12.34pm)


Maybe or maybe not. The reality (not warm words) in Australia has largely been an amazingly successful (overall) integration (not isolationism and separatism) of very large numbers of people from many cultures/religions and countries to "buy into" Australia while not feeling that must entail rejection of their culture etc of origin.

We are not where we are because of multiculturalism per se as you suggest. Were it not for multiculturalism, we might be worse off.We are where we are because, for whatever reasons, a substantial portion of a group (in this case a religious one) here have become so disaffected with mainstream values in a context of a worldwide (not just in countries with multi cultural policies) rise in "extreme" views within that religious community.

Some of the seeming factors here(aspects of our foreign policy since 1979/Londonstan, world developments) cant be pinned on multiculturalism;its too simplistic, ie why aren't our African, W Indian, Sikh, Hindu, Polish etc communities all disaffected to the same extent? Disaffection during Anti-Vietnam war times throughout the West wasn't due to multiculturalism...

 
legaleagle Flag 22 Jun 14 1.33pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 1.05pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.39pm

[Link]


[Link]


Unfortunately in typical Nick fashion you don't address the post but instead place your own angle.

I repeat America does not have a significant threat from American Muslims on its soil.

For a country with five times the population their threat compared to ours if ridiculously small...It has happened but it's nothing compared to here...I repeat there are no left wing power bases in the US.

You didn't answer that....Instead you post links about Americans going out to fight in foreign wars.


Huffington Post 24 May 2007:


"25% of US Muslims under 30 support suicide bombings in some capacity. As a 26 year old American-Muslim, I am concerned about these findings.

The Pew Center for Research recently released the findings of a comprehensive survey about US Muslims, entitled "Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream." The study confirms the already obvious -- that US Muslims are mostly well integrated and quite well off. There is no reason to celebrate this "discovery" because US Muslims have known this for quite some time.

The focus must be on the problems discovered. 13% of US Muslims of all ages feel that there are scenarios in which suicide bombings are justified. Only 40% of all US Muslims believe that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks. US Muslims, in comparison with all Americans, favor governmental intrusion in morality almost 2 to 1. Numbers show that the Blackamerican Muslim population does not share the financial success or the social optimism of immigrant Muslims. Homosexuals are reviled. A large number of youth, almost three times as many as in pakistan, believe that there is an inherent conflict between faith and modern life."

 
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 22 Jun 14 2.06pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 1.11pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm

Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation.


Who imposed democracy?

The constitutions has been created and voted in by Iraqis.

Where is the majority rejection of democracy.....The truth is that the majority were crying out for it.

Where have we forced Iraq to become a democratic country.....If it is forced why is there voter turnout higher than ours even with the threat of death at the polls from the fractions with the country opposed to democracy?

How much they were crying out for democracy is fairly open to debate, given the scale of the insurgency and militia problems post invasion. However the real problem is not necessarily that we 'imposed' democracy per se, but that the country really lacked a cultural understanding and completed historical discourses, such as those in the west had, that led to the rise of democracy, and its evolution.

Its important to remember that every democracy wasn't born intact, as we see today, but grew out of a series of resolved discourses about democratic rights and equality. Initially, British democracy, was highly prejudicial and representative of only the will of a minority of the UK (typically men of wealth, landowners and successful mercantile classes).

For democracy, to become truly democratic, Iraq must be stabled for decades, possibly even a century and resolve the issues it has regarding rights and sectarianism, exclusions, prejudices etc through the democratic inclusion of those who are marginalised whilst resisting those who would implement tyranny (either of the state, or other groups).

The greatest problem of democracy in Iraq has always been its utilisation by a Shiite majority to implement its will on minorities within Iraq, particularly along sectarian lines. Whilst the Tyranny has been deposed, the state still operates tolerates tyranny and oppression as a means of controlling its specific desires - as well as tolerating many of the unacceptable practices of tyranny (torture, secret police, death squads and disappearances).


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 22 Jun 14 2.25pm

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 1.33pm

Huffington Post 24 May 2007:


"25% of US Muslims under 30 support suicide bombings in some capacity. As a 26 year old American-Muslim, I am concerned about these findings.

The Pew Center for Research recently released the findings of a comprehensive survey about US Muslims, entitled "Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream." The study confirms the already obvious -- that US Muslims are mostly well integrated and quite well off. There is no reason to celebrate this "discovery" because US Muslims have known this for quite some time.

The focus must be on the problems discovered. 13% of US Muslims of all ages feel that there are scenarios in which suicide bombings are justified. Only 40% of all US Muslims believe that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks. US Muslims, in comparison with all Americans, favor governmental intrusion in morality almost 2 to 1. Numbers show that the Blackamerican Muslim population does not share the financial success or the social optimism of immigrant Muslims. Homosexuals are reviled. A large number of youth, almost three times as many as in pakistan, believe that there is an inherent conflict between faith and modern life."

I don't really have an issue with the idea of suicide bombings, they're a legitimate means of effective resistance, when you consider that as far back as Vietnam, guerrilla groups were suffering at least 70% casualty rates (the PLO claim that 80-90% casualty rate on 'military operations'.

Typically the estimate is that roughly 10-20 insurgents die for every casualty they cause. In light of that, suicide attacks have become fairly efficient, as they can deliver high casualty in exchange for low losses (as well as causing fear and insecurity among the enemy).

In war effectiveness replaces 'morality', and suicide attacks can be very effective for guerrilla movements. The 1983 suicide bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, demonstrates that. 299 'enemy' killed in exchange of some 20 or so casualties. Had Islamic Jihad wanted to cause those casualties by more conventional means, they would have required upwards of 3000 casualties of their own.

Kamikazie attacks in WWII were highly effectual. The value of a suicide attack is not that the individual so much gives their life, but that they effectively deliver a comprehensive tactical strike that is efficient and effective, both in terms of its impact, and in relative terms of casualties experienced by the attacking side.

The question isn't whether suicide bombings are justifiable, its whether the targets are justified, bombing civilians, isn't really something the Koran or International Law justifies (ie what ever side you find yourself on).

Insurgents utilise suicide attacks because they're effective and efficient, not really for any moral reason.


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Stirlingsays Flag 22 Jun 14 2.25pm

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 1.33pm

Huffington Post 24 May 2007:


"25% of US Muslims under 30 support suicide bombings in some capacity. As a 26 year old American-Muslim, I am concerned about these findings.

The Pew Center for Research recently released the findings of a comprehensive survey about US Muslims, entitled "Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream." The study confirms the already obvious -- that US Muslims are mostly well integrated and quite well off. There is no reason to celebrate this "discovery" because US Muslims have known this for quite some time.

The focus must be on the problems discovered. 13% of US Muslims of all ages feel that there are scenarios in which suicide bombings are justified. Only 40% of all US Muslims believe that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks. US Muslims, in comparison with all Americans, favor governmental intrusion in morality almost 2 to 1. Numbers show that the Blackamerican Muslim population does not share the financial success or the social optimism of immigrant Muslims. Homosexuals are reviled. A large number of youth, almost three times as many as in pakistan, believe that there is an inherent conflict between faith and modern life."


I agree that Muslims....shock shock....Have sympathy with other Muslims around the world. Attacking your own country though is a completely different ball game.

Again, this isn't an answer to my observation. Why don't Americans have anything like the same level of attacks on American soil by American Muslims?

You haven't got an answer. I have and it's bleeding obvious. But some on the left can't deal with it and wish to obfuscate and minimize the reality.

Their ideology contributed to our mess.

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Stirlingsays Flag 22 Jun 14 2.30pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2014 2.06pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 1.11pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm

Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation.


Who imposed democracy?

The constitutions has been created and voted in by Iraqis.

Where is the majority rejection of democracy.....The truth is that the majority were crying out for it.

Where have we forced Iraq to become a democratic country.....If it is forced why is there voter turnout higher than ours even with the threat of death at the polls from the fractions with the country opposed to democracy?

How much they were crying out for democracy is fairly open to debate, given the scale of the insurgency and militia problems post invasion. However the real problem is not necessarily that we 'imposed' democracy per se, but that the country really lacked a cultural understanding and completed historical discourses, such as those in the west had, that led to the rise of democracy, and its evolution.

Its important to remember that every democracy wasn't born intact, as we see today, but grew out of a series of resolved discourses about democratic rights and equality. Initially, British democracy, was highly prejudicial and representative of only the will of a minority of the UK (typically men of wealth, landowners and successful mercantile classes).

For democracy, to become truly democratic, Iraq must be stabled for decades, possibly even a century and resolve the issues it has regarding rights and sectarianism, exclusions, prejudices etc through the democratic inclusion of those who are marginalised whilst resisting those who would implement tyranny (either of the state, or other groups).

The greatest problem of democracy in Iraq has always been its utilisation by a Shiite majority to implement its will on minorities within Iraq, particularly along sectarian lines. Whilst the Tyranny has been deposed, the state still operates tolerates tyranny and oppression as a means of controlling its specific desires - as well as tolerating many of the unacceptable practices of tyranny (torture, secret police, death squads and disappearances).


Wasn't democracy here forged via conflict and military wars?

We had the Baron's war.....We had the civil war...Loads of conflict related to how we are governed....The move to majority democracy isn't always an easy process and it takes time to be accepted.

There is nothing unusual about what is happening within new democratic countries.

I agree that outside of the intelligentsia and middle or lower middle classes many in middle eastern countries weren't so worried about democracy.

Still, you could to a smaller extent say the same thing here......It's about who has the power and which groups in society prosper.

Democracy always leads to a lesser role for religion.....Some clerics and supporters (not the moderate ones by any means) won't have that.


Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 2.34pm)

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
matt_himself Flag Matataland 22 Jun 14 2.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]


More worrying than interesting.
Where does it say ISIS were formed? Iraq!
Why Iraq? I'd wager it's because the country was destabilised after the invasion which was started by that well known lefty, George Bush junior.
Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise.

As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am)

"Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise".

So, in your mind, the Anfal campaign, using chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Kuwait invasion which involved the burning of one billion barrels of oil by the Iraqi Army, the violent repression of the Sh'iite uprising and the subsequent massacre of the Marsh Arabs was a form of acceptable social control?

I would suggest that in Sadaam's day there was plenty of fundamentalist groups, the difference is that under the Democratic Iraq, they can stand to run the country in a democratic process and not be subjected to the tyranny experienced in his time. The fact that don't, is their doing and is not a symptom of democracy, it is a symptom of their inability to proceed in life in a civilised fashion.


Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation.


So you think it would be okey dokey to leave it and let Saddam continue with his whimsical murders? You think it ok to allow him to create one of the largest environmental disasters of all time? You think it ok for the people to be deprived the chance to forge their own future by voting on the people they want to run their country?

This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation.

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
legaleagle Flag 22 Jun 14 2.54pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2014 2.25pm

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 1.33pm

Huffington Post 24 May 2007:


"25% of US Muslims under 30 support suicide bombings in some capacity. As a 26 year old American-Muslim, I am concerned about these findings.

The Pew Center for Research recently released the findings of a comprehensive survey about US Muslims, entitled "Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream." The study confirms the already obvious -- that US Muslims are mostly well integrated and quite well off. There is no reason to celebrate this "discovery" because US Muslims have known this for quite some time.

The focus must be on the problems discovered. 13% of US Muslims of all ages feel that there are scenarios in which suicide bombings are justified. Only 40% of all US Muslims believe that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks. US Muslims, in comparison with all Americans, favor governmental intrusion in morality almost 2 to 1. Numbers show that the Blackamerican Muslim population does not share the financial success or the social optimism of immigrant Muslims. Homosexuals are reviled. A large number of youth, almost three times as many as in pakistan, believe that there is an inherent conflict between faith and modern life."

I don't really have an issue with the idea of suicide bombings, they're a legitimate means of effective resistance, when you consider that as far back as Vietnam, guerrilla groups were suffering at least 70% casualty rates (the PLO claim that 80-90% casualty rate on 'military operations'.

Typically the estimate is that roughly 10-20 insurgents die for every casualty they cause. In light of that, suicide attacks have become fairly efficient, as they can deliver high casualty in exchange for low losses (as well as causing fear and insecurity among the enemy).

In war effectiveness replaces 'morality', and suicide attacks can be very effective for guerrilla movements. The 1983 suicide bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, demonstrates that. 299 'enemy' killed in exchange of some 20 or so casualties. Had Islamic Jihad wanted to cause those casualties by more conventional means, they would have required upwards of 3000 casualties of their own.

Kamikazie attacks in WWII were highly effectual. The value of a suicide attack is not that the individual so much gives their life, but that they effectively deliver a comprehensive tactical strike that is efficient and effective, both in terms of its impact, and in relative terms of casualties experienced by the attacking side.

The question isn't whether suicide bombings are justifiable, its whether the targets are justified, bombing civilians, isn't really something the Koran or International Law justifies (ie what ever side you find yourself on).

Insurgents utilise suicide attacks because they're effective and efficient, not really for any moral reason.


Yes, but my point wasn't about suicide bombings and morality/lack of ...the context was the view expressed by another poster that somehow because of multiculturalism in the UK and because the USA didn't have a strong left wing presence/tradition, therefore unlike the UK there was not a significant element of disaffection and support for violent action within elements of the Muslim community..

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 2.57pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 1.18pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 1.13pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 1.05pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.39pm

[Link]


[Link]


Unfortunately in typical Nick fashion you don't address the post but instead place your own angle.

I repeat America does not have a significant threat from American Muslims on its soil.

For a country with five times the population their threat compared to ours if ridiculously small...It has happened but it's nothing compared to here...I repeat there are no left wing power bases in the US.

You didn't answer that....Instead you post links about Americans going out to fight in foreign wars.

Apologies, posted the same link twice, try this one
[Link]

Really Nick. If these are extremist organizations where are the attacks Nick?

Please answer points. Links are not answers.

We haven't had an attack for a while, so by your logic, there are no extremists!
You said (and I paraphrase)that there are no extremists (muslim that is-I'm sure we'd both agree that there are other extremists there)in America. My link showed that there are.

As an aside to something else you said; you hate multiculturalism-does this mean you espouse a monocultural society? - perhaps the thread title should be -Is Stirling the new Nazi?

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 3.01pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]


More worrying than interesting.
Where does it say ISIS were formed? Iraq!
Why Iraq? I'd wager it's because the country was destabilised after the invasion which was started by that well known lefty, George Bush junior.
Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise.

As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am)

"Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise".

So, in your mind, the Anfal campaign, using chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Kuwait invasion which involved the burning of one billion barrels of oil by the Iraqi Army, the violent repression of the Sh'iite uprising and the subsequent massacre of the Marsh Arabs was a form of acceptable social control?

I would suggest that in Sadaam's day there was plenty of fundamentalist groups, the difference is that under the Democratic Iraq, they can stand to run the country in a democratic process and not be subjected to the tyranny experienced in his time. The fact that don't, is their doing and is not a symptom of democracy, it is a symptom of their inability to proceed in life in a civilised fashion.


Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation.


So you think it would be okey dokey to leave it and let Saddam continue with his whimsical murders? You think it ok to allow him to create one of the largest environmental disasters of all time? You think it ok for the people to be deprived the chance to forge their own future by voting on the people they want to run their country?

This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation.

So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion.

Do you think it's okay for fracking companies to cause environmental disasters?
I'm not saying what saddam did was ok, my point is that by invading and winning hearts and minds, we have opened a pandoras box which has resulted in the rise of extremism in this country.
As for an alternative-I don't know, nor do I pretend to.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm)

 
legaleagle Flag 22 Jun 14 3.03pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 2.25pm

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 1.33pm

Huffington Post 24 May 2007:


"25% of US Muslims under 30 support suicide bombings in some capacity. As a 26 year old American-Muslim, I am concerned about these findings.

The Pew Center for Research recently released the findings of a comprehensive survey about US Muslims, entitled "Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream." The study confirms the already obvious -- that US Muslims are mostly well integrated and quite well off. There is no reason to celebrate this "discovery" because US Muslims have known this for quite some time.

The focus must be on the problems discovered. 13% of US Muslims of all ages feel that there are scenarios in which suicide bombings are justified. Only 40% of all US Muslims believe that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks. US Muslims, in comparison with all Americans, favor governmental intrusion in morality almost 2 to 1. Numbers show that the Blackamerican Muslim population does not share the financial success or the social optimism of immigrant Muslims. Homosexuals are reviled. A large number of youth, almost three times as many as in pakistan, believe that there is an inherent conflict between faith and modern life."


I agree that Muslims....shock shock....Have sympathy with other Muslims around the world. Attacking your own country though is a completely different ball game.

Again, this isn't an answer to my observation. Why don't Americans have anything like the same level of attacks on American soil by American Muslims?

You haven't got an answer. I have and it's bleeding obvious. But some on the left can't deal with it and wish to obfuscate and minimize the reality.

Their ideology contributed to our mess.

How many attacks on British soil in the last 5 years?
How many attacks on US soil?

The flaw in the analysis is trying to push every event through a simplistic and narrow left/right, I don't like multiculturalism, prism.

11/5/2009 USA Ft. Hood, TX A Muslim psychiatrist guns down thirteen unarmed soldiers while praising Allah.

12/4/2009 USA Binghamton, NY A non-Muslim Islamic studies professor is stabbed to death by a Muslim grad student in revenge for 'persecuted' Muslims.

4/14/2010 USA Marquette Park, IL After quarrelling with his wife over Islamic dress, a Muslim convert shoots his family members to 'take them back to Allah' and out of the 'world of sinners'.

4/30/2011 USA Warren, MI A 20-year-old woman is shot in the head by her stepfather for not adhering to Islamic practices.

9/11/2011 USA Waltham, MA Three Jewish men have their throats slashed .

1/15/2012 USA Houston, TX A 30-year-old Christian convert is shot to death by a devout Muslim.

2/7/2013 USA Buena Vista, NJ A Muslim targets and beheads two Christian Coptic immigrants.

3/24/2013 USA Ashtabula, OH A Muslim convert walks into a church service with a Quran and guns down his Christian father while praising Allah.

4/15/2013 USA Boston, MA Foreign-born but US resident Muslims detonate two bombs packed with ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and causing several more to lose limbs.

4/19/2013 USA Boston, MA Then, one gun down a university police officer sitting in his car.

8/4/2013 USA Richmond, CA A convert "on a mission from Allah" stabs a store clerk to death.

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 3.04pm

Quote elgrande at 21 Jun 2014 6.52pm

Quote elgrande at 20 Jun 2014 7.50pm

Quote nickgusset at 20 Jun 2014 7.22pm

Quote elgrande at 20 Jun 2014 7.05pm

Quote nickgusset at 20 Jun 2014 6.56pm

Quote elgrande at 20 Jun 2014 6.38pm

Quote nickgusset at 20 Jun 2014 6.34pm

Quote elgrande at 20 Jun 2014 6.06pm

Quote nickgusset at 20 Jun 2014 5.43pm

Quote elgrande at 20 Jun 2014 5.21pm

Quote nickgusset at 20 Jun 2014 5.16pm

Quote elgrande at 20 Jun 2014 5.05pm

Quote nickgusset at 20 Jun 2014 4.19pm

Quote elgrande at 20 Jun 2014 4.03pm

Quote nickgusset at 20 Jun 2014 3.45pm

Gabrielle also stated that non fundamentalist Muslims are irrelevant in winning the 'war on terror'. A mistake I feel. As we are seeing all to often, you get ejeets who profess to hate Islam and all Muslims. This is no way to get them onside is it. In fact I'd argue that the creeping islamophobia is pushing more people away from integrating.
As we saw with the IRA , a solution was reached through dialogue and negotiation. This in my opinion is the way forward, not ostracism.

Edited by nickgusset (20 Jun 2014 3.46pm)


I will try and link the video that I watched.
If you listen to it she explains how the moderate of other faiths/race/people have had no impact if the extremists of any race/faith/people wish to take hold.

Fair enough. However do you think that ostracising / railing against ALL Muslims has a positive or negative effect?


No I don't......watch the video and listen to the woman about the points of the Nazis/china/russia/Japan/all of these not the less overcame the greater.


So you don't think it has a positive or negative effect! What effect does it have on Muslims when they are faced with a drip drip of islamophobia? [/quote]


But as the lady said on the clip.Why were there not more Muslims there to put their case across.
It needs more "Moderate" Muslims to come forward and condem the others.
Maybe if that happens it will give people more confidence in their thoughts about Islam.

If they were given the platform, I'd wager that they would. Call me cynical, but I feel they are not given the platform in the daily mail etc Al as it would contradict Lord Roth mare's fear mongering agenda.

You are very cynical,"thems not as blind as he will not see".


[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]

There's loads more.


Watch the news Nick.......400 "British Jihadists" in Syria and Iraq, thats just the ones they know about.

Haven't said there are not have I? If they know about them, arrest them on their return!
We are talking about the reporting of muslims condemning terrorism. You have said that enough don't. I've argued that they do -hence my links, but it's not reported widely in the mainstream media that they do because it doesn't suit the fearmongering 'Islam is bad' agenda from the tabloids. I think I chanced upon only 1 link to the daily mail where muslims condemn terrorism. Why is that?

I will continue this discussion later-I have a holradio podcast to record...


proberly the same reason your hand wringing lib/left press do not shout enough about the exremists.


handwringing
bingo!


Funny that, you mentioned the Bingo card before.we have one to.
Yours called house ages ago.


Maggie/witch/daily mail/austrty not working/cuts/
And I have not changed my mind there is just as much,defence of Muslims as attacks.

Austerity not working and the cuts are a topic subject for debate. Hand wringing is just a default lazy label to use for those who have no argument.

 
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 22 Jun 14 3.24pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 2.30pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2014 2.06pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 1.11pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm

Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation.


Who imposed democracy?

The constitutions has been created and voted in by Iraqis.

Where is the majority rejection of democracy.....The truth is that the majority were crying out for it.

Where have we forced Iraq to become a democratic country.....If it is forced why is there voter turnout higher than ours even with the threat of death at the polls from the fractions with the country opposed to democracy?

How much they were crying out for democracy is fairly open to debate, given the scale of the insurgency and militia problems post invasion. However the real problem is not necessarily that we 'imposed' democracy per se, but that the country really lacked a cultural understanding and completed historical discourses, such as those in the west had, that led to the rise of democracy, and its evolution.

Its important to remember that every democracy wasn't born intact, as we see today, but grew out of a series of resolved discourses about democratic rights and equality. Initially, British democracy, was highly prejudicial and representative of only the will of a minority of the UK (typically men of wealth, landowners and successful mercantile classes).

For democracy, to become truly democratic, Iraq must be stabled for decades, possibly even a century and resolve the issues it has regarding rights and sectarianism, exclusions, prejudices etc through the democratic inclusion of those who are marginalised whilst resisting those who would implement tyranny (either of the state, or other groups).

The greatest problem of democracy in Iraq has always been its utilisation by a Shiite majority to implement its will on minorities within Iraq, particularly along sectarian lines. Whilst the Tyranny has been deposed, the state still operates tolerates tyranny and oppression as a means of controlling its specific desires - as well as tolerating many of the unacceptable practices of tyranny (torture, secret police, death squads and disappearances).


Wasn't democracy here forged via conflict and military wars?

We had the Baron's war.....We had the civil war...Loads of conflict related to how we are governed....The move to majority democracy isn't always an easy process and it takes time to be accepted.

There is nothing unusual about what is happening within new democratic countries.

I agree that outside of the intelligentsia and middle or lower middle classes many in middle eastern countries weren't so worried about democracy.

Still, you could to a smaller extent say the same thing here......It's about who has the power and which groups in society prosper.

Democracy always leads to a lesser role for religion.....Some clerics and supporters (not the moderate ones by any means) won't have that.


Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 2.34pm)

Indeed, and I think this gets to the core of the problem of 'Liberal Interventionism' itself, the idea that values can be imposed on other nations, that do not have a cultural basis in that nation. The idea of liberal democracy in the west, flourished really only in the post war period. Really prior to then the concept of an 'all inclusive democracy' is more or less revisionist.

The nature of democracy is a progression of conflict resolution, from violence resolution to political resolution through inclusion. Democracy has to be seen to be successful in resolving conflicts between social groups through mutual self interest and inclusion.

Indeed the existence of democracy flourished in Ancient Athens, because of the battle of Samaras, in which the allied Greeks, with their first ever democratically appointed Admiral, devastated a superior Persian fleet.

The recent situation in Iraq is a test for democracy, as it will need to repell the Isis and its allies, without retaliating against the Sunni population, in order to really gain a foothold in the Northern Provinces. Any force needs to become 'liberators' of those captured provinces.

For Iraq to become democratic, it has to move away from the idea of being Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, Christian, to being Iraqi (something the Baathists were ironically quite successful at).


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Stirlingsays Flag 22 Jun 14 3.28pm

Quote legaleagle at 22 Jun 2014 3.03pm


How many attacks on British soil in the last 5 years?
How many attacks on US soil?

The flaw in the analysis is trying to push every event through a simplistic and narrow left/right, I don't like multiculturalism, prism.

11/5/2009 USA Ft. Hood, TX A Muslim psychiatrist guns down thirteen unarmed soldiers while praising Allah.

12/4/2009 USA Binghamton, NY A non-Muslim Islamic studies professor is stabbed to death by a Muslim grad student in revenge for 'persecuted' Muslims.

2/7/2013 USA Buena Vista, NJ A Muslim targets and beheads two Christian Coptic immigrants.

3/24/2013 USA Ashtabula, OH A Muslim convert walks into a church service with a Quran and guns down his Christian father while praising Allah.

4/15/2013 USA Boston, MA Foreign-born but US resident Muslims detonate two bombs packed with ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and causing several more to lose limbs.



The left/right prism is due to the differences in ideology between both approaches to the requirement to integration.

You keep calling it simplistic. I just interpret that to be your refusal to accept responsibility for an ideology you support.

As I say there is a lot of lefty revisionism going on now. For decades the language they used was vastly different in these areas. Accusations of racism and bigotry were common fare.

A lot of those concerns about isolationism and separatism were valid...Yet you would be called a racist for the observation....Some still carry it on.

Lets look at your links.....Now I said attacks on US soil....I'm looking at US Muslims attacking the US system. In other words they have been radicalised against their country.

I'm not looking for crimes or murders committed by the mentally ill or criminals to happen to be Muslims. Attacks by those wishing to be connected to the worldwide struggle again the west......Like the groups and plots we have to break up here every year it seems.

11/5/2009 USA Ft. Hood The fort Hood incident is exactly the thing I'm looking for.

How does most of what you gave me here qualify?

The Boston marathon was an attack carried out by immigrants who were raised outside of America......They didn't grow up American.....It doesn't fit what I'm saying.

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Page 15 of 25 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Is Islam, the new Nazi ?