CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 So you didn't try to claim that posters were saying Islam has the potential to be more violent than Christianity? Again too vague. You need to specify which specific conversation you are referring to and I will then address the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 Yep. I was right. You are dim. Well I'm sorry to see that you have abandoned argument in favour of silliness so early this time. But I'm sure that if you really strain the old 'grey matter' to the limit then you should be capable of summoning up some kind of point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 Well I'm sorry to see that you have abandoned argument in favour of silliness so early this time. But I'm sure that if you really strain the old 'grey matter' to the limit then you should be capable of summoning up some kind of point. As Lou pointed out about stamina. I am surprised you are still getting responses. You have been ripped apart but like SOG too stupid to realise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 As Lou pointed out about stamina. I am surprised you are still getting responses. You have been ripped apart but like SOG too stupid to realise. I just checked, and I'm pleased to report that my old body shows no signs of being ''ripped apart'' that are immediate obvious. I'm also sorry that my efforts have not impressed you so far. Apart from not sharing my opinion, what is it exactly that you are objecting to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 Well I'm sorry to see that you have abandoned argument in favour of silliness so early this time. But I'm sure that if you really strain the old 'grey matter' to the limit then you should be capable of summoning up some kind of point. But rich considering how disgusting everyone was for wanting to debate anything when this started. You seem happy to roll around in the mud now though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 I just checked, and I'm pleased to report that my old body shows no signs of being ''ripped apart'' that are immediate obvious. I'm also sorry that my efforts have not impressed you so far. Apart from not sharing my opinion, what is it exactly that you are objecting to? I don't want to speak for whelk but the attitude, general superior tone of your posts and the hypocrisy is pretty objectionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 But rich considering how disgusting everyone was for wanting to debate anything when this started. You seem happy to roll around in the mud now though. So you don't have any actual examples of this alleged ''misrepresenting'' I have supposedly been engaged in then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 Well I'm sorry to see that you have abandoned argument in favour of silliness so early this time. But I'm sure that if you really strain the old 'grey matter' to the limit then you should be capable of summoning up some kind of point. Let's remember your position as a total forum bulls hitter. You piped up with this rubbish about me, and have yet to retract it. The eminently simple point you seem to be either unwilling to accept, or unable to comprehend perhaps, is that the problem of violence is related to our Human nature, rather than to religious faith per se. You have had numerous examples presented to you now - both historic and contemporary - of massacres that can be traced back to followers of the Christian faith. Many of these events in fact are/were far more bloody affairs than anything that has happened in Paris so far this year. But despite all this good evidence you continue to argue that one religious group is capable of more violent behaviour than another for some reason. I can only ask you why on earth should anybody on here accept such nonsense? You spend your time on here deciding what people think and then pompously judging them on it. On this thread you have excelled yourself but you've got form in this area and I expect to see you lying about something else pretty soon. It takes very little grey matter to fabricate someone else's opinion and then deride it, but I can tell you have very little grey matter to use. Keep on lying. Keep on lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 22 November, 2015 Not sure what point you are trying to make. Religion has caused countless wars throughout history but it doesn't make Islamic extremism any less of a problem, or any less Islamic. Fact is Christian extremism is not the same sort of problem today. The Anders Brevik example is a good one, that is someone, who like IS, has used a religion for their own twisted aims. You can't blame other Christians for what he did just like you can't blame peaceful Muslims. BUT, if Brevik type incidents were happening as widespread and as regularly as Muslim incidents are nowadays and thousands of Christians supported them then questions would be asked why. The point is that Islam doesn't have the monopoly on violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 I don't want to speak for whelk but the attitude, general superior tone of your posts and the hypocrisy is pretty objectionable. If I come across as 'superior' then that was not my intent. The trouble is that I tend to argue cases on the evidence and some on here take offence (too easily I sometimes think) at having their assumptions challenged. They should probably try to relax a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 22 November, 2015 As Lou pointed out about stamina. I am surprised you are still getting responses. You have been ripped apart but like SOG too stupid to realise. Ripped apart? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 Ripped apart? Really? that genuinely made me laugh. You just proved his point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 If I come across as 'superior' then that was not my intent. The trouble is that I tend to argue cases on the evidence and some on here take offence (too easily I sometimes think) at having their assumptions challenged. They should probably try to relax a bit more. I really don't think that's why people take offence at your posts. I would imagine there are quite a few people who would challenge your assertion that the problem other posters have with you is because you tend to argue based on evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 Ripped apart? Really? . We get ourselves worked up over people wearing a black sheet with eye holes but aren't overly bothered by people wearing white sheets with eyes holes who have been quite happy to burn and hang people of a different race and who are still active today. Who are the "we" that aren't "overly bothered" by the Ku Klux Klan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 The point is that Islam doesn't have the monopoly on violence. And no one has argued that. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 22 November, 2015 But you don't debate because you hold an informed view, you do it because you enjoy the ruck; that's why I call it a sport. You betray yourself by conitually changing your argument slightly or by drawing false conclusions just to keep the fires stoked and when the focus of the thread moves away from your running arguments you come on with something like 'so no one has got an opinion on blah blah (whatever the last little nugget of **** you posted)', hoping it will pull in a few more punters. Then when you have exhausted your position you go off to other forums looking for some validation. Sad Old Git indeed. I don't see it as a sport but if you want to see it that way that's fine. I am not interested in pulling in punters as you put it. As for other forums the only other forum I post on is the one you are on but haven't had the balls to challenge me on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 Ripped apart? Really? As I said too stupid to realise. Descending into name calling but really don't know how you can come out with such nonsense and genuinely think your argument is standing up. At least you are a consistent idiot. respect you're polite in posting generally so I insult you with a heavy heart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 Let's remember your position as a total forum bulls hitter. You piped up with this rubbish about me, and have yet to retract it. My postings on here are becoming increasingly bad tempered and erratic. You spend your time on here deciding what people think and then pompously judging them on it. On this thread you have excelled yourself but you've got form in this area and I expect to see you lying about something else pretty soon. It takes very little grey matter to fabricate someone else's opinion and then deride it, but I can tell you have very little grey matter to use. Keep on lying. Keep on lying. I must say that your postings tonight are becoming increasingly erratic and bad tempered. You did post a challenge yesterday that, lets face it, you thought would be far more difficult to answer than the record shows it subsequently became. That (ill-advised if I may say so) post does reveal the mindset you bring to this debate I think - i.e. you really believe that Muslims are more inclined to acts of mass violence. That's aright, you may not be the only person on here who thinks this way - whether they express their true view openly or not. But to deny the obvious does your case no favours at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 (edited) Here's what you said........ which was "highjacked" by Christianity (your words), ...... . Neat reversal of my words : "Christianity has been highjacked....... " is what I wrote. And how does "they corrupt and pollute it's teachings to try to justify the unjustifiable", absolve radical Islam of anything ? Stop ranting and start reading. Edited 22 November, 2015 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 I must say that your postings tonight are becoming increasingly erratic and bad tempered. You did post a challenge yesterday that, lets face it, you thought would be far more difficult to answer than the record shows it subsequently became. That (ill-advised if I may say so) post does reveal the mindset you bring to this debate I think - i.e. you really believe that Muslims are more inclined to acts of mass violence. That's aright, you may not be the only person on here who thinks this way - whether they express their true view openly or not. But to deny the obvious does your case no favours at all. You missed my bingo card comment a couple of posts on then. Pretty obvious what I was doing but hey ho. Here's what you posted. The eminently simple point you seem to be either unwilling to accept, or unable to comprehend perhaps, is that the problem of violence is related to our Human nature, rather than to religious faith per se. You have had numerous examples presented to you now - both historic and contemporary - of massacres that can be traced back to followers of the Christian faith. Many of these events in fact are/were far more bloody affairs than anything that has happened in Paris so far this year. But despite all this good evidence you continue to argue that one religious group is capable of more violent behaviour than another for some reason. I can only ask you why on earth should anybody on here accept such nonsense? Show me the posts where I said or suggested anything remotely resembling this, let alone "continue to argue it". Just like your total fantasy of your Parkhurst bound homophobic hate crime friends, you're just utterly full of it. Best way to lose a forum reputation as being a fantasist is to stop lying. Just friendly advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 I would imagine there are quite a few people who would challenge your assertion that the problem other posters have with you is because you tend to argue based on evidence. As you should very well know from previous conversations we have had, I'm always more than happy to discuss the actual evidence because ''the truth shall set you free'' as someone once wrote in a interesting old book. Indeed, I stand ready to do so now if you have an factual contribution you want to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 I'm more than happy to oblige you CB. What are the "Christian" atrocities you are thinking of? And let's be clear they will need to be unequivocally linked to the religion in the same way that Paris, 9/11, 7/7 and similar very clearly and unequivocally are. Also, you've got the last 100 years to work with. You will deny it - of course you will - but methinks any fair minded observer is bound to conclude from this contribution that you are here at least attempting to suggest that Christians are less prone to acts of mass violence than Muslims are. If you didn't think that then please explain why you asked the question in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 Neat reversal of my words : "Christianity has been highjacked....... " is what I wrote. And how does "they corrupt and pollute it's teachings to try to justify the unjustifiable", absolve radical Islam of anything ? Stop ranting and start reading. Err, you said this 1) 3) Terrorists find religion a convenient excuse for their actions, and a lever with which to provoke interracial tensions - they corrupt and pollute it's teachings to I asked you if religion is just a "convenient excuse" here, what is it an excuse for, what's the real reason they did what they did? Your answer was they are "sociopathic bullies", which while a nice phrase but sounds like the motivation of an one-off nutcase rather than a multinational identifiable organisation but you know best. You can, if you like, explain what the aims of those terrorists were, what they are actually trying to achieve, if the religion element is just a "convenient excuse". I'd say it was pretty central part of it really, and not a "convenient excuse" but that's just me and pretty much every expert on the situation you could think of. Indoctrination and an extreme acceptance of a worldview founded in faith is at the absolute heart of what is going on here. Pretty much the opposite of a "convenient excuse" and the dictionary definition of "total faith". The one (kind of) positive thing I will say about this people is they must really, really believe it. To swish all that faith away as a "convenient excuse" sounds like an utterly bizarre interpretation of what is happening. Anyway, youre the boss. What's the real aim of those people if religion is just a "convenient excuse"? Whenever you're ready. And on world wars you talked about people dying in the name of God. People died for lots of reasons in WW2, "King and Country" as much as anything else, but you're the one trying to link it back with religion. Faith played a part in getting through the war at a human level on all sides but WW2 was not a "religious" war. Anytime you want to accept it wasn't primarily a war about religion the floor is yours. Robert Zimmerman ain't going to help you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 I'm more than happy to oblige you CB. You will deny it - of course you will - but methinks any fair minded observer is bound to conclude from this contribution that you are here at least attempting to suggest that Christians are less prone to acts of mass violence than Muslims are. If you didn't think that then please explain why you asked the question in the first place? You can put your own spin on that if you like, but the post a couple of posts later clearly contextualises that one. "Continue to argue" is what you said. So that's kinda more than one post ain't it. Keep lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 You can put your own spin on that if you like, but the post a couple of posts later clearly contextualises that one. "Continue to argue" is what you said. So that's kinda more than one post ain't it. Keep lying. Well that post was from yesterday, and as you are still on here tonight desperately trying to wiggle out of it, then ''continue to argue'' seems a pretty fitting description of your behaviour on here. But when you find yourself 'in a hole' you should carry on digging is my advice to you ... your contortions are afterall at least amusing me on a night when there is nothing worth watching on the TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 Well that post was from yesterday, and as you are still on here tonight desperately trying to wiggle out of it, then ''continue to argue'' seems a pretty fitting description of your behaviour on here. But when you find yourself 'in a hole' you should carry on digging is my advice to you ... your contortions are afterall at least amusing me on a night when there is nothing worth watching on the TV. So you haven't found anything then. Thought not. Keep lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 So you haven't found anything then. Thought not. Keep lying. If you are feeling a certain touch on your shoulder tonight CB, well that will be the 'Hand That Mocks You' that Percy Shelly so memorably wrote about a little while ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 If you are feeling a certain touch on your shoulder tonight CB, well that will be the 'Hand That Mocks You' that Percy Shelly so memorably wrote about a little while ago. I accept your apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 22 November, 2015 Share Posted 22 November, 2015 I accept your apology. How uncharacteristically gracious of you - I'll make a Gentleman of you yet. But I'll probably wait until I have something to apologise for before offering you one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 23 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 23 November, 2015 As I said too stupid to realise. Descending into name calling but really don't know how you can come out with such nonsense and genuinely think your argument is standing up. At least you are a consistent idiot. respect you're polite in posting generally so I insult you with a heavy heart Sorry Whelk but I really do not think that I have been ripped apart. If that makes me stupid and an idiot then so be it. I certainly am stupid and an idiot to spend so much time on here but we all have our weaknesses. Sadly all to often what starts off as a good subject for a discussion descends into a petty bickering session. The same has happened here and it is difficult to avoid it. I have tried by putting a few of the Usual Suspects on ignore and that helps after a fashion. If you really think I am stupid because I believe the vast majority of Muslims to be peaceful folk that is your right. If you think I am stupid to think that the issue is more about the way Man behaves towards his fellow Man rather than a religion then that is your right. If you think I am stupid for continuing to try and put my point across on a forum like this then yes, I would have to agree with you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 You know you've been made to look a fool when not only do you have to put people on ignore, you have to advertise that fact to the rest of the forum. Soggy may pretend he has no idea what you are talking about whelk but he knows. He knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 (edited) Err, you said this I asked you if religion is just a "convenient excuse" here, what is it an excuse for, what's the real reason they did what they did? Your answer was they are "sociopathic bullies", which while a nice phrase but sounds like the motivation of an one-off nutcase rather than a multinational identifiable organisation but you know best. You can, if you like, explain what the aims of those terrorists were, what they are actually trying to achieve, if the religion element is just a "convenient excuse". I'd say it was pretty central part of it really, and not a "convenient excuse" but that's just me and pretty much every expert on the situation you could think of. Indoctrination and an extreme acceptance of a worldview founded in faith is at the absolute heart of what is going on here. Pretty much the opposite of a "convenient excuse" and the dictionary definition of "total faith". The one (kind of) positive thing I will say about this people is they must really, really believe it. To swish all that faith away as a "convenient excuse" sounds like an utterly bizarre interpretation of what is happening. Anyway, youre the boss. What's the real aim of those people if religion is just a "convenient excuse"? Whenever you're ready. And on world wars you talked about people dying in the name of God. People died for lots of reasons in WW2, "King and Country" as much as anything else, but you're the one trying to link it back with religion. Faith played a part in getting through the war at a human level on all sides but WW2 was not a "religious" war. Anytime you want to accept it wasn't primarily a war about religion the floor is yours. Robert Zimmerman ain't going to help you. Are you sure almost every expert agrees on this? Many of the accounts I've seen point to multiple motivations. For instance, a particularly powerful driver behind ISIS emergence as a territorial force is that many Sunni tribes, disenfranchised by the new Iraqi government, suddenly needed a protector (also true of the vacuum in parts of Syria). Never mind ISIS was able to copy or simply hire ranks of newly unemployed soldiers, generals and intelligence officials. I could go on (btw, Zarqawi, the founder and godfather of ISIS, was your classic sociopath). There are certainly religious factors at play, though they fall short of the kind of determinism that creeps into thinking on here and elsewhere. But the larger point remains the same: totalising the enemy and its motivations (religious or otherwise) is not only bunkum, it is also profoundly damaging from a military and political perspective, a point Emile Simpson makes forcefully in his book on how the West has dealt with the insurgency in the recent war in Afghanistan. Edited 23 November, 2015 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxford_lou Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 Clearly stuff like that is idiotic. Peaceful Muslims should be able to practice their religion in peace. Freedom in the West is the main value worth fighting for. Not sure what it has to do with Batman's point. The ineptitude from Merkel has done a lot of this. Not so clear to everyone, clearly. No link to Batman, but language like "bunch of Muslims" and "waltzing into Europe" sets a pretty ugly reactionary tone, in an environment when it does overspill into nasty incidents like in the article. I get emotions are high but people should still be careful with language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 23 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 23 November, 2015 But you don't debate because you hold an informed view, you do it because you enjoy the ruck; that's why I call it a sport. You betray yourself by conitually changing your argument slightly or by drawing false conclusions just to keep the fires stoked and when the focus of the thread moves away from your running arguments you come on with something like 'so no one has got an opinion on blah blah (whatever the last little nugget of **** you posted)', hoping it will pull in a few more punters. Then when you have exhausted your position you go off to other forums looking for some validation. Sad Old Git indeed. FTF, I don't know if you will read this but I just wanted to let you know that although I don't usually send PMs I have just spent half an hour on a message to you here only to discover that you don't accept PMs! Argh! I wanted to respond to your comments in greater depth but not through this thread so I'll leave it there. Just wanted you to know that I have given more thoughts to your comments and had a better thought out response that is now somewhere in the ether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 Are you sure almost every expert agrees on this? Many of the accounts I've seen point to multiple motivations. For instance, a particularly powerful driver behind IS emergence as a territorial force is that many Sunni tribes, disenfranchised by the new Iraqi government, suddenly needed a new protector. Never mind IS was able to draw on the ranks of newly jobless soldiers, generals and intelligence officials. I could go on (btw, Zarqawi, the founder and godfather of ISIS, was your classic sociopath). There are certainly religious factors at play, though they fall short of the kind of determinism that creeps into thinking on here and elsewhere. But the larger point remains the same: totalising the enemy and its motivations (religious or otherwise) is not only bunkum, it is also profoundly damaging from a military and political perspective, a point Emile Simpson makes forcefully in his book on how the West has dealt with insurgency in the recent war in Afghanistan. He didn't say that religion was the only reason, simply that it is a central part of the creation of IS. Which it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 The only people suggesting there isn't a significant problem across the world with Islam are on a wind-up looking for something to argue about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 (edited) He didn't say that religion was the only reason, simply that it is a central part of the creation of IS. Which it is. I'm not even sure you know what you mean by religion or, at least, the causal claims others are making on its behalf, beyond the trivial and banal truism that ISIS and other extremists appeal to religion to justify their actions (which as far as I can tell nobody disagrees with). But, hey, I've come to expect nothing less shoddy and inconsistent thinking on here. Edited 23 November, 2015 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 I'm not even sure you know what you mean by religion or, at least, the causal claims others are making on its behalf, beyond the trivial and banal truism that ISIS and other extremists appeal to religion to justify their actions (which as far as I can tell nobody disagrees with). But, hey, I've come to expect nothing less shoddy and inconsistent thinking on here. I wouldn't worry about it then if that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 Are you sure almost every expert agrees on this? Many of the accounts I've seen point to multiple motivations. For instance, a particularly powerful driver behind ISIS emergence as a territorial force is that many Sunni tribes, disenfranchised by the new Iraqi government, suddenly needed a protector (also true of the vacuum in parts of Syria). Never mind ISIS was able to copy or simply hire ranks of newly unemployed soldiers, generals and intelligence officials. I could go on (btw, Zarqawi, the founder and godfather of ISIS, was your classic sociopath). There are certainly religious factors at play, though they fall short of the kind of determinism that creeps into thinking on here and elsewhere. But the larger point remains the same: totalising the enemy and its motivations (religious or otherwise) is not only bunkum, it is also profoundly damaging from a military and political perspective, a point Emile Simpson makes forcefully in his book on how the West has dealt with the insurgency in the recent war in Afghanistan. Thanks for completely agreeing with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 Not so clear to everyone, clearly. No link to Batman, but language like "bunch of Muslims" and "waltzing into Europe" sets a pretty ugly reactionary tone, in an environment when it does overspill into nasty incidents like in the article. I get emotions are high but people should still be careful with language. I'm not sure that the tone of posts has influenced actions like America too much. Granted the language on Fox News frequently strays into that area but it's much more likely to be just a few ignorant Americans looking for something to rail against. Sadly there will always be these reactionary attacks in some form but I hope that they remain isolated incidents and that those who go too far are prosecuted accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 FTF, I don't know if you will read this but I just wanted to let you know that although I don't usually send PMs I have just spent half an hour on a message to you here only to discover that you don't accept PMs! Argh! I wanted to respond to your comments in greater depth but not through this thread so I'll leave it there. Just wanted you to know that I have given more thoughts to your comments and had a better thought out response that is now somewhere in the ether. Hopefully it has made you reconsider your action and you haven't gone off to discuss this forum elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 (edited) The passport is a fake and a duplicate has been discovered. Raises far more questions than it answers imo. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/serbian-police-arrest-man-carrying-syrian-passport-with-exact-same-details-as-document-found-on-a6736471.html There are many things about the whole affair that seem to raise a question or two; Like why the BRI and the RAID needed to fire over 5000 bullets against 2 terrorists and a woman who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time armed with a couple of grenades and a 9mm handgun. Whatever happened to the assault weapon(s) that they insist was fired at them? Did someone escape from St Denis and take the assault rifle with them or did it not exist in the first place? It's a bad affair but I don't know that the French are being entirely honest about it...not at all. Edited 23 November, 2015 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 China have found islamic extremists in parts of its country just torched them all with flame throwers that is that, then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 China have found islamic extremists in parts of its country just torched them all with flame throwers that is that, then Not really. The didnt use to have a major problem, but they kept jailing and killing people and now they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 Not really. The didnt use to have a major problem, but they kept jailing and killing people and now they do. I doubt we have any idea if this is a new problem or that it has just been reported this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 (edited) China have found islamic extremists in parts of its country just torched them all with flame throwers that is that, then At least they do not complicate the task. On another note each day brings new reports of the French aiding and abetting their assailants. Last week it was revealed that on the evening of the 13th the BRI had 3 out of 50 of their unit on duty and that the drama had to be tackled first by the BAC which is not equipped for such a mission, their principal task being more in the banditism line. Today it was revealed that one of the suicide bombers had his passport and identity papers confiscated for trying to go to Syria a while ago. He simply went and told his local commissariat that they'd been lost and obtained new ones just like that so off he went to Syria. It's all being revealed as a monster own goal really. Edited 23 November, 2015 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 23 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 23 November, 2015 China have found islamic extremists in parts of its country just torched them all with flame throwers that is that, then Well, it worked with the witches so perhaps we should give it a go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 Well, it worked with the witches so perhaps we should give it a go? Only if they float though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 China have found islamic extremists in parts of its country just torched them all with flame throwers that is that, then Egg Fried R-isis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 23 November, 2015 Share Posted 23 November, 2015 China have found islamic extremists in parts of its country just torched them all with flame throwers that is that, then What's going on in Xinjiang (north west China) is quite different from the campaign against ISIS, another example of why general references to Islamic extremism are as misleading as they are unhelpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now