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

Why do people think Muslim's don't do enough against ISIS? Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    More assumptions, just like yesterday. You're assuming that he was killed because of that.
    No. I'm giving credence to the police statement, but I caveated what I said with the word "allegedly":

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-35898543

    We'll see what transpires at the trial and resume the discussion then, shall we?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    No. I'm giving credence to the police statement, but I caveated what I said with the word "allegedly":

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-35898543

    We'll see what transpires at the trial and resume the discussion then, shall we?
    This roughly translates to "yes I have no idea why he was murdered apart from a vague police statement", which isn't even mentioned in this news article.

    Good job.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    police statement", which isn't even mentioned in this news article.

    Good job.
    Oh, it was. The article says:

    A 32-year-old man has been arrested after a Glasgow shopkeeper was killed in what Police Scotland are treating as a "religiously prejudiced" attack. [Quoting the police directly.]

    Asad Shah, 40, was found seriously injured in Minard Road, Shawlands, at about 21:05 GMT on Thursday. He died in hospital.

    The incident happened hours after he apparently posted social media messages wishing his customers a happy Easter.

    Police said both Mr Shah and the arrested man were Muslims. [Quoting the police indirectly, and stating the arrested man is a Moslem.]


    Did you actually read it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Oh, it was. The article says:

    A 32-year-old man has been arrested after a Glasgow shopkeeper was killed in what Police Scotland are treating as a "religiously prejudiced" attack. [Quoting the police directly.]

    Asad Shah, 40, was found seriously injured in Minard Road, Shawlands, at about 21:05 GMT on Thursday. He died in hospital.

    The incident happened hours after he apparently posted social media messages wishing his customers a happy Easter.

    Police said both Mr Shah and the arrested man were Muslims. [Quoting the police indirectly, and stating the arrested man is a Moslem.]


    Did you actually read it?
    I see no statement, I just see a description that says that police are treating it as religiously prejudiced. Police treat things as suspicious, non-suspicious, racially or religiously prejudiced, terrorist or other things long before they actually establish what it was.

    So you're correct in realising that you have no idea why the attack was caused, apart from an assumption - for which the basis is not known to you apart from the fact that they are both Muslims.

    And please stop typing Moslems, it's not offensive but it's quite obvious that you're trying to get someone to call you out as racist or something so you can attack their argument with a hook-and-bait mechanism. Evidence of this is that thread you made where you were crying about being called out on using it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    And please stop typing Moslems, it's not offensive
    Then why should he stop using the perfectly acceptable word Frank?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Did you actually read it?
    No he didn't read it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    I see no statement, I just see a description that says that police are treating it as religiously prejudiced.
    Then look again. The article actually quotes the relevant words used by the police. There are only two, but the quote is clearly signalled. let's await the trial, eh?

    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    And please stop typing Moslems, it's not offensive but it's quite obvious that you're trying to get someone to call you out as racist or something so you can attack their argument with a hook-and-bait mechanism. Evidence of this is that thread you made where you were crying about being called out on using it.
    I have never started a thread on the subject. The apparent new thread you are probably referring to was created when a moderator moved a set of off-topic posts (starting with my reply to someone bellyaching like you) out of one thread and into a new thread. I didn't create it.

    And, no, I won't be changing my spelling of the word. You will just have to accept that I always use that spelling, as I always have, and that it is perfectly legitimate in English.

    As I said in the thread you mention, you'll probably be moaning that I use "gaol", "foetus" and "encyclopaedia" next.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Then why should he stop using the perfectly acceptable word Frank?
    Indeed!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2662465

    It seems that you're also a pathological liar, prove me wrong and convince me that this thread has nothing to do with saying "Moselsms". I beg you.
    Do you never read what is said to you? I was referring to that thread in my last post.

    I clearly explained in my last post that I never created that thread, as well as how and why it came about. Here is my explanation again:

    I have never started a thread on the subject. The apparent new thread you are probably referring to was created when a moderator moved a set of off-topic posts (starting with my reply to someone bellyaching like you) out of one thread and into a new thread. I didn't create it.

    It certainly appears that I created it to the uninitiated but I'd have thought that my explanation coupled with the quote of another user in its OP would serve to demonstrate that what occurred.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Do you never read what is said to you? I was referring to that thread in my last post.

    I clearly explained in my last post that I never created that thread, as well as how and why it came about. Here is my explanation again:

    I have never started a thread on the subject. The apparent new thread you are probably referring to was created when a moderator moved a set of off-topic posts (starting with my reply to someone bellyaching like you) out of one thread and into a new thread. I didn't create it.

    It certainly appears that I created it to the uninitiated but I'd have thought that my explanation coupled with the quote of another user in its OP would serve to demonstrate that what occurred.
    You're the only person I've seen posting "Moslems" on this website, so whether or not you created the thread, your actions caused it to be posted, and you were sitting quietly in the forum waiting for something like it to be posted so that you could subsequently attack them.

    It doesn't make your spamming of "Moselms" any less of a means to attack people who realise that Islam has move on.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    You're the only person I've seen posting "Moslems" on this website, so whether or not you created the thread, your actions caused it to be posted, and you were sitting quietly in the forum waiting for something like it to be posted so that you could subsequently attack them.

    It doesn't make your spamming of "Moselms" any less of a means to attack people who realise that Islam has move on.
    Don't be a clown. This digression onto the validity of my spelling is a completely nonsensical and specious complaint that crops up pretty well every fortnight or so (and, now, twice today). I certainly don't want to be discussing it.

    Your accusation that my spelling is, somehow, any attempt to attack people is ridiculous.

    You contention that Islam has moved on, unsupported by the scriptures and views of Moslems is utterly wrong, of course. Many or even most Moslems may have moved on (though not far enough as they will not, for example, criticise the nasty parts of the Koran) but they are not the ideology itself which, given what the Koran says, is utterly impossible to change.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Don't be a clown. This digression onto the validity of my spelling is a completely nonsensical and specious complaint that crops up pretty well every fortnight or so (and, now, twice today). I certainly don't want to be discussing it.

    Your accusation that my spelling is, somehow, any attempt to attack people is ridiculous.

    You contention that Islam has moved on, unsupported by the scriptures and views of Moslems is utterly wrong, of course. Many or even most Moslems may have moved on (though not far enough as they will not, for example, criticise the nasty parts of the Koran) but they are not the ideology itself which, given what the Koran says, is utterly impossible to change.
    Islam has moved on, its just a shame the few who have qualities reminiscent of early Islam are allowing people like you to be brainwashed into fearing Islam.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Well, let's see.

    "Calling Islamic extremism a disease, Saudi Arabia has announced the formation of a coalition of 34 largely Muslim nations to fight terrorism."
    And what this formidable Muslim coalition has been done until now? Bombed civilians in Yemen. That's all.

    "A top Islamic State operative of the group suspected of bombing the Russian jet over Egypt has been killed by police in Cairo."
    Great. One killed.

    "Turkey carries out first air strikes as part of anti-Isis US coalition"
    And possibly the last. Turkey prefers to bomb Kurds.

    "Isis: Ten Arab Nations Join US-Led Coalition against Islamic State"
    It ended by several Jordanian airstrikes near Jordanian border.

    That's all what 1.5 billion Muslims was able to do?
    That's a fine display of ignorance you're showing there. How about you realise that the majority of Muslim nations are dying in debts and in poverty? Also, Egypt didn't just kill 1, Egypt has been fighting the Islamic State and all the similar groups since the 1970s.
    Here's another one:
    http://egyptianstreets.com/2015/02/1...s-in-24-years/

    Don't lump all Islamic nations together. Don't be a simplistic simpleton. I don't know what Indonesia has done or what Malaysia has done, but I very well know the Middle East is fighting it's arse off trying to fend ISIS.

    Btw, do you lack the necessary wits to realise that if the Iraqi armi and the Syrian army haven't been fighting and warring it's ****ing arse off, ISIS would have had control of the whole region now?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oilfreak1)
    England is a christian majority secular country. All religions should be taught or religion shouldn't be taught in schools at all.
    I Disagree with that Sentiment- apart from foreigners and do-gooders english are proud to be english and islamic values belong nowhere in england
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Donald J Trump)
    I Disagree with that Sentiment- apart from foreigners and do-gooders english are proud to be english and islamic values belong nowhere in england
    And you speak for all of us? Lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    And you speak for all of us? Lol
    I speak for most people I know- if they had a account on here they would vouch for me
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can't wait for the civil war to brew and The Islamic state in Europe will be eradicated the way the ottoman empire was.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The problem goes past ISIS and goes to Islam itself. Islam hasn't fully modernised yet to meet the 21st century. Other religions were more violent or equally violent but in Islam its still seen as acceptable to whip women for doing things considered normal in the Western world and have some sort of weird ownership over women like the husband who put up a blanket over a divider in a restaurant to stop other men from seeing his wife. Then there are those people who whip their backs with knives for their religion which is just strange and dangerous. Then there are people who are convinced their God is telling them to blow up all other non-Muslims.

    These extreme people may be in the minority. However majorities do not matter as it only takes the minority to destroy something (9/11 took 17 Muslims to bring the USA to its knees). Islam has a problem whereby people in Islamic communities in the Western world and outside of the Western world are too literal when interpreting readings and Muslims across the world are refusing to stand up to any extremism brewing in their communities. No wonder there are all these problems when people are being allowed to grow up seeing things the way they do and parents not bothering to teach their children to be normal.

    This is a perfect example of Islam not fully modernising yet. Name me another religion where people do this to themselves on a large scale?
    Offline

    6

    Love twitter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Then look again. The article actually quotes the relevant words used by the police. There are only two, but the quote is clearly signalled. let's await the trial, eh?



    I have never started a thread on the subject. The apparent new thread you are probably referring to was created when a moderator moved a set of off-topic posts (starting with my reply to someone bellyaching like you) out of one thread and into a new thread. I didn't create it.

    And, no, I won't be changing my spelling of the word. You will just have to accept that I always use that spelling, as I always have, and that it is perfectly legitimate in English.

    As I said in the thread you mention, you'll probably be moaning that I use "gaol", "foetus" and "encyclopaedia" next.
    in.......sigh........clo......pe e..........dee........a.

    What is this gibberish, stop making up words or I'm calling the police.

    encyclopedia, fetus are in fact errors/misspelt, their construction is taken from misunderstandings/readings of Latin.

    Recognized spellings of the words but still, wrong is wrong.

    "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the spelling with the ae or æ is "pseudo-Greek" and "an erroneous form (said to be a false reading) occurring in MSS."

    "FETUS (and FETAL) are of Latin origin, coming from the verb 'fere' (to conceive). The incorrect spelling that includes the 'o' apparently comes from the old misconception that it came from the verb 'foetare'(give birth)."

    Not sure what a 'gaol' is, but the almighty and all-knowing spell checker on my laptop doesn't recognize it, therefor it does not exist.

    Grammar Man awaaaayyy! 'whoosh'.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    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

    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.