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

Ehhh... I'm kinda with the anti-Trump brigade on this one Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    This is ridiculous, a large percentage of Americans agree killing is an appropriate punishment for crime yet you wouldn't brand them all dangerous people.
    Not only is this whataboutery, but if you think supporting executing murderers is the same as supporting killing adulterers or apostates there is something deeply, deeply wrong with you, as I can only assume that you must think that the acts of leaving Islam or having extramarital sex are similar in terribleness to first-degree murder. That is the only way that you could think that there is little difference in supporting the death penalty for any of these acts. If this is the case then you must be completely nuts, and there is very little point in me trying to reason with you.

    (Original post by Underscore__)
    'Do you think Sharia law should be enforced' - 'yes of course I like the set of laws I've been brought up with'
    Oh, so does that make supporting Sharia not worthy of criticism then?
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    The wife obeying husband part is a bit stupid too. Women would have answered and could well have said yes even though their husband may feel differently.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why does it matter if the women have answered similarly to the men? For the percentage of women who didn't answer similarly it must be pretty terrible.

    EDIT: TercioOfParma, KimKallstrom, jake4198, The Roast, Dandaman1, Atlas Thugged come and see this. It's a regressive who thinks that supporting the death penalty for adulterers and apostates is no worse than supporting it for murderers. How regressive can the regressives get?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Not only is this whataboutery, but if you think supporting executing murderers is the same as supporting killing adulterers or apostates there is something deeply, deeply wrong with you, as I can only assume that you must think that the acts of leaving Islam or having extramarital sex are similar in terribleness to first-degree murder. That is the only way that you could think that there is little difference in supporting the death penalty for any of these acts. If this is the case then you must be completely nuts, and there is very little point in me trying to reason with you.

    Oh, so does that make supporting Sharia not worthy of criticism then?


    Why does it matter if the women have answered similarly to the men? For the percentage of women who didn't answer similarly it must be pretty terrible.

    EDIT: TercioOfParma, KimKallstrom, jake4198, The Roast, Dandaman1, Atlas Thugged come and see this. It's a regressive who thinks that supporting the death penalty for adulterers and apostates is no worse than supporting it for murderers. How regressive can the regressives get?
    More regressive than my hairline.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Not only is this whataboutery, but if you think supporting executing murderers is the same as supporting killing adulterers or apostates there is something deeply, deeply wrong with you, as I can only assume that you must think that the acts of leaving Islam or having extramarital sex are similar in terribleness to first-degree murder. That is the only way that you could think that there is little difference in supporting the death penalty for any of these acts. If this is the case then you must be completely nuts, and there is very little point in me trying to reason with you.
    Supporting the death penalty makes you an idiot. Whether you believe it should be used as a punishment for murder or adultery makes no difference to me.

    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Oh, so does that make supporting Sharia not worthy of criticism then?
    Well perhaps but I think communism is worthy of criticism yet I don't support banning all communists.

    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Why does it matter if the women have answered similarly to the men? For the percentage of women who didn't answer similarly it must be pretty terrible.
    I think you're mistaking the difference between what someone believes and what some acts on.

    (Original post by KingBradly)
    EDIT: TercioOfParma, KimKallstrom, jake4198, The Roast, Dandaman1, Atlas Thugged come and see this. It's a regressive who thinks that supporting the death penalty for adulterers and apostates is no worse than supporting it for murderers. How regressive can the regressives get?
    Its funny that you have absolutely no knowledge of my political beliefs but because I don't believe the same racist nonsense you do I'm apparently a 'regressive leftie'
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Supporting the death penalty makes you an idiot. Whether you believe it should be used as a punishment for murder or adultery makes no difference to me.
    I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty for basically anything. One of my strongest beliefs. But you've got to admit that it makes more sense, and is relatively justifiable when it comes to murders as opposed to things like adultery. Not everything is black and white.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty for basically anything. One of my strongest beliefs. But you've got to admit that it makes more sense, and is relatively justifiable when it comes to murders as opposed to things like adultery. Not everything is black and white.
    I would agree that murder is a far worse 'crime' but killing someone for any crime is equally ridiculous, there are no benefits to killing someone as a punishment


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Supporting the death penalty makes you an idiot. Whether you believe it should be used as a punishment for murder or adultery makes no difference to me.
    So if you had a choice between killing a murderer or an adulterer, I assume that you wouldn't even bother to save the adulterer, you would simply let the executioner decide, because it would make no difference to you. You'd be just as happy with the apostate or adulterer being punished by death as the person who has actually taken a life. Ok, cool, clearly you are quite nuts. No need for any more discussion.



    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Well perhaps but I think communism is worthy of criticism yet I don't support banning all communists.
    Who are you arguing against here?


    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I think you're mistaking the difference between what someone believes and what some acts on.
    So I'm guessing you have no problem with nutjob white supremacist extremists who think Muslims should be sent to death camps then? After all, they only "believe" it. No need to criticise their beliefs, right?


    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Its funny that you have absolutely no knowledge of my political beliefs but because I don't believe the same racist nonsense you do I'm apparently a 'regressive leftie'
    I don't know if you're a leftie, but you're definitely regressive if you're willing to turn a blind eye to adulterers being hung, and instead deflect criticism towards murderers getting a taste of their own medicine (I don't support capital punishment, btw, but that is the reality of it).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I would agree that murder is a far worse 'crime' but killing someone for any crime is equally ridiculous, there are no benefits to killing someone as a punishment


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Just answer this: do you or don't you think it is worse to kill someone for extramarital sex or leaving Islam, or to kill in response to them killing someone else? Do you think that killing someone as punishment for apostasy matches the crime to the same degree as killing someone for killing someone?

    Do you understand how hundreds of millions of people thinking that apostates and adulterers should be slaughtered is far more terrifying than people who think the punishment for murder should match the crime?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    So if you had a choice between killing a murderer or an adulterer, I assume that you wouldn't even bother to save the adulterer, you would simply let the executioner decide, because it would make no difference to you. You'd be just as happy with the apostate or adulterer being punished by death as the person who has actually taken a life. Ok, cool, clearly you are quite nuts. No need for any more discussion.
    I'd let the executioner pick because in my mind none of those people should be executed.


    (Original post by KingBradly)
    So I'm guessing you have no problem with nutjob white supremacist extremists who think Muslims should be sent to death camps then? After all, they only "believe" it. No need to criticise their beliefs, right?
    I can criticise what they believe but they aren't causing harm to anyone by simply believing that. Even a white supremacist who wants to send Muslims to death camps can be called a peaceful person; peace is in actions not thoughts.


    (Original post by KingBradly)
    I don't know if you're a leftie, but you're definitely regressive if you're willing to turn a blind eye to adulterers being hung, and instead deflect criticism towards murderers getting a taste of their own medicine (I don't support capital punishment, btw, but that is the reality of it).
    When did I say I was willing to turn a blind eye to it? I suppose to some extent I am because I'm never going to become an activist against but that's true of a lot of people.

    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Just answer this: do you or don't you think it is worse to kill someone for extramarital sex or leaving Islam, or to kill in response to them killing someone else? Do you think that killing someone as punishment for apostasy matches the crime to the same degree as killing someone for killing someone?
    It's worse to execute an adulterer but that's a flawed example. What you're essentially saying is that thinking a murderer should be executed is fine because some people think lesser 'crimes' warrant execution.

    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Do you understand how hundreds of millions of people thinking that apostates and adulterers should be slaughtered is far more terrifying than people who think the punishment for murder should match the crime?
    Peoples thoughts aren't terrifying so long as their thoughts don't become actions and for most Muslims, regardless of what they might think, they aren't going to go out rounding up adulterers to kill.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If we want to address the problem of Islamic extremism we must look to prevent the conditions which lead to young Muslims being attracted to extremism. People are impressionable. Do you think that every single German who joined or voted for the Nazis was born evil? Of course not, they were ordinary people like anyone else who for some reason or another were lured into extremism.

    One of the major reasons young Muslims join Isis is that they feel isolated, they feel alienated from British society. They feel distrusted and unwelcome. If we pursue policies such as banning all Muslims and blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few, we push ordinary Muslims further away and into the arms of extremists.

    For example look at the way Sadiq Khan, a secular Muslims who has fought extremism, was treated by our press and the Conservative party. He was accused of being an extremist and terrorist sympathiser for simply being a Muslim. Do you think such an approach, of holding all Muslims responsible for the actions of extremists, is conducive to fighting Islamic extremism and the far-right?
    This is precisely why i really didn't want to go down this route of offering up a multitude of things which can be debated and argued greatly by themselves when i know we are miles apart on the foundations of the problem.

    By asking me what tough measures i think the government should introduce to combat terrorism is utterely pointless and a waste of both our time when we dont agree on (I guess pretty much anything to do with Islam and extremism)

    This bolded paragraph is crazy. Why do we not see non muslims who feel isolated running of commiting the most heinous crimes imaginable? Why is it everybody other than muslims can resist the fear of joining the most depraved death cult the west has seen in generations?

    Why is it we see muslims from every continent on the earth commiting the same extremist horrors...?

    The answer is Islam. Religion makes highly religious people do bad stuff, its not new.

    Its not because he was alienated and marginalised..
    Its not because we are bombing his country
    Its not because he was poor
    Its not because he was uneducated
    Its not because intelience services made him feel "oppressed"

    The usual lame excuses offered up to look for convenient and palatable comprehension of their minds when they tell you time and time again what motivates them and the evidence to refute the above excuses is there for everybody to see, providing they want to see.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    This is precisely why i really didn't want to go down this route of offering up a multitude of things which can be debated and argued greatly by themselves when i know we are miles apart on the foundations of the problem.

    By asking me what tough measures i think the government should introduce to combat terrorism is utterely pointless and a waste of both our time when we dont agree on (I guess pretty much anything to do with Islam and extremism)
    In other words you have no idea. You keep claiming we need to 'get tough' but you are not able to give me a single credible example to back up and further any of your points. You are dealing entirely in rhetoric and soundbites, rather than suggesting anything of detail.

    What really struck me was how little you knew about the Abu Qatada case yet were using it to cite your case. You lied about him being convicted, when he wasn't and you lied about Jordan threatening to torture him when that wasn't even the issue at hand.
    Then you seem to think it's abhorrent that evidence obtained by torture cannot be used in court...

    This bolded paragraph is crazy. Why do we not see non muslims who feel isolated running of commiting the most heinous crimes imaginable? Why is it everybody other than muslims can resist the fear of joining the most depraved death cult the west has seen in generations?
    Well we do, the Jo Cox murderer for one. Andros Brievik for another, Dylan Roof another, Elliot Rodger another. Non-Muslim extremism is often less deadly (although also just as deadly) , but still exists in the form of the far right. Take a look at Britain First and tell me they aren't extreme. The far-right and Islamic extremists are peas in a pod.

    Why is it we see muslims from every continent on the earth commiting the same extremist horrors...?
    Hmm, around half a million civilians at least were killed in the Iraq war. Remind me by who? Or as usual does it not count if it's not done by Muslims?

    The answer is Islam. Religion makes highly religious people do bad stuff, its not new.

    Its not because he was alienated and marginalised..
    Its not because we are bombing his country
    Its not because he was poor
    Its not because he was uneducated
    Its not because intelience services made him feel "oppressed"

    You seem to have a very naive 'good vs evil' view of the world. There are a multitude of factors for almost any phenomena, Islamic extremism being one. Unlike you I don't think people are born evil, I want to assess ALL factors which lead to young people turning to extremism, both Islamic extremism and far-right extremism. And yes lots of factors are prevalent, ideology is certainly a big one, but so too are factors like poverty, like isolation, alienation and being distrusted through no fault of their own.

    And you're mad if you think Western foreign policy has played no part in Islamic extremism given that the west was instrumental in the creation of Al-Qaeda and in creating the conditions for ISIS to flourish.
    If you're right and it is only 'Islam' then why is every Muslim not a terrorist?


    What is also quite amusing is that when it comes to far-right extremism you are willing to make all sorts of excuses, rather than blame the ideology. You make excuses about how they were driven to it by lefties and liberals and how they were mentally ill etc. You hold phenomenal double standards.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Just answer this: do you or don't you think it is worse to kill someone for extramarital sex or leaving Islam, or to kill in response to them killing someone else?
    Right to life should be a fundamental, inalienable human right. And everyone always has their human rights, irrelevant of what they have done.
    You can't start picking and choosing which individuals are worthy of their human rights.

    So I'm guessing you have no problem with nutjob white supremacist extremists who think Muslims should be sent to death camps then? After all, they only "believe" it. No need to criticise their beliefs, right?
    So long as they don't act on those beliefs they have done nothing wrong. Of course I will criticize such beliefs but they should not be punished for having them. You seem to be in favour of a thought police.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)



    That's a massive exaggeration. Also, terrorist attacks are kinda big news, and this is a News and Current Affairs forum... so I like to discuss big news stories like that.


    Do you have any evidence you can find of me "refusing to comdemn" non-Muslim terrorists? Can you also think of one recent terror attack that has not been perpetrated by a Muslim or someone with a Muslim background?
    Recent terror attacks not perpetrated by a Muslim?
    (1) The Jo Cox murder
    (2) The shooting up of an abortion clinic in Colorado by a fundamentalist Christian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colora...thood_shooting

    (3) Dylan Roof shooting 8 people dead in a black Church to start a race war.

    Do you accept all of those were terrorist attacks or as usual are you going to play the mental health card when it comes to attacks by non-muslims?

    You almost seem happy when a terrorist attack from a Muslim occurs because it gives you a chance to push your agenda., shown by the difference in how you react to far-right extremism.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Right to life should be a fundamental, inalienable human right. And everyone always has their human rights, irrelevant of what they have done.
    You can't start picking and choosing which individuals are worthy of their human rights.
    I'd agree that we should extend human rights to everyone, but if someone gave you the choice to kill Anders Breivik or Malala Yousafzai, or to just choose randomly, are you honestly saying you'd go random? Obviously very hypothetical, and as big a disparity between "good" and "evil" as I could muster, but I think your picture is a little black and white.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    I'd agree that we should extend human rights to everyone, but if someone gave you the choice to kill Anders Breivik or Malala Yousafzai, or to just choose randomly, are you honestly saying you'd go random? Obviously very hypothetical, and as big a disparity between "good" and "evil" as I could muster, but I think your picture is a little black and white.
    The problem with hypotheticasl like that is as you say, they back you into a corner from which there is no escape by creating an impossible scenario to lead you to say what the person asking wants.

    We see people do it to justify torture. They go 'if you could be 100% sure that there's a bomb about to explode which will kill thousands, and you are 100% sure that the suspect knows where it is, would you not torture him to save lives?'

    But the reality is a situation like that where you were 100% sure a bomb was going off, 100% sure that the suspect knew where it was and 100% sure that by torturing them they would reveal the information to save lives... is impossible.

    I don't want to get drawn into unhelpful hypotheticals.

    I thoroughly believe every single individual should have the inalienable right to life, whatever they have done and whatever atrocities they have committed. It is a very, very slippery slope once we start saying who does and doesn't deserve that right. The point of human rights is that they are inalienable, you don't earn them or lose them, you have them by virtue of being human.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The problem with hypotheticasl like that is as you say, they back you into a corner from which there is no escape by creating an impossible scenario to lead you to say what the person asking wants.

    We see people do it to justify torture. They go 'if you could be 100% sure that there's a bomb about to explode which will kill thousands, and you are 100% sure that the suspect knows where it is, would you not torture him to save lives?'

    But the reality is a situation like that where you were 100% sure a bomb was going off, 100% sure that the suspect knew where it was and 100% sure that by torturing them they would reveal the information to save lives... is impossible.

    I don't want to get drawn into unhelpful hypotheticals.

    I thoroughly believe every single individual should have the inalienable right to life, whatever they have done and whatever atrocities they have committed. It is a very, very slippery slope once we start saying who does and doesn't deserve that right. The point of human rights is that they are inalienable, you don't earn them or lose them, you have them by virtue of being human.
    Well I think we're losing the original point KingBradly was on about; I suppose it is not what you believe, but how you relate to/judge people with other beliefs. What makes you more uncomfortable: people who believe the Breiviks of the world should be killed for their crimes, or people who believe apostates should be killed for their crimes? Would you rather only the worst crimes were capital crimes, or things like adultery and apostasy were also capital crimes? What I'm getting at is that surely a widespread belief that trivial crimes (many of which are not even considered crimes, let alone significant ones, in Western countries) should result in death for the perpetrator is more concerning than a widespread belief that murderers should be subject to "an eye for an eye" style justice.

    I suppose there is the argument that the former is too absurd to consider, while the latter is a very real possibility, but the thing is that the more people we have in the country who hold beliefs like the former, the more normalised they can become.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    In other words you have no idea. You keep claiming we need to 'get tough' but you are not able to give me a single credible example to back up and further any of your points. You are dealing entirely in rhetoric and soundbites, rather than suggesting anything of detail.

    What really struck me was how little you knew about the Abu Qatada case yet were using it to cite your case. You lied about him being convicted, when he wasn't and you lied about Jordan threatening to torture him when that wasn't even the issue at hand.
    Then you seem to think it's abhorrent that evidence obtained by torture cannot be used in court...
    You asked me for ideas of what getting tough looks like.. i gave you 10 things which i said (Could be argued individually and weighed up) but the general idea was there. You dismissed every one of them for different reasons from .. you cant do that it will make peaceful muslims commit violent jihad to you dont even know Abu Qatadas life history therefore everything you say is wrong. Of the 10 ideas i put forward, i cannot say i would support all of them myself... which is exactly why i didnt want to show you what getting tough looks like because there is a huge 10 page discussion on the merits of them alone.


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Well we do, the Jo Cox murderer for one. Andros Brievik for another, Dylan Roof another, Elliot Rodger another. Non-Muslim extremism is often less deadly (although also just as deadly) , but still exists in the form of the far right. Take a look at Britain First and tell me they aren't extreme. The far-right and Islamic extremists are peas in a pod.
    Elliot rodger has nothing to do with the others. Given the far right recruits from natives of the country i.e 90% of the population, thats a pretty small threat when you consider muslims are a tiny fraction of our populations and i could reel of pages and pages of brutal attacks totalling thousands of deaths commited by muslims. Again this shows how fundamentally far apart we both are (Yet you insist on getting into complex discussions when we cant even agree on the foundations)

    Yes Britain first are thick useless morons... When they amass thousands of followers who begin bringing mass scale casualties to our streets, let me know. Until then, they are incomparable to muslim extremists.



    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Hmm, around half a million civilians at least were killed in the Iraq war. Remind me by who? Or as usual does it not count if it's not done by Muslims?
    The casualties of the iraq war are not comparable to islamic terrorists butchering innocent civilians because they choose vice over strict islam. I am against iraq war and all oversee's intervention but to say a war to overthrow a dictator who had used chemical weapons on his own people is the same is islamic extremists beheading frail old priests is the worst hand you have shown me yet. You are Muslim yes?




    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You seem to have a very naive 'good vs evil' view of the world. There are a multitude of factors for almost any phenomena, Islamic extremism being one. Unlike you I don't think people are born evil, I want to assess ALL factors which lead to young people turning to extremism, both Islamic extremism and far-right extremism. And yes lots of factors are prevalent, ideology is certainly a big one, but so too are factors like poverty, like isolation, alienation and being distrusted through no fault of their own.

    And you're mad if you think Western foreign policy has played no part in Islamic extremism given that the west was instrumental in the creation of Al-Qaeda and in creating the conditions for ISIS to flourish.
    If you're right and it is only 'Islam' then why is every Muslim not a terrorist?
    Every single human on the planet experiences alienation, isolation, bullying, poverty, being distrusted. Only muslims form global jihad networks want go and bring down planes, behead old people of other religions, rape and sell sex slaves and so on. WHY?

    Western foreign policy has played a part in that it gives extremist muslims propaganda to recruit idiots who cannot see the difference between the west intervening to stop a hitler like guy butchering millions of innocent civilians and some ignornant faeces for brained muslim blowing up a tube of innocent civilians or shooting dead 50 homosexuals in a nightclub

    Its not a cause, its just a tool to give leverage to their propaganda


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    What is also quite amusing is that when it comes to far-right extremism you are willing to make all sorts of excuses, rather than blame the ideology. You make excuses about how they were driven to it by lefties and liberals and how they were mentally ill etc. You hold phenomenal double standards.
    Evidence???

    This should be good
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    You asked me for ideas of what getting tough looks like.. i gave you 10 things which i said (Could be argued individually and weighed up) but the general idea was there. You dismissed every one of them for different reasons from .. you cant do that it will make peaceful muslims commit violent jihad to you dont even know Abu Qatadas life history therefore everything you say is wrong. Of the 10 ideas i put forward, i cannot say i would support all of them myself... which is exactly why i didnt want to show you what getting tough looks like because there is a huge 10 page discussion on the merits of them alone.
    I didn't 'dismiss' every one. I dismissed a couple sure but for the majority I asked for you to provide more information, more detail. More analysis of how doing what you proposed would solve the problem.

    I was asking you to back up your points. Instead you just listed a load of rhetoric. You said sentences are too light, well which sentences? You said convicted terrorists are getting off too easy, which convicted terrorists?
    I'm not being unreasonable in asking you to provide evidence for your claims.

    Then you used the Abu Qatada case to support your claim, when you made two huge errors and clearly don't know about the case at all. I'm not asking you to know his life story, i'm expecting you not to make up lies.

    Yet you keep saying 'ah I don't have to back up my points because we don't agree'. We may not agree, but i'm genuinely interested in what you propose, i'm not looking to trip you up. I'm just asking for you to back up your claims with evidence.




    The casualties of the iraq war are not comparable to islamic terrorists butchering innocent civilians because they choose vice over strict islam. I am against iraq war and all oversee's intervention but to say a war to overthrow a dictator who had used chemical weapons on his own people is the same is islamic extremists beheading frail old priests is the worst hand you have shown me yet. You are Muslim yes?
    We killed for what we believed was the right thing, they killed for what they believe is the right thing. I don't believe in objective morality. The reality is we invaded a country, in clear violation of international law, killed half a million civilians and created the perfect vacuum for ISIS to fill.

    We created the most enormous instability in the Middle East and we are all suffering. I'd argue all that combined is at least equally as awful as killing a priest.

    If Iraq invaded another country because they didn't like it's leader, we'd call it terrorism/genocide.



    Every single human on the planet experiences alienation, isolation, bullying, poverty, being distrusted. Only muslims form global jihad networks want go and bring down planes, behead old people of other religions, rape and sell sex slaves and so on. WHY?
    You seem to be missing a very basic point here. I am not saying Islam has nothing to do with why young Muslims become extreme. Of course it does.
    What I am saying is that there are other factors there which turn them towards extremism.

    If it was only Islam, then every Muslim would be a terrorist no? It's Islam combined with something else. That something else is very often poverty, isolation, separation etc. It's EXACTLY the same reason why people join the far right.

    What's baffling here is that you complain about Islamic extremism yet you are unwilling to assess all the reasons and actually seek to find out WHY some young Muslims are turning towards extremism. It's more than just the fact they are Muslim, it's Islam AND something else. Otherwise every Muslim would be a terrorist.

    You have to look at every reason and that includes reasons which may make you feel uncomfortable.


    Western foreign policy has played a part in that it gives extremist muslims propaganda to recruit idiots who cannot see the difference between the west intervening to stop a hitler like guy butchering millions of innocent civilians and some ignornant faeces for brained muslim blowing up a tube of innocent civilians or shooting dead 50 homosexuals in a nightclub
    More Iraqi civilans died from our invasion than did under Sadam's regime. Is it really such a huge difference? Again, we come back to the point that the vacuum caused by the Iraq war has allowed ISIS to flourish.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    That is scary
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Bornblue;66753838][QUOTE=Betelgeuse-;66752226]You asked me for ideas of what getting tough looks like.. i gave you 10 things which i said (Could be argued individually and weighed up) but the general idea was there. You dismissed every one of them for different reasons from .. you cant do that it will make peaceful muslims commit violent jihad to you dont even know Abu Qatadas life history therefore everything you say is wrong. Of the 10 ideas i put forward, i cannot say i would support all of them myself... which is exactly why i didnt want to show you what getting tough looks like because there is a huge 10 page discussion on the merits of them alone.

    I didn't 'dismiss' every one. I dismissed a couple sure but for the majority I asked for you to provide more information, more detail. More analysis of how doing what you proposed would solve the problem.

    I was asking you to back up your points. Instead you just listed a load of rhetoric. You said sentences are too light, well which sentences? You said convicted terrorists are getting off too easy, which convicted terrorists?
    I'm not being unreasonable in asking you to provide evidence for your claims.

    Then you used the Abu Qatada case to support your claim, when you made two huge errors and clearly don't know about the case at all. I'm not asking you to know his life story, i'm expecting you not to make up lies.

    Yet you keep saying 'ah I don't have to back up my points because we don't agree'. We may not agree, but i'm genuinely interested in what you propose, i'm not looking to trip you up. I'm just asking for you to back up your claims with evidence.




    We killed for what we believed was the right thing, they killed for what they believe is the right thing. I don't believe in objective morality. The reality is we invaded a country, in clear violation of international law, killed half a million civilians and created the perfect vacuum for ISIS to fill.

    We created the most enormous instability in the Middle East and we are all suffering. I'd argue all that combined is at least equally as awful as killing a priest.

    If Iraq invaded another country because they didn't like it's leader, we'd call it terrorism/genocide.




    You seem to be missing a very basic point here. I am not saying Islam has nothing to do with why young Muslims become extreme. Of course it does.
    What I am saying is that there are other factors there which turn them towards extremism.

    If it was only Islam, then every Muslim would be a terrorist no? It's Islam combined with something else. That something else is very often poverty, isolation, separation etc. It's EXACTLY the same reason why people join the far right.

    What's baffling here is that you complain about Islamic extremism yet you are unwilling to assess all the reasons and actually seek to find out WHY some young Muslims are turning towards extremism. It's more than just the fact they are Muslim, it's Islam AND something else. Otherwise every Muslim would be a terrorist.

    You have to look at every reason and that includes reasons which may make you feel uncomfortable.




    More Iraqi civilans died from our invasion than did under Sadam's regime. Is it really such a huge difference? Again, we come back to the point that the vacuum caused by the Iraq war has allowed ISIS to flourish.
    Ok, in general the whole of the uk legal system is to lenient.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-lenient.html
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7131041.html

    Now onto extremism. Our jails as with many other EU countries are fertile breeding grounds for muslim extremists. People congregate together in prison. Uk prisons are choc full of muslims...


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31794599

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ons-leaked-re/

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/629...watchdog-chief

    How confident are we of convicted extremists released on britains streets have magically reformed their views after a stint inside?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...dias-eyes.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...port-ISIS.html

    Solution?? Life sentences / much much longer sentences? Release of convicts have to undergo long and stringent curfews / banning orders from places/ mosques / surveilance. Automatic jail recall if breached

    B-B-BUT mah human rights... That will make them do terrorism more...


    We killed (By we i mean Blair and Bush.. millions opposed the iraq war) thought desposing Sadam would be for the greater good of humanity. Regardless of how ill judged they were, it simply does not compare to what islamic terrorist are doing and try to do en masse to civilians in the west. I am sorry i am huge detractor of our foreign interventions and Tony Blair but likening their actions to ISIS is unreal. Yes they caused more harm than good but through ignorance and mis judgement, not malice

    You seem to have a problem differentiating between Malice/intent

    Would you say a man who beheads an innocent civilian because its sexually gratifying and rewarding to him is less evil than a woman who crashed her car killing 4 people?

    "If Iraq invaded another country we would call it terrorism/genocide?"

    1. Who is we?

    Yes other factors play a role in Islamic extremism... but people like yourself seem to overplay them so much, like they are the cause or reason behind the actions. I have repeatedly asked you why other humans who are non muslims dont frequently become overwhelmed by sudden massacre syndrome (On every continent on the earth no less)

    No, people have different interprations of Islamic text. EXAMPLE

    2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah [Persecution] and [until] worship is for God. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

    Muslim 1: I am not fighting anyone for anything, infact i havent even read this before and i am not really a practicing muslim

    Muslim 2: Persecution + Aggression = People knocking on my door, butchering my family and leaving me to die

    Muslim 3: Persecution + aggression = A couple of hate crimes murdering muslims

    Muslim 4: Persecution + aggression = People drawing Mohammad and mocking religion

    Muslim 5: Persecution/aggression = People saying Islam is not peaceful and is wrong, Jesus christ is the one true prophet

    Muslim 6: Persecution/aggression They wont let us go and fight for Isis

    Muslim 7: Persecution/aggresison These people drink and smoke and have sex freely

    See the problem?

    "If it was only Islam, then every Muslim would be a terrorist no? It's Islam combined with something else. That something else is very often poverty, isolation, separation etc. It's EXACTLY the same reason why people join the far right."

    There is so much evidence to show this is not true. From wealthy Saudis funding extremism and Bin Laden to numerous examples of wealthy highly educated Brits running off to join ISIS. Mohammed emwazi computer science graduate from a well to do west London home to the NHS doctor and British banker below.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ence-rich.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ntry-form.html

    http://uk.businessinsider.com/isis-e...-emwazi-2015-2

    These are not outliers either, so many are wealthy / successful / influential people... not poor, isolated marginalised loners you seem to believe
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 4, 2016
  • 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
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources
  • 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

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