New Islamic Extremist group around

[Hawkwind]

Problem is that when we intervene in such conflicts as Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria what we leave behind is infinitely worse than what they started with. It is very difficult but there has to be a better way. If the Sunni Arab backed Syrian Free Army wins then the christian population will suffer (10% of population). Just like Afghanistan they will turn on the west as soon as they win because the ideology of their clerics preach that shit!

Problem with Einstein's view is that it only works if everyone thinks the same way. Besides we need some big wars to cut the world populations down. The environmental carrying capacity of this rock has long been surpassed.

 

[Aoami]

To be fair to OP, anything backed by Anjem Choudary is usually not going to be a lovely little tea party.

 

[Raven]

Anjem Choudary is pretty much just a comedy figure, whenever I hear him talking I just picture a Sasha Baron Cohen character. I wouldn't take anything he does very seriously tbh, just a really bad troll.

 

[rynnor]

Invading a country with a good reason is entirely acceptable

Not for quite a long time - invasion is invasion - in gross violation of international law but if you are a superpower international (and hell domestic) law cannot touch you.

But they still cant make it morally right no matter how much power they have and no matter how much they try to wrap it up as assistance or liberation.

 

[DaGaffer]

No it isn't? alright lets go through a few hypotheticals here

Country X uses chemical weapons on civilians - Your logic = let it happen - My logic = stop it from happening, which is right?
Country X uses nuclear weaponry against a country - Your logic = sit back and do fuck all until its to late - My logic = do everything within power to stop the use of said weaponry, which is right?
Country X has a dictator that's having civilians killed for not following bent rules made up by said dictator - Your logic = sit back and say fuck em - My logic = help them, which is right?

I could go on all night really, Einstein was unarguably an intelligent man, doesn't make him right 100% of the time.

OK.
Scenario 1. On its own civilians? Then no, you don't get involved militarily. On other people's civilians? Yes, you do get involved militarily.

Scenario 2. You're making certain assumptions here. You're saying "country X are a bunch of people we don't like for ideological reasons, so we don't want them to have nuclear weapons" You've actually got no evidence country X is going to use nuclear weapons, any more than all the countries that already have them have (except the good old USA of course). While it certainly makes sense to encourage non-proliferation of such weapons, that's different to actively stopping a country from having them, based pretty much entirely on the "we don't like your way of life" argument.

Scenario 3. OK, fine. Who decides the line? You think he's a bent dictator, he thinks he has a mandate to keep order, and he also thinks the alternatives to him are actually worse (which is pretty much the Syria situation at the moment). Most people aren't the villains in their own story. Its very easy for the liberal West with hundreds of years of progress into democratic institutions (punctuated by the worst slaughter in history here in there) to say to some guy in the middle east, "you're an evil dictator" but half the time all we mean is "you're not our evil dictator (any more)". If you think your government intervenes in the internal disputes of other countries for altruistic reasons, you're deluding yourself. No government gives a shit about the fate of the population, they just care about how it might affect us. And you know what? That's right and proper, its their job. Which is why the EU intervened in Libya (to prevent a refugee crisis washing up in Italy), but the case for Syria is harder to make (because does it affect Europe/NATO? Maybe, maybe not...), and why we don't intervene in Zimbabwe at all, because its not our problem.

 

[BloodOmen]

The only extremist I can see in the thread is the Op.

Why? because I don't like the idea of hate groups forming under the guise of helpful emergency helplines? I'd love to hear your exact reasons behind saying that do share.

Anjem Choudary is pretty much just a comedy figure, whenever I hear him talking I just picture a Sasha Baron Cohen character. I wouldn't take anything he does very seriously tbh, just a really bad troll.

Really bad troll or really clever string puller that hides in the public eye? my money is on the latter.

Problem is that when we intervene in such conflicts as Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria what we leave behind is infinitely worse than what they started with. It is very difficult but there has to be a better way. If the Sunni Arab backed Syrian Free Army wins then the christian population will suffer (10% of population). Just like Afghanistan they will turn on the west as soon as they win because the ideology of their clerics preach that shit!

Problem with Einstein's view is that it only works if everyone thinks the same way. Besides we need some big wars to cut the world populations down. The environmental carrying capacity of this rock has long been surpassed.

I don't dispute that there has to be a better way to solve issues but until that better way is found the only way is military intervention sadly which as you pointed out generally leaves Islam heavy areas worse off due to terrorist actions, the only other options to allow such atrocities to continue without any sort of aid which in turn just makes us as bad as the people committing them for doing nothing.

As for Einstein's views they're also very out dated, had Einstein been alive today would he have said the same thing knowing what kind of weapons man has created now to harm/kill people? I think his views would change slightly.

 

[Raven]

He is only a string puller because people react. If everyone just laughed at him he would soon fuck off. Some of the shit he comes out with is hilarious though.

 

[Job]

As for Einstein's views they're also very out dated, had Einstein been alive today would he have said the same thing knowing what kind of weapons man has created now to harm/kill people? I think his views would change slightly.

Einstein helped build the atomic bomb.

 

[Raven]

erm...

 

[Scouse]

So much for freedom of speech, eh?

 

[Raven]

Fair enough tbh, vile people.

 

[BloodOmen]

So much for freedom of speech, eh?

Just like the EDL they're unable to distinguish between Islamic Extremists who twist the Quran for their own needs and Normal Muslims who just want to be left alone.

 

[fettoken]

Fair enough tbh, vile people.

Indeed. When a jew jumps on that bandwagon... *grabs coat*

 

[Job]

Thats it...brush the problem under the carpet.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Indeed. When a jew jumps on that bandwagon... *grabs coat*

Didn't they use trains? *runs after*

 

[rynnor]

Just like the EDL they're unable to distinguish between Islamic Extremists who twist the Quran for their own needs and Normal Muslims who just want to be left alone.

It's a bit iffy though - there's a line here for free speech and I think it may have been crossed. As far as I read neither of the people who have been banned have called for violence against muslims.

 

[Tom]

Called IED (yes really) Islamic Emergency Defense, backwards fuckers.

Says the person who doesn't know how to spell defence.

 

[rynnor]

Says the person who doesn't know how to spell defence.

American spelling and he could have been quoting it directly.

 

[BloodOmen]

Says the person who doesn't know how to spell defence.

Mmm, no? there are 2 ways of spelling it, I'm guessing you didn't know about the second one? at a guess I'm going to say your next reply will be "LOL BUT THATS NOT THE ENGLISH SPELLING AND WE INVENTED IT OLOLOLOOL *Dribble*" so I've prepared a preemptive /facepalm for you and a cup of /Idontfuckingcare.

That said seems I was right, it is a hate grouping hiding behind a silly little guise.

"The organisation claims "vigilantism" is a legitimate method by which "Muslims can legally defend themselves" and stated yesterday, "We invite all non-Muslims to embrace Islam and save themselves from the hell-fire". "

In before the placards and what not comes out.

American spelling and he could have been quoting it directly.

And no, I wasn't quoting the spelling directly from their official site

 

[Tom]

Your guess is incorrect, I am very much aware of the differences between American English and English. I also understand why two spellings exist and what kind of person reads the Daily Mail.

 

[BloodOmen]

Your guess is incorrect, I am very much aware of the differences between American English and English. I also understand why two spellings exist and what kind of person reads the Daily Mail.

I read a lot of different sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
http://www.independent.co.uk/
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

to name but a few

whats your point? beyond randomly being a knob.

 

[Tom]

I can't be arsed. Ignored.

/edit - ah, apparently you're a "staff member" and can't be ignored. But I'll just ignore you anyway.

 

[old.Tohtori]

"The organisation claims "vigilantism" is a legitimate method by which "Muslims can legally defend themselves" and stated yesterday, "We invite all non-Muslims to embrace Islam and save themselves from the hell-fire". "

Well, the twatter or whatever that is isn't extremist, just regular religious phrase. Embrace god or burn in hell, seen it. And as far as vigilantism goes; i've seen on this very forum "civilized" people saying it'd be ok to punch someone who tells them their GF looks like a horses arse.

Nothing backwards here.

 

[TdC]

"The organisation claims "vigilantism" is a legitimate method by which "Muslims can legally defend themselves"

I would say they really need to look up vigilantism in a dictionary.

 

[BloodOmen]

I can't be arsed. Ignored.

/edit - ah, apparently you're a "staff member" and can't be ignored. But I'll just ignore you anyway.

Don't randomly start being twatty to someone, just because my opinion clearly differs from yours doesnt mean you should start being a funny sod.

 

[BloodOmen]

Well, the twatter or whatever that is isn't extremist, just regular religious phrase. Embrace god or burn in hell, seen it. And as far as vigilantism goes; i've seen on this very forum "civilized" people saying it'd be ok to punch someone who tells them their GF looks like a horses arse.

Nothing backwards here.

Always starts innocently Tohtori you wait, in 5-6 months time I bet its been banned for inciting hate.

 

[Raven]

Frankly, who cares? Nutjobs have been nutjobs for years. Reacting to their bollocks is exactly what they want.

 

[BloodOmen]

Frankly, who cares? Nutjobs have been nutjobs for years. Reacting to their bollocks is exactly what they want.

Its like they say - any publicity is good publicity

 

[old.Tohtori]

Always starts innocently Tohtori you wait, in 5-6 months time I bet its been banned for inciting hate.

Ok, let's bet on it. If by Santamas this year there is an incident(not some flagburning, but a major incident(our peers can be judges of that)), i'll buy you a game on steam. If not, then you buy me one.

Let's say a 20€ game of winners choosing?

 

[Scouse]

Mmm, no? there are 2 ways of spelling it

They use the correct spelling on their website - the English word defence.

That said seems I was right, it is a hate grouping hiding behind a silly little guise.

That is exactly the same belief as christianity. You embrace christianity to save yourself from eternal damnation in the pits of hell.

And yes, a christian has said that to me recently, before calling me a heretic.

Do you classify the Church of England a hate group? How about Catholicism? They've got a history of covering up for paedophiles, after all...


Your daily-fail and sun reading are tainting your brain, old bean.