Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamix.forllz)
    - Tony Blair is an evil man, who should never get a knighthood, ever....

    - People from oppressed groups who have vocal prejudices should be thrown in jail (,i.e. racist gays, homophobic blacks, etc.)

    - Muslims who claim to hate the UK yet were born here should be monitored, tagged, and deported to their parents' countries.

    - Catholicism should be banned everywhere, due to its historical and current crimes.

    - The UK was just as much to blame for WWI as Germany was. IMHO, MORE SO....
    That is very authoritarian! Throwing people in jail because of views they have in private definitely has no place in a liberal democracy. We can all say that racism and homophobia are obnoxious and ignorant but forcing censorship on those who hold those views undermines the liberal base from which we say they are detestable.

    Catholic ideology has changed with common sentiments over time. When there was vehement anti-semitism it orchestrated the Inquisition, when there was the rise of Protestantism is contributed to the fighting of Lutherans...
    So you would essentially be labelling the previous 2000 years as evil, jut because the people at the time were not holding 21st Century opinions.
    That is ridiculous.
    Also why should you punish today's Catholics for the actions of people living hundreds of years ago?

    Why do you say Britain was as much to blame for WW1? I get how you could argue Austro-Hungary, Russia and even Serbia but Britain was desperately suing for peace right up until Germany marched threw Belgium for war against France.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Musie Suzie)
    Interestingly, consistent pronunciation would be pretty much impossible to achieve, as people's mother tongue is what influences their accent when speaking other languages. So it would take many generations learning it from birth (infinitely more effective than learning a language later in life, but up till five/sixish is ok-ish for sounding native) all taught by people who pronounce esperanto consistently to achieve uniformity of pronunciation.

    So it wouldn't happen, basically.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    By consistent pronunciation I meant every letter representing the same sound in every word. I'm not bothered by accents.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flibber)
    I wouldn't say 10%, but I still wouldn't mind bombing ISIS until they're obliterated, since many jihadi militants will never repent for their crimes against humanity, even if we gave them the chance to. What's your idea of "style"?
    ISIS are imbedded in Iraqi towns across the country which they have captured and are now subjecting to brutal Islamic law. So more innocent civilians would die in your scheme than terrorists.

    Continuing with targeted air strikes is fine, but they have proved far less damaging than people expected
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zimbo97)
    ISIS are imbedded in Iraqi towns across the country which they have captured and are now subjecting to brutal Islamic law. So more innocent civilians would die in your scheme than terrorists.

    Continuing with targeted air strikes is fine, but they have proved far less damaging than people expected
    I meant obliterating its military forces in action and crippling the leadership rather than doing Cambodia-style carpet bombing.

    I think the disadvantage of ISIS compared to Al Qaeda is that it is a self proclaimed caliphate, and that its legitimacy is based on the status of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as a member of the Quraish tribe (viewed as descendants of Muhammad, which is apparently one of the requirements for one to be a caliph). Knocking him, along with others in the hierarchy, will decimate ISIS (since some of its most qualified leaders have been knocked down by airstrikes).

    Here's a conversation between me and a pacifist you may wish to look at:

    Spoiler:
    Show


    Him:

    I tend to take a more pacifistic position and always believe that there must be an option which involves no violence. The assumption is always the violence must be used against violence, but I question the legitimacy of this. Could there have been a way to prevent the holocaust without having to launch a bombing campaign?

    It is too late to change the past, but it is fascinating to envision how different the world would be if certain thing in history had gone differently. I am always intrigued as to how the world would be if Nazi Germany won the war.

    Me:

    I would use the example of Barack Obama [in his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize speech] who claimed that we are flawed so there are some people who are violent, and will not be stopped by peaceful demonstrations. Do you honestly think that holding cards protesting ISIS will stop them from their genocidal actions? Only force will stop them. Those who disagree are promoting a dangerously cowardly way to act in real life situations. In short, pacifism is impractical when you have a murderous enemy.

    I am more intrigued about what would have happened had Hindenburg lived a bit longer and got fed up of Hitler and sacked him.

    Him:
    I do not believe that humans are necessarily inherently violent, greedy, selfish etc.. I believe that ones environment and society often causes people to become who they are. I personally believe that we (the West), are largely responsible for a lot of the issues within the Middle East right now. ISIS would not exist if it were not for out recent interferences in the Middle East. The more we interfere, the more we cause trouble. War always causes innocent casualties. Every time we go to the Middle East on one 'humanitarian' pretext or another, we end up killing innocent civilians. These deaths help to legitimise those groups that oppose the West and provide an alternative.

    For example, the recent attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris has been used as a pretext by many far right groups in Europe to legitimise their political views. Such attacks often result in more extreme groups gaining power and are often used as a pretext to erode peoples rights and freedoms.

    The more we attack ISIS, the more we providing legitimacy for them. "The West is evil, they kill our people, destroy our lands, they want our oil" etc... and by attacking them, we help them with their propaganda.

    The fact is, the West doesn't really care as much as we like to think, or it chooses to care when it suits itself. Why does Barack Obama not put pressure on Indonesia over West Papua? There is currently a slow genocide happening there, and I think something like 1/3 of the West Papuan population have been killed over the last 50 years or so. Why were America silent when Indonesia invaded and killed 1/4 of the population of East Timor? Why were America silent when the Indonesian president Suharto committed one of the worst mass murders in the 20th century when he killed over half a million Indonesians?

    And this is just one country. It suited America to support a dictator like Suharto, who whilst brutal, would repress the spread of communism. Human collateral was not an issue and neither was democracy.

    I am not going to claim I know the answer of how to stop groups like ISIS, but I do believe that most situations can be resolved in a more peaceful manner. Is war always the only option? Could not the creation of ISIS have been avoided in the first place if we had chosen a more peaceful stance in the Middle East in the beginning?

    Me:


    Most situations can be defused with negotiations, but not ISIS. As I said, we shouldn't have messed it up in the first place, but now it's too late. We can't bring ISIS into the negotiation tables in the same way as we could for other belligerent groups. Sanctions are useless. And holding a placard won't stop them from chopping people's heads off ; of course, you can always try to walk in front of their Humvees which they stole from the American trained Iraqi army. Guess what'd happen?

    Him:
    What makes ISIS any different? The bigger ISIS get, the more land they take over and the more they start to implement their rules, the more the people of the nations will oppose and fight back. But if we attack we provide legitimacy and prove ISIS and others belief that we (the West) are the evil ones. I feel it would be better for them to ruin their own reputation and for the masses to rise up against them. I believe we need to let militant Islam prove itself to be a failure and for it to collapse naturally. The evil west is always used as the basis for the militant Islamists.

    The fact is the we in the West have interfered in the Middle East a lot in history and been the cause of much of the problems they still suffer from. It is therefore this that has driven many to tur
    n to Islam as an alternative means for opposing what they consider to be the great evil (the West). This article here provides an interesting analysis regarding Islam as a political force:
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Isl...41012-698.html

    So much like many in the Black Civil Rights movement turned to Christianity for their fight for freedom and liberation from the American (western) government they considered to be evil, the same is also so of those in the Middle East and their embracement of Islam

    Me:

    I disagree. Many in Raqqa and Mosul are now fed up of ISIS, but cannot rise up due to the terrible consequences (beheadings, crucifixions, and now, even better, being thrown from the top of a building ). Sure, either people may rebel in the end or ISIS will certainly outstretch themselves, but only after ISIS have carried out mass atrocities and kill millions of Shia Muslims, Yazidis, Christians, Kurds, Jews and so on. And rebellions don't always succeed, e.g. Warsaw Uprising of 1944 which ultimately failed.

    We shouldn't have intervened in the Middle East in the first place, but now we have, we have no other choice than to fight ISIS (as explained above).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flibber)
    I meant obliterating its military forces in action and crippling the leadership rather than doing Cambodia-style carpet bombing.

    I think the disadvantage of ISIS compared to Al Qaeda is that it is a self proclaimed caliphate, and that its legitimacy is based on the status of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as a member of the Quraish tribe (viewed as descendants of Muhammad, which is apparently one of the requirements for one to be a caliph). Knocking him, along with others in the hierarchy, will decimate ISIS (since some of its most qualified leaders have been knocked down by airstrikes).

    Here's a conversation between me and a pacifist you may wish to look at:

    Spoiler:
    Show


    Him:

    I tend to take a more pacifistic position and always believe that there must be an option which involves no violence. The assumption is always the violence must be used against violence, but I question the legitimacy of this. Could there have been a way to prevent the holocaust without having to launch a bombing campaign?

    It is too late to change the past, but it is fascinating to envision how different the world would be if certain thing in history had gone differently. I am always intrigued as to how the world would be if Nazi Germany won the war.

    Me:

    I would use the example of Barack Obama [in his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize speech] who claimed that we are flawed so there are some people who are violent, and will not be stopped by peaceful demonstrations. Do you honestly think that holding cards protesting ISIS will stop them from their genocidal actions? Only force will stop them. Those who disagree are promoting a dangerously cowardly way to act in real life situations. In short, pacifism is impractical when you have a murderous enemy.

    I am more intrigued about what would have happened had Hindenburg lived a bit longer and got fed up of Hitler and sacked him.

    Him:
    I do not believe that humans are necessarily inherently violent, greedy, selfish etc.. I believe that ones environment and society often causes people to become who they are. I personally believe that we (the West), are largely responsible for a lot of the issues within the Middle East right now. ISIS would not exist if it were not for out recent interferences in the Middle East. The more we interfere, the more we cause trouble. War always causes innocent casualties. Every time we go to the Middle East on one 'humanitarian' pretext or another, we end up killing innocent civilians. These deaths help to legitimise those groups that oppose the West and provide an alternative.

    For example, the recent attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris has been used as a pretext by many far right groups in Europe to legitimise their political views. Such attacks often result in more extreme groups gaining power and are often used as a pretext to erode peoples rights and freedoms.

    The more we attack ISIS, the more we providing legitimacy for them. "The West is evil, they kill our people, destroy our lands, they want our oil" etc... and by attacking them, we help them with their propaganda.

    The fact is, the West doesn't really care as much as we like to think, or it chooses to care when it suits itself. Why does Barack Obama not put pressure on Indonesia over West Papua? There is currently a slow genocide happening there, and I think something like 1/3 of the West Papuan population have been killed over the last 50 years or so. Why were America silent when Indonesia invaded and killed 1/4 of the population of East Timor? Why were America silent when the Indonesian president Suharto committed one of the worst mass murders in the 20th century when he killed over half a million Indonesians?

    And this is just one country. It suited America to support a dictator like Suharto, who whilst brutal, would repress the spread of communism. Human collateral was not an issue and neither was democracy.

    I am not going to claim I know the answer of how to stop groups like ISIS, but I do believe that most situations can be resolved in a more peaceful manner. Is war always the only option? Could not the creation of ISIS have been avoided in the first place if we had chosen a more peaceful stance in the Middle East in the beginning?

    Me:


    Most situations can be defused with negotiations, but not ISIS. As I said, we shouldn't have messed it up in the first place, but now it's too late. We can't bring ISIS into the negotiation tables in the same way as we could for other belligerent groups. Sanctions are useless. And holding a placard won't stop them from chopping people's heads off ; of course, you can always try to walk in front of their Humvees which they stole from the American trained Iraqi army. Guess what'd happen?

    Him:
    What makes ISIS any different? The bigger ISIS get, the more land they take over and the more they start to implement their rules, the more the people of the nations will oppose and fight back. But if we attack we provide legitimacy and prove ISIS and others belief that we (the West) are the evil ones. I feel it would be better for them to ruin their own reputation and for the masses to rise up against them. I believe we need to let militant Islam prove itself to be a failure and for it to collapse naturally. The evil west is always used as the basis for the militant Islamists.

    The fact is the we in the West have interfered in the Middle East a lot in history and been the cause of much of the problems they still suffer from. It is therefore this that has driven many to tur
    n to Islam as an alternative means for opposing what they consider to be the great evil (the West). This article here provides an interesting analysis regarding Islam as a political force:
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Isl...41012-698.html

    So much like many in the Black Civil Rights movement turned to Christianity for their fight for freedom and liberation from the American (western) government they considered to be evil, the same is also so of those in the Middle East and their embracement of Islam

    Me:

    I disagree. Many in Raqqa and Mosul are now fed up of ISIS, but cannot rise up due to the terrible consequences (beheadings, crucifixions, and now, even better, being thrown from the top of a building ). Sure, either people may rebel in the end or ISIS will certainly outstretch themselves, but only after ISIS have carried out mass atrocities and kill millions of Shia Muslims, Yazidis, Christians, Kurds, Jews and so on. And rebellions don't always succeed, e.g. Warsaw Uprising of 1944 which ultimately failed.

    We shouldn't have intervened in the Middle East in the first place, but now we have, we have no other choice than to fight ISIS (as explained above).
    I'm not 100 per cent sure that killing one guy, and then explaining to ISIS that on a technicality they can no longer call themselves the Islamic State is going to dampen their aggression or ambition.

    So you would commit troops in a similar operation as Iraq in 2003?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flibber)
    It won't hamper their aggression, but it'll certainly make them less appealing to potential recruits and cause a huge blow to their morale.

    I won't advocate a 2003-style invasion. I'd rather boost funding and training to the Peshmerga even more and send more advisers to the incompetent Iraqi Army, and increase the scale of airstrikes. You may call it mission creep, I call it a necessity.
    Haha in all honestly I wouldn't say that's particularly controversial. I think everyone generally thinks we should help the Peshmerga more, no one has any problem with sending advisors and I have no problem with the RAF doing more.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zimbo97)
    Haha in all honestly I wouldn't say that's particularly controversial. I think everyone generally thinks we should help the Peshmerga more, no one has any problem with sending advisors and I have no problem with the RAF doing more.
    Agreed.

    Would you advocate teaming up with Iran to defeat ISIS (I personally wouldn't due to Iran's nefarious intentions in Syria)? I won't attack your point of view, I'm just curious.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flibber)
    Agreed.

    Would you advocate teaming up with Iran to defeat ISIS (I personally wouldn't due to Iran's nefarious intentions in Syria)? I won't attack your point of view, I'm just curious.
    I'm no expert on the matter, but it seems rash not to at least coordinate attacks on ISIS with Iran, if only in Iraq and not Syria.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Where's my post?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lulu24)
    Homosexuality....is wrong....

    lol..asking for trouble, eh?
    What's life without a lil treble? :cool:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zimbo97)
    I'm no expert on the matter, but it seems rash not to at least coordinate attacks on ISIS with Iran, if only in Iraq and not Syria.
    Sounds interesting. It does seem a bit inconsistent to list the Al-Quds Brigade and Qassem Soleimani as terrorists and yet give tacit approval to their tactics, but one can also argue we did exactly that in Kobane in supporting the PYD/YPG yet label its parent organization the PKK as a terrorist group.

    Would you support allowing the Syrian Army to defeat ISIS by using airstrikes as long as there are no so-called 'moderate rebel groups' (although I'm worried about some FSA member's fondness of Jabhat al-Nusra and Khorasan) also involved in the region?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ratach)
    By consistent pronunciation I meant every letter representing the same sound in every word. I'm not bothered by accents.
    You'd need a new and huge alphabet then (i.e. a different symbol for all the different ways a vowel can be pronounced depending on context, rather than just the one), or to use the IPA, but people's actual pronunciation would still vary.

    You can tell I'm a phonetics geek
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Only taxpayers should get NHS treatment...
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by earthworm)
    Only taxpayers should get NHS treatment...
    and the rest of us?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I am a communist
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheTruthTeller)
    Hey guys,

    As the title says, what is the view you hold deemed most "controversial" in this society we live in today in Britain?
    That I'm FABULOUS...Many beg to differ...
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    Welcome Squad
    GM crops..who cares :P
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Probably that our country should issue breeding licenses, with only those deemed to be suitable as parents will legally be allowed to have a child.

    So if you are not financially able to support a child, or have no concept of how to raise a healthy child, or have a criminal past, or have any kind of disease or genetic abnormality that is likely to be passed on, or meet any one of a number of other criteria that would classify you as undesirable, then you shall not be issued with a breeding license and having a child would result firstly in the child being taken off you and secondly with you being sentenced to a lengthy spell behind bars.

    And yes, this post is absolutely serious.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    and the rest of us?
    Should pay, Unless you are a kid, kids should go free.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by earthworm)
    Should pay, Unless you are a kid, kids should go free.
    even people like me who are too sick to work? How lovely of you
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.