Terrorist Attacks - WARNING: CONTAINS DISTRESSING IMAGES

[hypochondriac]

I'm sure I'm going to regret this but here goes anyway...

 

Using your logic, these nut jobs killing innocent people aren't proper Muslims as the Koran/Islam doesn't tolerate the killing of innocent people.

 

Asked and answered from two pints above.

[shirleysfc]

Asked and answered from two pints above.

 

Fair enough.

[sadoldgit]

Clearly that Tweet could have been written by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself.

 

I think you should spend time doing some research into religions and faith in general as you do come across as a half wit. Said in love of course

 

Do you really think that the Archbishop of Canterbury would have written that? Especially #ReligionOf Murder? I think it is time to move into a new shell Whelk, this one seems to have cut off the blood supply to your brain

[Saint Billy]

Bush was a leader who's commited some of the worst atrocities of modern times. Firmly pronounces his Christianity.

 

I sort of understand what you are saying but did'nt Bush react to the terrorist attacks on the twin towers where thousands of lives were lost?.

[hypochondriac]

I sort of understand what you are saying but did'nt Bush react to the terrorist attacks on the twin towers where thousands of lives were lost?.

 

To be fair I think there would have been question marks over some of his foreign policy decisions regardless of 9/11. I accept that's speculation but he certainly had the attitude seen in Team America.

[Johnny Bognor]

I sort of understand what you are saying but did'nt Bush react to the terrorist attacks on the twin towers where thousands of lives were lost?.

 

Indeed, many people blame recent terrorist attacks on the Iraq war, Afghanistan etc etc, yet 9/11 (the worst terrorist attack on the west) pre-dates these events. As it happens, the first attack on the World Trade Center by Al-Qaeda in 1993, pre-dates both Bush and Blair (not that I am exonerating them).

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

A little known corollary of Godwin's law is known as the fallacist's fallacy. This states that just because an argument contains a fallacy it must therefore inevitably come to the incorrect conclusion.

 

Both the law and the fallacy are in overdrive on this thread.

 

I plead guilty to this charge brought under Godwin's Law and ask the Court to take my 748 previous offences into account before sentance is passed.

[sadoldgit]

[aintforever]

Who ****ing cares whether Adolf was a Christian or not. Nazi's didn't shout " God is great " as they turned on the gas or murdered countless others .

 

This.

 

There is a difference between someone of a certain religion doing something bad, and someone doing something bad because (or in the name of) of the religion.

 

Using football violence as an example. If someone who happens to be a Saints fan does something violent it's nothing to do with Saints or football. If a Saints fan goes to a game and kicks the **** out of someone because they are an opposition fan, it is.

[shirleysfc]

This.

 

There is a difference between someone of a certain religion doing something bad, and someone doing something bad because (or in the name of) of the religion.

 

Using football violence as an example. If someone who happens to be a Saints fan does something violent it's nothing to do with Saints or football. If a Saints fan goes to a game and kicks the **** out of someone because they are an opposition fan, it is.

 

True, but most of these guys that get recruited by IS aren't recruited because they're good, wholesome Muslims. They get recruited because they've got a screw loose and can be manipulated into committing these horrendous acts of violence.

[buctootim]

True, but most of these guys that get recruited by IS aren't recruited because they're good, wholesome Muslims. They get recruited because they've got a screw loose and can be manipulated into committing these horrendous acts of violence.

 

This, or worse - they enjoy it. For some getting paid to be top dog driving around raping, enslaving and killing people is a lot more fun than working a dull minimum wage job and living in a bedsit or going to prison again. The fact someone tells you its God's work takes care of whatever residual conscience they have.

[aintforever]

True, but most of these guys that get recruited by IS aren't recruited because they're good, wholesome Muslims. They get recruited because they've got a screw loose and can be manipulated into committing these horrendous acts of violence.

 

True, but they say they are doing it because of the religion and the suicide aspect of it does suggest a belief in the religion they say they are doing it for.

 

It appears to some of similar faith they are considered good wholesome muslims.

[buctootim]

True, but they say they are doing it because of the religion and the suicide aspect of it does suggest a belief in the religion they say they are doing it for.

 

It appears to some of similar faith they are considered good wholesome muslims.

 

Im not sure. As Shirleyfc says most of them have got a history of drink, dope, petty crime and some jail time without ever holding down a job - classic misfit in society. People with that kind of history tend to look around for some alternative path. My ex retrains in a different career every three or four years, constantly looking for something because she can never get her life together (not that she ever did the other stuff). The fact they dabble with becoming religious doesnt mean they actually believe. Would they still join if the offer was living in a monastery and praying six times a day instead of going to Syria and playing with guns and explosives?

[whelk]

Im not sure. As Shirleyfc says most of them have got a history of drink, dope, petty crime and some jail time without ever holding down a job - classic misfit in society. People with that kind of history tend to look around for some alternative path. My ex retrains in a different career every three or four years, constantly looking for something because she can never get her life together (not that she ever did the other stuff). The fact they dabble with becoming religious doesnt mean they actually believe. Would they still join if the offer was living in a monastery and praying six times a day instead of going to Syria and playing with guns and explosives?

 

Oversimplifying I think. Do you think the suicide bombers at Baghdad markets have drink problems? The one thwarted recently in UK was a top medical student.

There is clearly a cultish ideology at work that manages to bypass our natural instinct to survive.

[whelk]

Do you really think that the Archbishop of Canterbury would have written that? Especially #ReligionOf Murder? I think it is time to move into a new shell Whelk, this one seems to have cut off the blood supply to your brain

 

Do you really think I wasn't being sarcastic SOG?

Been explained to you many times that Hopkins is no Christian although admittedly your criteria seems to be anyone in the west who has white skin.

[hypochondriac]

Do you really think I wasn't being sarcastic SOG?

Been explained to you many times that Hopkins is no Christian although admittedly your criteria seems to be anyone in the west who has white skin.

 

And went to a nativity with their kid.

[buctootim]

Oversimplifying I think. Do you think the suicide bombers at Baghdad markets have drink problems? The one thwarted recently in UK was a top medical student.

There is clearly a cultish ideology at work that manages to bypass our natural instinct to survive.

 

Im only referring to the Western born jihadis. I agree its totally different motivation for the Iraqis, Syrians etc - which is why IS keep the westerners separate from the rest in their own battalion.

 

The instinct to survive is interesting. In Britain in the middle ages people were taught to accept their miserable lot as peasants because they would reach heaven in the afterlife. The jihadis are taught pretty much the same - it doesnt matter if you die because the afterlife is so much better. Whereas for most of us preserving this life trumps everything else.

Edited 29 March, 2016 by buctootim

[hypochondriac]

Im only referring to the Western born jihadis. I agree its totally different motivation for the Iraqis, Syrians etc - which is why IS keep the westerners separate from the rest in their own battalion.

 

Fair enough that's a fair way of looking at things. I don't think that's the case for every Western fighter but I'm sure that with some IS fighters there is an element of that.

[buctootim]

Fair enough that's a fair way of looking at things. I don't think that's the case for every Western fighter but I'm sure that with some IS fighters there is an element of that.

 

I cant find the link now, but there was an interesting piece on the BBC a while ago interviewing an Afghan who had fought with three different militias - local warlords, Taliban and Al Queda and had now joined the local police. His choices were entirely pragmatic - they were the only employment choices for people without land, if you want to feed your family you joined up and when one force faded away you joined the new one. Ideology didnt seem to come into it at all. I dont know how typical or widespread outside of Afghanistan that is, but interesting nonetheless.

[whelk]

Im only referring to the Western born jihadis. I agree its totally different motivation for the Iraqis, Syrians etc - which is why IS keep the westerners separate from the rest in their own battalion.

 

The instinct to survive is interesting. In Britain in the middle ages people were taught to accept their miserable lot as peasants because they would reach heaven in the afterlife. The jihadis are taught pretty much the same - it doesnt matter if you die because the afterlife is so much better. Whereas for most of us preserving this life trumps everything else.

 

Agree many come from that disillusioned backgrounds. Some were recently intercepted going from UK to Syria and had a 'Dummies Guide to the Quran' with them.

[sadoldgit]

Do you really think I wasn't being sarcastic SOG?

Been explained to you many times that Hopkins is no Christian although admittedly your criteria seems to be anyone in the west who has white skin.

 

Its hard to tell nowdays Whelk! As for Hopkins, do we know one way of the other for sure? She might not display Christian values as we know them (but then nor do the kiddy fiddlers amongst the clergy) but she was brought up in a convent school and made a big fuss to Andrew Neill about taking her child to the nativity play at her school so even if she doesn't buy into Christianity she is displaying an element of hypocrisy if she is happy for her daughter to be raised as a Christian. I know I will get hypo on my back again shortly saying just because they go to a Nativity that has nothing to do with being Christian, which seems very odd to me as the whole thing is about celebrating the birth of the Son of God, but hey ho.

[hypochondriac]

It appears that when we get rid of the complete loons, some sanity and seeds of agreement begin to form.

[Johnny Bognor]

Im not sure. As Shirleyfc says most of them have got a history of drink, dope, petty crime and some jail time without ever holding down a job - classic misfit in society. People with that kind of history tend to look around for some alternative path. My ex retrains in a different career every three or four years, constantly looking for something because she can never get her life together (not that she ever did the other stuff). The fact they dabble with becoming religious doesnt mean they actually believe. Would they still join if the offer was living in a monastery and praying six times a day instead of going to Syria and playing with guns and explosives?

 

 

I think people are getting confused between ISIS fighters on the ground and terrorists. Granted that the Paris and Brussells attackers may fit Shirley's profile, but many simply don't. Poverty is just a poor excuse to justify these vile acts and in many cases, it's not true...

 

 

Let's look at the profile of 'our' own terrorists. Many of them are better educated than most of the posters on this forum, including my good self.

 

- 7/7 bombers = two of the four were married with kids, one of which was a teaching assistant. Another one was a Sports Science Graduate.

- Lee Rigby's killers = One of them read Sociology at the University of Greenwich, not sure about the other

- Glasgow Airport bombing = One was studying for a doctorate in engineering, whilst the other and the other was a practising NHS doctor FFS.

 

 

There have been a number of studies to look for a link between poverty and terrorism. A study by terrorism expert Marc Sageman, who examined 102 Islamist radicals involved in global jihad, could find no correlation between poverty and terrorism; only about a quarter of the jihadis he looked at hailed from impoverished backgrounds. “Members of the global Salafi jihad,” Sageman writes in his book Understanding Terror Networks, “were generally middle-class, educated young men from caring and religious families, who grew up with strong positive values of religion, spirituality and concern for their communities.”

Edited 29 March, 2016 by Johnny Bognor
Toned it down a bit

[sadoldgit]

Right on cue!

[whelk]

Its hard to tell nowdays Whelk! As for Hopkins, do we know one way of the other for sure? She might not display Christian values as we know them (but then nor do the kiddy fiddlers amongst the clergy) but she was brought up in a convent school and made a big fuss to Andrew Neill about taking her child to the nativity play at her school so even if she doesn't buy into Christianity she is displaying an element of hypocrisy if she is happy for her daughter to be raised as a Christian. I know I will get hypo on my back again shortly saying just because they go to a Nativity that has nothing to do with being Christian, which seems very odd to me as the whole thing is about celebrating the birth of the Son of God, but hey ho.

 

Racists and bigots love to state about us being a Christian country and Christian values when it suits. Not the same as doing things in name of Christianity or Islam though.

You should just avoid Hopkins altogether - she only wants to shock and get a reaction spouting her bile.

[buctootim]

I think people are getting confused between ISIS fighters on the ground and terrorists.

 

 

Let's look at the profile of 'our' own terrorists:

- 7/7 bombers = two of the four were married with kids, one of which was a teaching assistant. Another one was a Sports Science Graduate.

- Lee Rigby's killers = One of them read Sociology at the University of Greenwich

- Glasgow Airport bombing = One an PHD Student studying engineering and the other was a practising NHS doctor FFS.

 

 

Granted that the Paris and Brussells attackers may fit Shirley's profile, but many simply don't... so can we stop making excuses for these disgusting ****s????

 

 

There have been a number of studies to look for a link between poverty and terrorism. A study by terrorism expert Marc Sageman, who examined 102 Islamist radicals involved in global jihad, could find no correlation between poverty and terrorism; only about a quarter of the jihadis he looked at hailed from impoverished backgrounds. “Members of the global Salafi jihad,” Sageman writes in his book Understanding Terror Networks, “were generally middle-class, educated young men from caring and religious families, who grew up with strong positive values of religion, spirituality and concern for their communities.”

 

Spot on as always Johnny. Have another rail at something no-one has said. Who has made excuses for them? who has said its because of a poor background? The point was that western born terrorists are usually misfits often with a criminal past. Their profiles prove that. All the Brussels and Paris attackers fit that description and the only UK terrorists who werent came to the UK from abroad. Three of the 7/7 group were extremely young, 18 and 19.

 

7/7 only one of the four had held a regular job, as a teaching assistant - and he was sacked from that. Two of them had criminal convictions, the eldest had a history of drugs and street fights.

 

Lee Rigby killers: Both were drug dealers who had spent time in jail. Adebowale had a history of mental illness, claiming to hear the voices of spirits in prison. He suffered a breakdown after seeing a fellow teenage drug-dealer cut to pieces by a paranoid crack addict. Adebolajo became known to police for involvement in violent crime. Friends said he was part of a group that stole mobile phones and threatened people with knives. He went to Greenwich University but left the course before his third year. Neither held down a job.

 

Glasgow Airport. Both of the bombers were born and grew up outside of Britain - in Iraq and India and were radicals long before entering Britian.

Edited 29 March, 2016 by buctootim

[TwoPints]

It appears that when we get rid of the complete loons, some sanity and seeds of agreement begin to form.

I'm sorry, I've been driving through Belgium (honestly hypo) to Germany. I'll be back soon though. ?

[Johnny Bognor]

Spot on as always Johnny. Have another rail at something no-one has said. Who has made excuses for them? who has said its because of a poor background? The point was that homegrown terrorists are usually misfits often with as criminal past. The facts, rather than your claims, prove that. The only UK terrorists who werent social misfits were from abroad.

 

 

... just putting them down to misfits with a criminal past doesn't tally with MI5's own specialist research or the conclusions of the Journal of Terrorism research...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1

http://jtr.st-andrews.ac.uk/articles/10.15664/jtr.380/

 

The JTR paper asks will it ever be possible to profile the terrorist. They don't seem to think so due to the normalcy and sociability of many terrorists, but you and Shirley seem to have nailed it.

Perhaps we could cut the defecit by disbanding MI5 and just employing you two at a fraction of the cost?

 

PS: Don't beat me up for posting another Guardian article

Edited 29 March, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[buctootim]

... just putting them down to misfits with a criminal past doesn't tally with MI5's own specialist research or the conclusions of the Journal of Terrorism research...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1

http://jtr.st-andrews.ac.uk/articles/10.15664/jtr.380/

 

The JTR paper asks will it ever be possible to profile the terrorist. They don't seem to think so due to the normalcy and sociability of many terrorists, but you and Shirley seem to have nailed it.

Perhaps we could cut the defecit by disbanding MI5 and just employing you two at a fraction of the cost?

 

PS: Don't beat me up for posting another Guardian article

 

It largely bears out what Ive been saying and the opposite of your claims. It says terrorists are almost all employed in low grade jobs and have little religious literacy. Indeed MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. It doesnt deal with the question of criminal records, which is a pity. The report is 8 years old, so things may have changed.

Edited 29 March, 2016 by buctootim

[shirleysfc]

... just putting them down to misfits with a criminal past doesn't tally with MI5's own specialist research or the conclusions of the Journal of Terrorism research...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1

http://jtr.st-andrews.ac.uk/articles/10.15664/jtr.380/

 

The JTR paper asks will it ever be possible to profile the terrorist. They don't seem to think so due to the normalcy and sociability of many terrorists, but you and Shirley seem to have nailed it.

Perhaps we could cut the defecit by disbanding MI5 and just employing you two at a fraction of the cost?

 

PS: Don't beat me up for posting another Guardian article

 

There were plenty of reports about the Paris/Brussels terrorists that supported what I said.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34849077

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1667423/who-are-the-brussels-bombers-and-other-suspects

 

So what's your solution based on the report in the Guardian?

 

"It concludes that it is not possible to draw up a typical profile of the "British terrorist" as most are "demographically unremarkable" and simply reflect the communities in which they live

 

The "restricted" MI5 report takes apart many of the common stereotypes about those involved in British terrorism.

 

They are mostly British nationals, not illegal immigrants and, far from being Islamist fundamentalists, most are religious novices. Nor, the analysis says, are they "mad and bad".

 

Those over 30 are just as likely to have a wife and children as to be loners with no ties, the research shows.

 

The security service also plays down the importance of radical extremist clerics, saying their influence in radicalising British terrorists has moved into the background in recent years."

Edited 29 March, 2016 by shirleysfc

[Johnny Bognor]

It largely bears out what Ive been saying and the opposite of your claims. It says terrorists are almost all employed in low grade jobs and have little religious literacy. Indeed MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. It doesnt deal with the question of criminal records, which is a pity. The report is 8 years old, so things may have changed.

 

i think things may have changed in that they are perhaps trying to recruit more misfits now, whereas in the past they could be well educated from wealthy families. Osama bin laden anyone???

 

But a significant number are well educated and come from decent backgrounds. Which is different to the knuckle draggers aluded to earlier in this thread. So it begs the question why? Because apart from sectarianism, there doesnt seem to be any rational argument.

Edited 29 March, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[shurlock]

i think things may have changed in that they are perhaps trying to recruit more misfits now, whereas in the past they could be well educated from wealthy families. Osama bin laden anyone???

 

But a significant number are well educated and come from decent backgrounds. Which is different to the knuckle draggers aluded to earlier in this thread. So it begs the question why? Because apart from sectarianism, there doesnt seem to be any rational argument.

 

The background of terrorists like Osama Bin Laden is a completely different subject. The thread is discussing second or third generation immigrants who are born in Western countries like the UK.

[Verbal]

i think things may have changed in that they are perhaps trying to recruit more misfits now, whereas in the past they could be well educated from wealthy families. Osama bin laden anyone???

 

But a significant number are well educated and come from decent backgrounds. Which is different to the knuckle draggers aluded to earlier in this thread. So it begs the question why? Because apart from sectarianism, there doesnt seem to be any rational argument.

 

For the same reasons, I'd suggest, that people joined the Manson family or Jonestown. The appeal of ISIS for local fighters is intimately related to the politics of the Sunni triangle and the spill-over into Syria. For western terrorist recruits - many of whom are converts (which is a category wrongly ignored) - it's something else entirely. The appeal is not so much the promise of an afterlife but the heavily promoted End of Times guff that accompanies any death cult. And for some reason, historically death cults have been particularly appealing to recruits middle class or comfortably off, quite stable families. (You'll notice the absence of Palestinians - the most downtrodden of all Arab peoples - from these Jihadist groups.)

 

Western jihadists also tend to be committed conspiracy theorists, with all the gullibility that goes with such a simplistic, controlling-agency, mindset. It is a mindset that is closed and absolutist - a perfect fit for ISIS. This is why I think you get a pattern of thought among a certain sort of far-leftist which feels strikingly similar to those of western ISIS recruits. It explains widespread Jew-hating among Corbynists, for example, as well as deflecting arguments about how Brussels/Boston/Lee Rigby/9-11 are all 'false flag' operations.

[CB Fry]

If we have all finished laughing at SOG then googling Belgium False Flag chucks up some absolute solid gold guff, the kind of which former legendary contributors of this parish are currently masterbating over, while accusing other people of being gullible.

 

Research thus far - "look at that fake baby ato themail airport" with lots of self assured YouTube comments from virgins saying "babies wouldn't move like that". Also something about the number 322 (22nd March in, er, US date format. Geddit?) which is (obviously) a number linked to the illuminati or lizards or something. Cast iron proof.

 

There's other stuff - the fact that they hit near to the EU buildings is evidence of conspiracy rather than, well, evidence that the terrorists were targeting a seat of power. Like, obviously, sheeple. Then I stopped reading as it made me feel depressed. There are some utter dins out there, and some make SOG look like Henry Kissinger.

Edited 29 March, 2016 by CB Fry

[Johnny Bognor]

The background of terrorists like Osama Bin Laden is a completely different subject. The thread is discussing second or third generation immigrants who are born in Western countries like the UK.

 

sorry, i must have missed the bit about it specifically being about second or third generation immigrants. Where does katie hopkins, adolf hitler being a christian and the balkans conflict fit into the thread.

 

i thought it was more about islamic extremism and islamic terrorism in general.

[Sour Mash]

i think things may have changed in that they are perhaps trying to recruit more misfits now, whereas in the past they could be well educated from wealthy families. Osama bin laden anyone???

 

But a significant number are well educated and come from decent backgrounds. Which is different to the knuckle draggers aluded to earlier in this thread. So it begs the question why? Because apart from sectarianism, there doesnt seem to be any rational argument.

 

Some are from wealthy backgrounds, some are not, some are educated, some are not.

 

What they all have in common is they are muslim, carrying out their acts in the name of Islam.

[CB Fry]

Some are from wealthy backgrounds, some are not, some are educated, some are not.

 

What they all have in common is they are muslim, carrying out their acts in the name of Islam.

 

WHAT ALL ONE BILLION OF THEM etc etc etc

[shirleysfc]

Some are from wealthy backgrounds, some are not, some are educated, some are not.

 

What they all have in common is they are muslim, carrying out their acts in the name of Islam.

 

So what's the solution?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

sorry, i must have missed the bit about it specifically being about second or third generation immigrants. Where does katie hopkins, adolf hitler being a christian and the balkans conflict fit into the thread.

 

i thought it was more about islamic extremism and islamic terrorism in general.

 

I too struggle to find Ms Hopkins thoughts and deeds of be of any great relevance to the subject in hand. But if you really do want to debate (and perhaps even attempt to understand) terrorism on a deeper level than mearly condemning the latest outrage then a broader perspective is I think useful if not unavoidable.

 

For example - and my apologies for the Godwin - Dr Gobbels often described Allied strategic bomber aircrew of WWII as "terrorflieger" - which might be translated as 'flying' or airborne terrorists. Far be it for me to defend Nazism, but in a sense that highly pejorative term the Nazi Propaganda Minister coined is not entirly inappropiate because we actually were (it's a complex story but in part anyway) engaged in attempting to bomb - and therefore terrorise - the German civilian population into submission at the time.

 

Few on the Allied side (both then and now) would accept that terrorflieger terminology of Dr Gobbels of course, and in truth the Luftwaffe's bombing of places such as Warsaw in 1939, and then again Rotterdam in 1940, fit into the very same pattern - so the minister's rank hypocrisy is obvious. However, the old adage that 'one man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter' is not entirly lacking in some truth is it?. If you don't want to discuss the subject from such a historical stand-point then the so-called "Shock & Awe" tactics employed to oust Saddam Hussein are broadly comparable I think. If that too is objectionable then we might even consider Hamas v the IDF (a issue very much in the 'here & now') and try and decide whether just one of those two organisations are prepared to resort to terror tatics - or both.

 

So I put it to you then, that the line we draw between the concepts of warfare and terrorism is a rather fine one that is dependent upon perspective. Indeed, terrorism might be seen as 'the continuation of warfare by other means' - to misquote Von Clausewitz. Furthermore, it seems to me that very often those some choose to depict as terrorists would not consider themselves to be any such thing, but rather warriors in a cause they happen to believe in. We can all form our own judgements as as to whether WE happen to consider that a particular cause justifies the use of extreme violence or not. But it seems to me that is what THEY probably think.

...........................................

 

Earlier you claimed that some (unnamed) people on here are attempting to "appogise" for terror. Speaking for myself, I reject that and tell you that none of the above is offered in a attempt to excuse the violence of groups such as the IRA, ETA, Hamas or ISIS etc. I put forward the above only in a effort to understand the issue better. You do comprehend I hope that understanding something, and then condoning it, are not at all the same thing.

Edited 30 March, 2016 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[CB Fry]

I'm not convinced that anyone whose response is to go onand on about how the Nazis were, like, Christian and stuff is someone that can claim to understand global terrorism and ISIS in particular.

 

However it does seem to give the likes of SOG some perverse satisfaction and dissipates the evil of ISIS in his eyes and allows him to lay into Christianity (defined as anyone who has ever been or knows anyone that has been to a nativity play).

 

Bizarre, but we are where we are.

[Johnny Bognor]

I too struggle to find Ms Hopkins thoughts and deeds of be of any great relevance to the subject in hand. But if you really do want to debate (and perhaps even attempt to understand) terrorism on a deeper level than mearly condemning the latest outrage then a broader perspective is I think useful if not unavoidable.

 

For example - and my apologies for the Godwin - Dr Gobbels often described Allied strategic bomber aircrew of WWII as "terrorflieger" - which might be translated as 'flying' or airborne terrorists. Far be it for me to defend Nazism, but in a sense that highly pejorative term the Nazi Propaganda Minister coined is not entirly inappropiate because we actually were (it's a complex story but in part anyway) engaged in attempting to bomb - and therefore terrorise - the German civilian population into submission at the time.

 

Few on the Allied side (both then and now) would accept that terrorflieger terminology of Dr Gobbels of course, and in truth the Luftwaffe's bombing of places such as Warsaw in 1939, and then again Rotterdam in 1940, fit into the very same pattern - so the minister's rank hypocrisy is obvious. However, the old adage that 'one man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter' is not entirly lacking in some truth is it?. If you don't want to discuss the subject from such a historical stand-point then the so-called "Shock & Awe" tactics employed to oust Saddam Hussein are broadly comparable I think. If that too is objectionable then we might even consider Hamas v the IDF (a issue very much in the 'here & now') and try and decide whether just one of those two organisations are prepared to resort to terror tatics - or both.

 

So I put it to you then, that the line we draw between the concepts of warfare and terrorism is a rather fine one that is dependent upon perspective. Indeed, terrorism might be seen as 'the continuation of warfare by other means' - to misquote Von Clausewitz. Furthermore, it seems to me that very often those some choose to depict as terrorists would not consider themselves to be any such thing, but rather warriors in a cause they happen to believe in. We can all form our own judgements as as to whether WE happen to consider that a particular cause justifies the use of extreme violence or not. But it seems to me that is what THEY probably think.

...........................................

 

Earlier you claimed that some (unnamed) people on here are attempting to "appogise" for terror. Speaking for myself, I reject that and tell you that none of the above is offered in a attempt to excuse the violence of groups such as the IRA, ETA, Hamas or ISIS etc. I put forward the above only in a effort to understand the issue better. You do comprehend I hope that understanding something, and then condoning it, are not at all the same thing.

 

Very well put, but i was discussing terrorism on a wider scale, only to be told that this thread was to specifically discuss 2nd and 3rd generation home grown terrorists. i do not disagree with your first three paragraphs (and beleive that they widen the debate), but i must warn you that Sherlock will be along in a minute to give you a dressing down for straying wayyyyyy off topic.

 

My reference to apologists was not specifically related to people on this thread, but aimed more at apologists at large and there are many of them. It seems to me, that many of a left persuasion (not specifically on this forum) defend all islam at any cost, whilst those of a right persuasion (not specifically on this forum) attack all of islam. There are diffrent forms, some worthy of criticism and some not. More needs to be done to educate both sides.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Very well put, but i was discussing terrorism on a wider scale, only to be told that this thread was to specifically discuss 2nd and 3rd generation home grown terrorists. i do not disagree with your first three paragraphs (and beleive that they widen the debate), but i must warn you that Sherlock will be along in a minute to give you a dressing down for straying wayyyyyy off topic.

 

My reference to apologists was not specifically related to people on this thread, but aimed more at apologists at large and there are many of them. It seems to me, that many of a left persuasion (not specifically on this forum) defend all islam at any cost, whilst those of a right persuasion (not specifically on this forum) attack all of islam. There are diffrent forms, some worthy of criticism and some not. More needs to be done to educate both sides.

 

Well I fully accept your explanation that you were not specificaly depicting any contributors on here as 'appolgists' and in turn apologise myself for any offence taken.

[Johnny Bognor]

Well I fully accept your explanation that you were not specificaly depicting any contributors on here as 'appolgists' and in turn apologise myself for any offence taken.

 

No offence taken.

 

i totally get the terrorist v freedom fighter point of view. if you look at most terrorist groups, there is a cause they are fighting for, whether that be freedom, regaining territories etc.

 

There is a very different agenda for the current brand of islamic terrorism. one of imposing their will on the world.

[sadoldgit]

sorry, i must have missed the bit about it specifically being about second or third generation immigrants. Where does katie hopkins, adolf hitler being a christian and the balkans conflict fit into the thread.

 

i thought it was more about islamic extremism and islamic terrorism in general.

 

Katie Hopkins made some comments a while back that she thought that not enough Muslims were coming out and condemning the atrocities. I made a comment about it on here to the effect of how many is enough because clearly there is a backlash from the moderate Muslims, but clearly not from enough of them to satisfy her. Unfortunately it then became more important to debate whether she was a Christian or not - which still seems to be bothering one of our number more than the bile that she spouts.

[Sour Mash]

because clearly there is a backlash from the moderate Muslims.

There has been no "backlash" from the moderate muslims.

[Batman]

There has been no "backlash" from the moderate muslims.

 

even moderate muslims are a good bet to display values that go against western ones.

the acceptance of segragation/sexism from that culture, here in the UK is alarming for one.

[sadoldgit]

I'm not convinced that anyone whose response is to go onand on about how the Nazis were, like, Christian and stuff is someone that can claim to understand global terrorism and ISIS in particular.

 

However it does seem to give the likes of SOG some perverse satisfaction and dissipates the evil of ISIS in his eyes and allows him to lay into Christianity (defined as anyone who has ever been or knows anyone that has been to a nativity play).

 

Bizarre, but we are where we are.

 

What is bizarre is the way that you try and twist something in order to try and make yourself look superior. I have never claimed that the activities of the terrorists were not evil. I also am aware that they are not the only people who carry, or have carried out atrocities over time, something that seems to be a problem for you. Still, you defended a poll in The Sun that was spun in a way to show moderate Muslims in a bad light so I guess that says it all. I suppose The West is completely blameless for the current situation and the Gulf War and the desire for oil has nothing do with where we are now? Still, you and your apprentice have an odd set of priorities. I'd rather be laughed at that be an Internet troll.

[sadoldgit]

There has been no "backlash" from the moderate muslims.

 

C B Fry or hypo, would you like to comment?

[Sour Mash]

C B Fry or hypo, would you like to comment?

Why can't you comment or answer yourself?

[sadoldgit]

There has been no "backlash" from the moderate muslims.

 

I have seen plenty of condemnation including a peace march by Muslims in London not long after the Paris atrocities, not that it was given much coverage in the news. It is there if you care to look for it, unless you are Katie Hopkins of course.