So you're telling me the Islamic State still exists???

[Apech]

4 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Your response is acceptable. 

 

We don't know yet what Trump's goals are for that part of the world.  If he stands firm to what he has suggested is his philosophy I would suspect that it is the destruction of the terrorist groups and then bring the troops home and allow the economy to rule the interactions of the Middle Eastern countries with the countries of the West.

 

And the West would then allow the Middle East countries to deal with their own problems according to their culture.

 

 

I think the defect of that philosophy is that what we have to accept is that the terrorists are sub-set of the strict Muslim community.  They will be able to seek refuge and hide amongst the general population and just reemerge once our troops have gone home.  They have no interest in peace, they want the war to end war which results in a Caliphate.

 

It would be better if we left them to fight it out amongst themselves and strengthen our borders and security to keep our own populations safe.  Which is what Trump seemed to say when he was campaigning.  It won't be easy - but its the best way forward.

[Marblehead]

10 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

well, they dont just sit back. they are ordered to redeploy against their own kin.

That's the point I am trying to make.  They may be sleepers for ten, fifteen years but they are still on a mission - to kill defenseless children.

 

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

No argument with that.  The West invading Iraq was unjustified.  Invading Afghanistan was. 

 

But the trend recently not only in your country but mine as well has been to pretend terrorists don't exist, That they are only an illusion.  That is bullshit and so ignorant it's pathetic.

 

Yes, the UK screwed this one up badly.  They had information the French had shared with them but your government decided to do nothing.

 

What info did the French share?

[Marblehead]

2 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

I think the defect of that philosophy is that what we have to accept is that the terrorists are sub-set of the strict Muslim community.  They will be able to seek refuge and hide amongst the general population and just reemerge once our troops have gone home.  They have no interest in peace, they want the war to end war which results in a Caliphate.

 

It would be better if we left them to fight it out amongst themselves and strengthen our borders and security to keep our own populations safe.  Which is what Trump seemed to say when he was campaigning.  It won't be easy - but its the best way forward.

Agreement.  But they won't just fight it out amongst themselves.  They will continue to spread their terror to all parts of the world.  They are doing that right now.  The Philippines just started a campaign of pushing back against them.  The Philippines?  But they have nothing to do with what is happening in the Middle East.  Why the Philippines?  The terrorist don't care.  It's all about intentionally killing innocent people.  That's all.  They must be destroyed and then our troops can go home.

 

[Marblehead]

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

What info did the French share?

That there were established links between the bomber, his family and the ISIS.

 

 

[Apech]

Just now, Marblehead said:

Agreement.  But they won't just fight it out amongst themselves.  They will continue to spread their terror to all parts of the world.  They are doing that right now.  The Philippines just started a campaign of pushing back against them.  The Philippines?  But they have nothing to do with what is happening in the Middle East.  Why the Philippines?  The terrorist don't care.  It's all about intentionally killing innocent people.  That's all.  They must be destroyed and then our troops can go home.

 

 

 

Well, I just see that as the Iraq War all over again.

[Apech]

Just now, Marblehead said:

That there were established links between the bomber, his family and the ISIS.

 

 

 

 

Ah!  I didn't know that.  It's not being reported here.  So they truely screwed up.  But I tend not to criticise the police and MI5 and so on - as they do their best - I only criticise the perpetrators.

[Marblehead]

1 minute ago, Apech said:

Well, I just see that as the Iraq War all over again.

And the wars will continue until the terrorist organizations have been destroyed.

[Marblehead]

1 minute ago, Apech said:

 

Ah!  I didn't know that.  It's not being reported here.  So they truely screwed up.  But I tend not to criticise the police and MI5 and so on - as they do their best - I only criticise the perpetrators.

Yeah, we have to support those who are doing the dirty work.  And yes, we should criticize the terrorists but we should also criticize our governments for not doing the job they are being paid to do.

 

[Taoist Texts]

11 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

That's the point I am trying to make.

You and me both)

 

British police have promised not to tolerate any speech that could cause offence on social media regarding Syrian migrants, after arresting a man for Facebook comments made about recent arrivals on his small Scottish Island.

The tiny Isle of Bute in the Firth of Clyde, which had a total population of just 6,498 in 2011, is expected to take in around 1,000 Syrian migrants, with 12 families already arriving since December last year (picture above).

However, commenting on the comparatively huge and sudden influx of Muslim immigrants online just became a very risky business for local residents.

Police have confirmed they have arrested a 41-year-old local man under the Communications Act, after receiving a report of a supposedly “offensive” comment made on Facebook regarding the migrants.

A police spokesman was unequivocal, that any harsh criticism of the Muslim influx would not be “tolerated”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/16/man-arrested-facebook-posts-syrian-refugees-scotland

 

Lol) The sherlocks are busy, they have no time for the bombers.

[Marblehead]

Okay.  I think we have returned to some balance in this thread.  I'm not speaking against those who wish for peace and those who wish to help those who are victims of all the warfare in the Middle East.

 

Without compassion there would be little value to life.  But to ignore reality will make life seem to be very cruel indeed.

 

[Marblehead]

2 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

You and me both)

 

British police have promised not to tolerate any speech that could cause offence on social media regarding Syrian migrants, after arresting a man for Facebook comments made about recent arrivals on his small Scottish Island.

The tiny Isle of Bute in the Firth of Clyde, which had a total population of just 6,498 in 2011, is expected to take in around 1,000 Syrian migrants, with 12 families already arriving since December last year (picture above).

However, commenting on the comparatively huge and sudden influx of Muslim immigrants online just became a very risky business for local residents.

Police have confirmed they have arrested a 41-year-old local man under the Communications Act, after receiving a report of a supposedly “offensive” comment made on Facebook regarding the migrants.

A police spokesman was unequivocal, that any harsh criticism of the Muslim influx would not be “tolerated”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/16/man-arrested-facebook-posts-syrian-refugees-scotland

 

Lol) The sherlocks are busy, they have no time for the bombers.

Yes, crucify your own people for trying to make your government do the right thing.  Back to the Dark Ages for Europe.

 

[cold]

You can't legislate common sense.

I would suggest all crimes arise out of great need, the minority, or hate and greed, the majority.

[Jetsun]

Not sure what can be done really, the guy who did it was British and British society had saved his parents from probable torture and death, then gave them a secure prosperous life, then it educated him and gave him the money to go to university. He wasn't downtrodden or an idiot. 

 

As a first step they should probably say anyone who goes to Iraq or Libya shouldn't be allowed back in the country. All Mosques should have English speaking Imams and they should be checked regularly for any offensive content being taught. 

 

There needs to be more intellectual confrontation with Islamic ideology, but I don't know how that can be done except by insiders. 

[Apech]

20 minutes ago, Jetsun said:

Not sure what can be done really, the guy who did it was British and British society had saved his parents from probable torture and death, then gave them a secure prosperous life, then it educated him and gave him the money to go to university. He wasn't downtrodden or an idiot. 

 

As a first step they should probably say anyone who goes to Iraq or Libya shouldn't be allowed back in the country. All Mosques should have English speaking Imams and they should be checked regularly for any offensive content being taught. 

 

There needs to be more intellectual confrontation with Islamic ideology, but I don't know how that can be done except by insiders. 

 

We could withdraw funding and charitable status from Mosques and organisations who allow extremist views. (for a start).

[cold]

2 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

We could withdraw funding and charitable status from Mosques and organisations who allow extremist views. (for a start).

 

That would be a start... down a slippery slope?

Who or whom would decide what organizations allow extremist views?

Power corrupts.

 

30 minutes ago, Jetsun said:

Not sure what can be done really, the guy who did it was British and British society had saved his parents from probable torture and death, then gave them a secure prosperous life, then it educated him and gave him the money to go to university. He wasn't downtrodden or an idiot. 

 

As a first step they should probably say anyone who goes to Iraq or Libya shouldn't be allowed back in the country. All Mosques should have English speaking Imams and they should be checked regularly for any offensive content being taught. 

 

There needs to be more intellectual confrontation with Islamic ideology, but I don't know how that can be done except by insiders. 

 

"As a first step they should probably say anyone who goes to Iraq or Libya shouldn't be allowed back in the country."

 

Except of course I assume diplomats, and or covert intelligence personnel, I assume. What about well vetted academics?

I recall something about holding your friends closely and enemies even closer.

 

The more laws we create the more criminals we create.

[Marblehead]

16 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

We could withdraw funding and charitable status from Mosques and organisations who allow extremist views. (for a start).

They should be shut down and destroyed if they are instructing or supporting terrorism.

 

And BTW, it is thought that the Mosque they attended might be involved.

[cold]

Any orginisastion  instructing or supporting terrorism should be shut down and members persons responsible for support and or instruction should be prosecuted, and assets seized. 

[Brian]

18 minutes ago, cold said:

 

That would be a start... down a slippery slope?

Who or whom would decide what organizations allow extremist views?

Power corrupts.

 

 

"As a first step they should probably say anyone who goes to Iraq or Libya shouldn't be allowed back in the country."

 

Except of course I assume diplomats, and or covert intelligence personnel, I assume. What about well vetted academics?

I recall something about holding your friends closely and enemies even closer.

 

The more laws we create the more criminals we create.

Who would decide? Why, I would, of course!

[cold]

Oy Vay I bow to our new illustrious potentate!

[Aetherous]

10 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

you`re really saying you want me dead

 

You misunderstood me...no where did I say that. I wasn't wanting you personally to be punished or something. It was 100% hypothetical, and was about anyone.

It seems that further discussion in this thread with you isn't going to be productive...I've already said my point on this matter, that criticizing Trump for calling the perpetrators "losers" in this thread dedicated to the mass murder of children is highly offensive to me. But taking offense all the time doesn't solve anything, especially when the person doing the offending doesn't get that they're doing the wrong thing. We have different perspectives. Beyond some ideas that we both disagree with, I respect you as a person...at least personally, I'm sure we could be friends in real life (needs to be said, because you actually thought I wanted you dead???). I don't like to see bad vibes between any daobums. So, maybe I'll try to avoid discussion in here with you from now on so as to preserve the peace.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Aetherous

[Brian]

28 minutes ago, cold said:

Oy Vay I bow to our new illustrious potentate!

It's good to be king!

[Taoist Texts]

43 minutes ago, cold said:

Oy Vay I bow to our new illustrious potentate!

 u must have been brianwashed

[liminal_luke]

5 hours ago, Aetherous said:

 

You misunderstood me...no where did I say that. I wasn't wanting you personally to be punished or something. It was 100% hypothetical, and was about anyone.

It seems that further discussion in this thread with you isn't going to be productive...I've already said my point on this matter, that criticizing Trump for calling the perpetrators "losers" in this thread dedicated to the mass murder of children is highly offensive to me. But taking offense all the time doesn't solve anything, especially when the person doing the offending doesn't get that they're doing the wrong thing. We have different perspectives. Beyond some ideas that we both disagree with, I respect you as a person...at least personally, I'm sure we could be friends in real life (needs to be said, because you actually thought I wanted you dead???). I don't like to see bad vibes between any daobums. So, maybe I'll try to avoid discussion in here with you from now on so as to preserve the peace.

 

I get that you were talking hypothetically, that you don`t harbor a grudge against me personally.  Thank you for saying that.

 

Nevertheless, I`d ask you to think your hypothetical through.  What kind of country would we be if regular Joes off the street who express opinions about Islam different from your own were routinely imprisoned for 25 years?  I`m not a big flag waver, but I actually rather like the United States.  It`s so much better than, say, Saudi Arabia. You know what makes it better?  Gay people are not thrown off buildings.  Women are not forced to live their public lives from behind a veil. And --drum roll please -- nobody is imprisoned for 25 years for expressing any kind of opinion (no matter how bizarre or wrongheaded) about any religion.

 

You presumably started this thread to warn about downplaying the horror of Islamic fundamentalism.  As a result of some things people have said, I`m reconsidering a few things.  I`m no longer convinced that Trump`s travel ban was purely motivated out of racism and xenophobia, for instance.  His manner of expressing himself still disgusts me, but I`m willing to entertain the idea that he made the right decision.  I`ve changed, just a bit.  Is that really such a bad outcome? 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by liminal_luke

[Aetherous]

4 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

Nevertheless, I`d ask you to think your hypothetical through.  What kind of country would we be if regular Joes off the street who express opinions about Islam different from your own were routinely imprisoned for 25 years?  I`m not a big flag waver, but I actually rather like the United States.  It`s so much better than, say, Saudi Arabia. You know what makes it better?  Gay people are not thrown off buildings.  Women are not forced to live their public lives from behind a veil. And --drum roll please -- nobody is imprisoned for 25 years for expressing any kind of opinion (no matter how bizarre or wrongheaded) about any religion.

 

 

Islam is used as a front for spreading terrorism by which innocent people are mass murdered. I really do think anyone supporting it or downplaying it should be imprisoned. Some of them are even shills. Sorry that you don't like what I think.

Don't lump me into the category of the people who throw gays off of buildings, forcing women to wear veils or do other things, etc. They're the ones I'm strongly against.

There's a point where free speech is destructive. For instance, we have laws against defamation...is speech really "free" in light of that? Why should we continue to let people downplay a front for terrorism, which permits them to continue operating in our countries?