Is Islam, the new Nazi ?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 23 of 41 < 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 >

Kermit8 Hevon 22 Jun 14 7.34am
Quote Stirlingsays at 21 Jun 2014 9.27pm Quote legaleagle at 21 Jun 2014 11.48am That's simplistic and again reducing things to the usual convenient but red herring of left/right. London became "Londonstan" with a deliberate or blind eye policy allowing many "extremist" Sunni political and religious figures to operate here and then start to radicalise opinion in many Mosques ,in the eighties and nineties.......who was in power then? Similarly, the overreaction to 9/11 in terms of going into (completely unconnected to 9/11)Iraq which perhaps did more than anything else to radicalise domestic Muslim opinion was orchestrated by G Bush Jr's administration (hardly of the left) The issue/question of balance between taking on extremism and not demonising a whole religious group isn't assisted by sweeping generalisations So you appear to be saying that the 'right' were responsible for "Londonstan" and then you make an excuse for anti western attitudes amongst Muslims due to the Iraq war. Now the term came about in the mid to late nineties when Major and Blair were in power. In your post you imply that the UK intentionally tolerated radical Muslims and I imagine by implication stopped extradition of suspects in order to buy peace from these terrorists. Point me to the Tory politician or indeed Labour politician who accepted this compact. If this happened at all it was far more likely to have been a cross party convenience devised by civil servants. You describe the Iraq war as being a form of radicalization of some British Muslims.......Yes, it was. That isn't a fault of an unpopular decision made by western government....These are made all the time. instead it's a fault of the failure of multiculturalism...A policy, in the main, presued by the left....Other countries were the left are almost non-existent...America for example....Just how many American Muslims went to kill westerners?.....It was a tiny number in a country with five times the population....Whereas we have thousands of 'nutters' to monitor. For hundreds of years we have gone to war with Christian countries.....Did we have this issue then? Radicalization is impossible to stop but the reason it's been easier in this country is almost entirely down to left wing ideology. Your third paragraph sums up why I criticise the left for the problem of Islamic extremism in this country. Lets straighten out a few things. Those on the right wouldn't have these people here...It's a European body's rules...That organization the left support...Which stop this country from deporting these individuals easily. The principle of 'no borders' and multiculturalism, which I repeat, is almost exclusively a left wing belief system for decades any raised issues with this country's Islamic movement was greeted by an almost obsessive and blanket accusation of racism and bigotry. The left created a 'fear' of talking about these issues....Some still do try to shut down debate. To answer the third paragraph I have no issue with those who attack a person's right to peaceful religion being called bigoted. I have no problem with those who attacked a person's race being called a racist.......But this isn't what happened in many cases....It's the Gordon Brown mindset of 'bigoted woman'. Any serious debate or complaint was tarred with the same racist finger pointing. It's only very recently that some on the left chose to temper their words and paper over their own re-actions. So you might think it is simplistic but I do blame the left for some of why we have such a big problem here. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Jun 2014 9.36pm) Over the last 35 years - The Right have been in Goverment in the UK for precisely 22 of them. Just shy of 65% of the time. Yet they are not to blame for any of the dangerous tolerance you allude to which has happened here? Well, in the early 90's - at London Uni when I was studying there - and under a Tory Government which did absolutely zilch to confront them unlike some of the other students and University officials - lefties no doubt - there was a radical Islamic student group called Hizb-ut-tahrir going about the place strutting their stuff. They morphed into an even more dangerous outfit called Al-Mujaharoun. Your idea that the left is entirely to blame when they weren't even in power during some serious growth in Islamic fundamentalism 1979-97 here and elsewhere is, frankly, one-eyed and bollock naked wrong. However, it fits with your world view so understand why you have convinvced yourself that it is so. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 22 Jun 14 7.34am

Quote Stirlingsays at 21 Jun 2014 9.27pm

Quote legaleagle at 21 Jun 2014 11.48am

That's simplistic and again reducing things to the usual convenient but red herring of left/right.

London became "Londonstan" with a deliberate or blind eye policy allowing many "extremist" Sunni political and religious figures to operate here and then start to radicalise opinion in many Mosques ,in the eighties and nineties.......who was in power then?

Similarly, the overreaction to 9/11 in terms of going into (completely unconnected to 9/11)Iraq which perhaps did more than anything else to radicalise domestic Muslim opinion was orchestrated by G Bush Jr's administration (hardly of the left)

The issue/question of balance between taking on extremism and not demonising a whole religious group isn't assisted by sweeping generalisations

So you appear to be saying that the 'right' were responsible for "Londonstan" and then you make an excuse for anti western attitudes amongst Muslims due to the Iraq war.

Now the term came about in the mid to late nineties when Major and Blair were in power.

In your post you imply that the UK intentionally tolerated radical Muslims and I imagine by implication stopped extradition of suspects in order to buy peace from these terrorists.

Point me to the Tory politician or indeed Labour politician who accepted this compact. If this happened at all it was far more likely to have been a cross party convenience devised by civil servants.

You describe the Iraq war as being a form of radicalization of some British Muslims.......Yes, it was. That isn't a fault of an unpopular decision made by western government....These are made all the time. instead it's a fault of the failure of multiculturalism...A policy, in the main, presued by the left....Other countries were the left are almost non-existent...America for example....Just how many American Muslims went to kill westerners?.....It was a tiny number in a country with five times the population....Whereas we have thousands of 'nutters' to monitor.

For hundreds of years we have gone to war with Christian countries.....Did we have this issue then?

Radicalization is impossible to stop but the reason it's been easier in this country is almost entirely down to left wing ideology.

Your third paragraph sums up why I criticise the left for the problem of Islamic extremism in this country.

Lets straighten out a few things. Those on the right wouldn't have these people here...It's a European body's rules...That organization the left support...Which stop this country from deporting these individuals easily.

The principle of 'no borders' and multiculturalism, which I repeat, is almost exclusively a left wing belief system for decades any raised issues with this country's Islamic movement was greeted by an almost obsessive and blanket accusation of racism and bigotry. The left created a 'fear' of talking about these issues....Some still do try to shut down debate.

To answer the third paragraph I have no issue with those who attack a person's right to peaceful religion being called bigoted. I have no problem with those who attacked a person's race being called a racist.......But this isn't what happened in many cases....It's the Gordon Brown mindset of 'bigoted woman'.

Any serious debate or complaint was tarred with the same racist finger pointing. It's only very recently that some on the left chose to temper their words and paper over their own re-actions.

So you might think it is simplistic but I do blame the left for some of why we have such a big problem here.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Jun 2014 9.36pm)

Over the last 35 years - The Right have been in Goverment in the UK for precisely 22 of them. Just shy of 65% of the time. Yet they are not to blame for any of the dangerous tolerance you allude to which has happened here?

Well, in the early 90's - at London Uni when I was studying there - and under a Tory Government which did absolutely zilch to confront them unlike some of the other students and University officials - lefties no doubt - there was a radical Islamic student group called Hizb-ut-tahrir going about the place strutting their stuff. They morphed into an even more dangerous outfit called Al-Mujaharoun.

Your idea that the left is entirely to blame when they weren't even in power during some serious growth in Islamic fundamentalism 1979-97 here and elsewhere is, frankly, one-eyed and bollock naked wrong.

However, it fits with your world view so understand why you have convinvced yourself that it is so.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 22 Jun 14 9.07am
Interesting. [Link] "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
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 22 Jun 14 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]

"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

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 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)
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 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)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online 22 Jun 14 10.39am
Quote Kermit8 at 22 Jun 2014 7.34am Over the last 35 years - The Right have been in Goverment in the UK for precisely 22 of them. Just shy of 65% of the time. Yet they are not to blame for any of the dangerous tolerance you allude to which has happened here? Well, in the early 90's - at London Uni when I was studying there - and under a Tory Government which did absolutely zilch to confront them unlike some of the other students and University officials - lefties no doubt - there was a radical Islamic student group called Hizb-ut-tahrir going about the place strutting their stuff. They morphed into an even more dangerous outfit called Al-Mujaharoun. Your idea that the left is entirely to blame when they weren't even in power during some serious growth in Islamic fundamentalism 1979-97 here and elsewhere is, frankly, one-eyed and bollock naked wrong. However, it fits with your world view so understand why you have convinvced yourself that it is so. Man, that's just atypical leftie revisionism. You say that Tory governments were mainly in power during these times.....Yesh....But excuse me, who controlled the breeding grounds?....Which areas did these groups create their power bases in? In the majority of cases it was within Labour strongholds........The government only covers 'known threats'......We are talking about how the problem was allowed to emerge and the ideology which had it's head in the sand over it. 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. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online

22 Jun 14 10.39am

Quote Kermit8 at 22 Jun 2014 7.34am

However, it fits with your world view so understand why you have convinvced yourself that it is so.

Man, that's just atypical leftie revisionism.

You say that Tory governments were mainly in power during these times.....Yesh....But excuse me, who controlled the breeding grounds?....Which areas did these groups create their power bases in? In the majority of cases it was within Labour strongholds........The government only covers 'known threats'......We are talking about how the problem was allowed to emerge and the ideology which had it's head in the sand over it.

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.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online 22 Jun 14 10.44am
Quote Eaglekiwi at 22 Jun 2014 4.17am To me there is a huge elephant in the room which is being ignored. Saudi Arabia is covertly pouring large amounts of money into Islamic religious schools with Britain a major target. They are actively funding the spread amongst gullible believers of their own brand of harsh Islamic philosophy knowing full well the West won't confront them because it needs their vast oil supply. Orthodox Jewish communities are doing the same. The Catholic church still tries but has been pulled back a bit by rationalism. There should be no religious schools in modern secular democracies. All children should be taught the truth about the world and the universe, then if they want to believe in divine creations or fairies at the bottom of the garden as adults they're free to do so. Instead Moslem, Orthodox Jewish and Catholic schools are pumping out a whole new generation of narrow-minded ignorant believers who will struggle to integrate, let alone peacefully co-exist. Being able to quote medieval texts by rote, with all their fairy story versions of reality, is no preparation for coping with a modern world where we can fly to the moon. Islam needs a reformation but unfortunately it never went through the humanizing influence that the enlightenment shone on Christianity. Remember Christianity was once dominated by violent extremists (the inquisition anyone). Thankfully for Britain Elizabeth I defeated the armada and thinkers like Newton and Darwin were allowed to tell us the truth about who we are and where we've come from. Religion should have no primacy over reality. Children should be spared a parents fear of the dark. Believe what you want to soften the existential puzzle but leave children to at least start out with the truth. Stop the brainwashing of children or we'll pay a terrible price down the line with a whole new generation of mad extremists from all sides. This. All UK schools should implement humanism and only teach religion within RE or ethics/citizenship. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online

22 Jun 14 10.44am

Quote Eaglekiwi at 22 Jun 2014 4.17am

To me there is a huge elephant in the room which is being ignored. Saudi Arabia is covertly pouring large amounts of money into Islamic religious schools with Britain a major target. They are actively funding the spread amongst gullible believers of their own brand of harsh Islamic philosophy knowing full well the West won't confront them because it needs their vast oil supply. Orthodox Jewish communities are doing the same. The Catholic church still tries but has been pulled back a bit by rationalism.

There should be no religious schools in modern secular democracies. All children should be taught the truth about the world and the universe, then if they want to believe in divine creations or fairies at the bottom of the garden as adults they're free to do so. Instead Moslem, Orthodox Jewish and Catholic schools are pumping out a whole new generation of narrow-minded ignorant believers who will struggle to integrate, let alone peacefully co-exist. Being able to quote medieval texts by rote, with all their fairy story versions of reality, is no preparation for coping with a modern world where we can fly to the moon.

Islam needs a reformation but unfortunately it never went through the humanizing influence that the enlightenment shone on Christianity. Remember Christianity was once dominated by violent extremists (the inquisition anyone). Thankfully for Britain Elizabeth I defeated the armada and thinkers like Newton and Darwin were allowed to tell us the truth about who we are and where we've come from.

Religion should have no primacy over reality. Children should be spared a parents fear of the dark. Believe what you want to soften the existential puzzle but leave children to at least start out with the truth. Stop the brainwashing of children or we'll pay a terrible price down the line with a whole new generation of mad extremists from all sides.

This.

All UK schools should implement humanism and only teach religion within RE or ethics/citizenship.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online 22 Jun 14 10.48am
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) ISIS will be defeated and Iraq will remain democratic. Iraq is 32 percent Sunni.....The Shia will prevail.....End of. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 10.48am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online

22 Jun 14 10.48am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]

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)

ISIS will be defeated and Iraq will remain democratic.

Iraq is 32 percent Sunni.....The Shia will prevail.....End of.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 10.48am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Jonny_Johnson Tel Aviv 22 Jun 14 10.55am
Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 10.48am 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) ISIS will be defeated and Iraq will remain democratic. Iraq is 32 percent Sunni.....The Shia will prevail.....End of. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 10.48am) Conversely, the holiest Shia shrine is southwest of Baghdad - Karbala. ISIS are gradually making their way there. Iran and their proxy groups are bolstering their rearguards there. If Karbala were to be destroyed, I would predict an all-out war between Sunni and Shia in every single country across the globe. We are only at the tip of the tentacle.
Alert a moderator to this post

Jonny_Johnson

Tel Aviv 22 Jun 14 10.55am

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 10.48am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]

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)

ISIS will be defeated and Iraq will remain democratic.

Iraq is 32 percent Sunni.....The Shia will prevail.....End of.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 10.48am)

Conversely, the holiest Shia shrine is southwest of Baghdad - Karbala. ISIS are gradually making their way there. Iran and their proxy groups are bolstering their rearguards there. If Karbala were to be destroyed, I would predict an all-out war between Sunni and Shia in every single country across the globe. We are only at the tip of the tentacle.

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 22 Jun 14 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".
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

22 Jun 14 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".

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 11.01am
Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 10.48am 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) ISIS will be defeated and Iraq will remain democratic. Iraq is 32 percent Sunni.....The Shia will prevail.....End of. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 10.48am) Do you agree that many of the problems today are as a direct consequence of the Iraq invasion? If so, do you still believe that this was caused by the left?
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 11.01am

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 10.48am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]

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)

ISIS will be defeated and Iraq will remain democratic.

Iraq is 32 percent Sunni.....The Shia will prevail.....End of.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 10.48am)

Do you agree that many of the problems today are as a direct consequence of the Iraq invasion?
If so, do you still believe that this was caused by the left?

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 22 Jun 14 11.24am
Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 10.39am Quote Kermit8 at 22 Jun 2014 7.34am 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. Attacking aspects of our society today you don't like may (or may not) be valid. But, again, its simplistic to simply give all things you consider negative a blanket heading of "multiculturalism" and blame "multiculturalism" in principle. Below is a current Australian Government summary of its "multiculturalism" policy, given the reality today of their status as a country with many citizens from different origins/ethnic backgrounds Is it really such a terrible thing, likely to lead to home grown terror? Or, in fact, less likely... "Australia’s approach to multicultural policy embraces our shared values and cultural traditions and recognises that Australia’s multicultural character gives us a competitive edge in an increasingly globalised world. The approach articulates the rights and responsibilities that are fundamental to living in Australia and supports the rights of all to celebrate, practise and maintain their cultural traditions within the law and free from discrimination. The policy aims to strengthen social cohesion through promoting belonging, respecting diversity and fostering engagement with Australian values, identity and citizenship, within the framework of Australian law".
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

22 Jun 14 11.24am

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 10.39am

Quote Kermit8 at 22 Jun 2014 7.34am

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.

Attacking aspects of our society today you don't like may (or may not) be valid. But, again, its simplistic to simply give all things you consider negative a blanket heading of "multiculturalism" and blame "multiculturalism" in principle.

Below is a current Australian Government summary of its "multiculturalism" policy, given the reality today of their status as a country with many citizens from different origins/ethnic backgrounds

Is it really such a terrible thing, likely to lead to home grown terror? Or, in fact, less likely...

"Australia’s approach to multicultural policy embraces our shared values and cultural traditions and recognises that Australia’s multicultural character gives us a competitive edge in an increasingly globalised world. The approach articulates the rights and responsibilities that are fundamental to living in Australia and supports the rights of all to celebrate, practise and maintain their cultural traditions within the law and free from discrimination. The policy aims to strengthen social cohesion through promoting belonging, respecting diversity and fostering engagement with Australian values, identity and citizenship, within the framework of Australian law".

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 22 Jun 14 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. "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
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 22 Jun 14 11.37am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]

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.

"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

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online 22 Jun 14 11.41am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 11.01am Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 10.48am 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) ISIS will be defeated and Iraq will remain democratic. Iraq is 32 percent Sunni.....The Shia will prevail.....End of. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 10.48am) Do you agree that many of the problems today are as a direct consequence of the Iraq invasion? If so, do you still believe that this was caused by the left? I don't think you're really reading my posts Nick. I've said that middle eastern wars radicalised sections of Muslims in the UK. My point....made many times is they were radicalized because culturally that had room within this country. As evidence of that...Again I state, where are the radical Muslims in America....America was the prime mover...Yet very little home grown Islamic extremism. No room for them there because there is no real left wing ideology in America that has local, state or central power. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online

22 Jun 14 11.41am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 11.01am

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 10.48am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]

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)

ISIS will be defeated and Iraq will remain democratic.

Iraq is 32 percent Sunni.....The Shia will prevail.....End of.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 10.48am)

Do you agree that many of the problems today are as a direct consequence of the Iraq invasion?
If so, do you still believe that this was caused by the left?

I don't think you're really reading my posts Nick.

I've said that middle eastern wars radicalised sections of Muslims in the UK. My point....made many times is they were radicalized because culturally that had room within this country.

As evidence of that...Again I state, where are the radical Muslims in America....America was the prime mover...Yet very little home grown Islamic extremism.

No room for them there because there is no real left wing ideology in America that has local, state or central power.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 23 of 41 < 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Is Islam, the new Nazi ?

Site Map

Sponsors