What is the problem with the Russian bombings?

by **seanmichaels** Fri 09 Oct 2015, 11:00 am

Finding this story and the hysteria from the West / NATO a bit confusing.

by Mad for Chelsea Fri 09 Oct 2015, 11:01 am

they aren't bombing enough hospitals? Run

by Lowlandbrit Fri 09 Oct 2015, 11:18 am

seanmichaels wrote:Finding this story and the hysteria from the West / NATO a bit confusing.

The West / NATO are fighting IS, with help from some opponents of Assad.
Russia is fighting the opponents of Assad, including IS.
The West / NATO are upset about Russia attacking their allies.

by **seanmichaels** Fri 09 Oct 2015, 11:22 am

Lowlandbrit wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:Finding this story and the hysteria from the West / NATO a bit confusing.
The West / NATO are fighting IS with help from some opponents of Assad.
Russia is fighting the opponents of Assad, including IS.
The West / NATO are upset about Russia attacking their allies.

Some of the West's allies are allied to Al Qaeda though. i know it is a mess but I think all these rebels including IS should put down their weapons or face the consequences.

by greengoblin Fri 09 Oct 2015, 11:23 am

Russia are doing the right thing. The idiots that are the leaders of the liberal west need to realise that the middle east needs dictators to have any kind of stability. The removal of Gadaffi and Sadam Hussein has been a tragic but completely foreseeable disaster.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 09 Oct 2015, 1:31 pm

greengoblin wrote:Russia are doing the right thing. The idiots that are the leaders of the liberal west need to realise that the middle east needs dictators to have any kind of stability. The removal of Gadaffi and Sadam Hussein has been a tragic but completely foreseeable disaster.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Fri 09 Oct 2015, 2:30 pm

seanmichaels wrote:
Lowlandbrit wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:Finding this story and the hysteria from the West / NATO a bit confusing.
The West / NATO are fighting IS with help from some opponents of Assad.
Russia is fighting the opponents of Assad, including IS.
The West / NATO are upset about Russia attacking their allies.

Some of the West's allies are allied to Al Qaeda though. i know it is a mess but I think all these rebels including IS should put down their weapons or face the consequences.

I would love to see Corbyn as PM dealing with these kinds of "necessary evils" of tactical procedures in the military.

by Duty281 Fri 09 Oct 2015, 2:36 pm

No problem at all. Go Uncle Vladimir.

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 09 Oct 2015, 4:37 pm

They aren't bombing in the right places....

Probably why people like me aren't happy with it...

by greengoblin Fri 09 Oct 2015, 4:39 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
greengoblin wrote:Russia are doing the right thing. The idiots that are the leaders of the liberal west need to realise that the middle east needs dictators to have any kind of stability. The removal of Gadaffi and Sadam Hussein has been a tragic but completely foreseeable disaster.

Navy blue shorts, how about you try to respond to my post with an argument of your own. I know it might be difficult for you, but everyone has to start somewhere. Do you think fundamentalist Islam is compatible with democracy?

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 09 Oct 2015, 4:42 pm

He can't be bothered explaining that Countries with no democracy are a bad idea ...probably.

Probably realises you are a bit silly in disposition.

by greengoblin Fri 09 Oct 2015, 4:45 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He can't be bothered explaining that Countries with no democracy are a bad idea ...probably.

Probably realises you are a bit silly in disposition.

Why is it necessarily bad if it mean peace? Only silly and dangerous idealists think otherwise.

by Duty281 Fri 09 Oct 2015, 8:43 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:They aren't bombing in the right places....

Probably why people like me aren't happy with it...

Says who? America? A real bastion of intellectual integrity.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Fri 09 Oct 2015, 8:46 pm

I trust America more than Russia

by greengoblin Fri 09 Oct 2015, 9:18 pm

I challenge anyone to find me a moderate opposition group in Syria. They are all fanatics warbling Alloa Akbar, and have zero interest in establishing a liberal democracy. Remember that 'moderate' government the west installed in Afghanistan? Or the lovely Muslim brotherhood that found it's way to the top after Mubarak?
Maybe that's why they decided to bomb Libya and replace it with a free for all mess.

Yep, the western leaders have shown great intelligence in 'deciding' how the middle east should be run.

Dictators are the only way to keep the islamists at bay, and we have removed them, and now other people have paid the price. I am utterly appalled by it.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Sat 10 Oct 2015, 12:27 am

And so you'd probably like a dictator here so you don't have to cross path with any cheeky littl Islamists?

by greengoblin Sat 10 Oct 2015, 12:45 am

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:And so you'd probably like a dictator here so you don't have to cross path with any cheeky littl Islamists?

I specifically said the Middle East where this is necessary, although we've imported so many of them we will probably end up the same way. Is that actually any real debate on here, or is it just a bunch of lefty's back slapping each other?

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Sat 10 Oct 2015, 12:52 am

No. It's mainly a bunch of lefties picking out the racists. We just don't quite like them.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Sat 10 Oct 2015, 12:53 am

And there's the rampant sexual tension between Truss and Toppy but I gather that continues over in boxing too

by Duty281 Sat 10 Oct 2015, 12:53 am

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I trust America more than Russia

Either way, America, Britain, Russia, and Assad's regime all have a common enemy: Islamic tyranny. And it is the greatest threat to our way of life since Nazi Germany.

So, well done Uncle Vladimir for showing some decisiveness, as opposed to the dithering and half-hearted efforts that emanate from our own government.

https://www.rt.com/news/318122-russian-military-syria-isis/ [Yes the figures are probably exaggerated, I know!]

by TRUSSMAN66 Sat 10 Oct 2015, 1:19 am

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:And there's the rampant sexual tension between Truss and Toppy but I gather that continues over in boxing too

Don't put me on a par with someone who spends all his time following me around the board abusing me..

Have no time for the guy.

by kingraf Sat 10 Oct 2015, 9:51 am

I'm a fan of Vladimir. He isn't half a bad person, but seems a necessary evil for a place like the middle East.
Go mother Russia!

by greengoblin Sat 10 Oct 2015, 11:38 am

Dolphin Ziggler wrote: cheeky littl Islamists?

Yeah, you know, those ones committing mass beheadings, throwing gays of roofs, 9/11, 7/7.....

Right cheeky they are...

You need to face reality Dolphin.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Sat 10 Oct 2015, 11:45 am

It's fine, Goblin, I just wanted to confirm you were someone I didn't want to talk to. And that has been done.

by Duty281 Sat 10 Oct 2015, 11:50 am

greengoblin wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote: cheeky littl Islamists?

Yeah, you know, those ones committing mass beheadings, throwing gays of roofs, 9/11, 7/7.....

Right cheeky they are...

You need to face reality Dolphin.

Watch out, lad, you'll be called "racist" for that! [Even though Muslims can be white/brown/black and are certainly not a race!]

by ONETWOFOREVER Sat 10 Oct 2015, 11:54 am

Assad allies with Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah against ISIS and so called moderates

US allies with so called moderate free syrian army and Al Nusra Front who are Al Qaida and the Kurds who are fighting ISIS and Assad Syrian army

Turkey allies with US yet fighting against the US backed Kurds??? and (when they feel like it) ISIS

Iran allies with Assad and Poopie Iraqi army who are also supported by US.

Edomites fighting each other.

What did Syria do to deserve this hell.

I don't support any side they will ALL burn in HELL.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Sat 10 Oct 2015, 12:25 pm

Duty281 wrote:
greengoblin wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote: cheeky littl Islamists?

Yeah, you know, those ones committing mass beheadings, throwing gays of roofs, 9/11, 7/7.....

Right cheeky they are...

You need to face reality Dolphin.

Watch out, lad, you'll be called "racist" for that! [Even though Muslims can be white/brown/black and are certainly not a race!]

No, no, I'd go bigot, probably with a basis in racism.

by Duty281 Sat 10 Oct 2015, 12:36 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
greengoblin wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote: cheeky littl Islamists?

Yeah, you know, those ones committing mass beheadings, throwing gays of roofs, 9/11, 7/7.....

Right cheeky they are...

You need to face reality Dolphin.

Watch out, lad, you'll be called "racist" for that! [Even though Muslims can be white/brown/black and are certainly not a race!]

No, no, I'd go bigot, probably with a basis in racism.

Yes, I'd quite agree. Those Islamists can be quite the bigots.

by greengoblin Sat 10 Oct 2015, 12:56 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:It's fine, Goblin, I just wanted to confirm you were someone I didn't want to talk to. And that has been done.

I agree, best not expose yourself to other points of view. Thought crime is contagious you know.

by incontinentia Sat 10 Oct 2015, 12:57 pm

greengoblin wrote:I challenge anyone to find me a moderate opposition group in Syria. They are all fanatics warbling Alloa Akbar, and have zero interest in establishing a liberal democracy. Remember that 'moderate' government the west installed in Afghanistan? Or the lovely Muslim brotherhood that found it's way to the top after Mubarak?
Maybe that's why they decided to bomb Libya and replace it with a free for all mess.

Yep, the western leaders have shown great intelligence in 'deciding' how the middle east should be run.

Dictators are the only way to keep the islamists at bay, and we have removed them, and now other people have paid the price. I am utterly appalled by it.

I think you make some good points goblin, and I broadly agree with you. I have studied political culture, and agree that you cannot simply install democracy in most Middle Eastern countries who for decades (or longer) have had Autocratic political structures.

To quote a Professor of Politics in UCD on the matter: "The political culture of a particular society need not, of course, be supportive of democratic institutions; attempts to impose liberal democratic constitutions- whether motivated by idealism or self-interest- in societies that do not share the kind of thinking that underlies them may well end in failure. This was what happened in many of the new states that appeared in central and eastern Europe after the First World War, in areas outside Europe(for instance, the British Commonwealth) after the Second World War, in certain post-communist societies after 1989, and in such countries as Afghanistan and Iraq in the early years of the twenty-first century. Even authoritarian government presupposes a supportive political culture unless it is to rely entirely on rule by force."

I think it would be fair to say that Saddam Hussein and Gadaffi were accepted by their people. Yes they were horrible people and committed terrible acts, but they kept the likes of IS in check.

by ONETWOFOREVER Sat 10 Oct 2015, 12:58 pm

This whole mess started with the US/NATO backed support of so called moderates who they portrayed as helpless victims of the Assad regime.

They funded, armed and trained these fighters to oppose the Syrian army and Saudi Arabia and states like Qatar also pitched in with funding to these so called moderates. We in the west have been made to think that Assad is the new Sadam but these fighters they trained were not the people protesting in the streets as part of the so called arab spring.

They came to onto the scene after when they were able to enter the country and take up arms and training. The so called moderates started to form into groups 1 such being the Al Nusra Front who were a front for Al Qiada. US serviceman have been documented and photographed protesting at the US policy in Syria with placards saying ''We did not join the US army to support Al Quida'' this is a fact and you can look it up on google yet our news broadcasters have never revealed this fact hmmmm.

The so called moderates have now split with Al Nusra, the free syrian army, and ISIS as well as other military groups. Just yesterday the US has shut down this training programme which cost them over $500 million. They admit that the scheme has not worked because they realised that the fighters they trained were either going to get killed by the rival factions in the region OR join them...........and both have happened.

So what is the real reason behind all of this?

I would tell you but you guys will only listen to what SKY,BBC,ITV, etc reveal to you. And your whole world view is based on the lies/propaganda.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Sat 10 Oct 2015, 1:01 pm

Everyone can, Duty, but those who feel the need to constantly refer any negativity they can to Muslims, in whatever form we are talking here, are people I struggle with. I struggle to believe the Gobbler retains just an issue with Islamists and extremists.

I find this need some people have to highlight the ills of some Muslims to be miserable. And that it becomes some weird point-scoring game where they are happy if a Muslim commits any atrocity so they can use it to paint any Muslim as a foe.

I don't like any bigot.

by Duty281 Sat 10 Oct 2015, 1:04 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Everyone can, Duty, but those who feel the need to constantly refer any negativity they can to Muslims, in whatever form we are talking here, are people I struggle with. I struggle to believe the Gobbler retains just an issue with Islamists and extremists.

I find this need some people have to highlight the ills of some Muslims to be miserable. And that it becomes some weird point-scoring game where they are happy if a Muslim commits any atrocity so they can use it to paint any Muslim as a foe.

I don't like any bigot.

Why? He hasn't said anything negative about moderate Muslims, to the best of my knowledge.

So how have you arrived at such a conclusion?

by ONETWOFOREVER Sat 10 Oct 2015, 1:05 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Everyone can, Duty, but those who feel the need to constantly refer any negativity they can to Muslims, in whatever form we are talking here, are people I struggle with. I struggle to believe the Gobbler retains just an issue with Islamists and extremists.

I find this need some people have to highlight the ills of some Muslims to be miserable. And that it becomes some weird point-scoring game where they are happy if a Muslim commits any atrocity so they can use it to paint any Muslim as a foe.

I don't like any bigot.

Very well said and I agree but its wasted on Duty he is what he is.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Sat 10 Oct 2015, 1:06 pm

greengoblin wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:It's fine, Goblin, I just wanted to confirm you were someone I didn't want to talk to. And that has been done.

I agree, best not expose yourself to other points of view. Thought crime is contagious you know.

I've been exposed to your comments like someone gets exposed to Ebola. I wish it hadn't happened and don't feel better for it. Sickened too.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Sat 10 Oct 2015, 1:09 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Everyone can, Duty, but those who feel the need to constantly refer any negativity they can to Muslims, in whatever form we are talking here, are people I struggle with. I struggle to believe the Gobbler retains just an issue with Islamists and extremists.

I find this need some people have to highlight the ills of some Muslims to be miserable. And that it becomes some weird point-scoring game where they are happy if a Muslim commits any atrocity so they can use it to paint any Muslim as a foe.

I don't like any bigot.

Why? He hasn't said anything negative about moderate Muslims, to the best of my knowledge.

So how have you arrived at such a conclusion?

Inference from other posts on other topics which I cannot bother to look for, combined with an apparent fascination with just the extremists that align themselves with Islam.

There's a very "Britain First" feel. Much reading between the lines, I'm sure, but I'm not the only one to come to this conclusion, and there isn't much shock that you are defending him.

by greengoblin Sat 10 Oct 2015, 1:11 pm

Thanks Duty for pointing out I have only ever referred to islamists. I would welcome moderate muslims to become more vocal in their opposition to the islamists.

I do wonder if it was the likes of Dolphin that allowed the Nazis to get in the position they did.

Oh well, don't paint them all with the same brush, not all anti Semitic, blah blah blah....

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Sat 10 Oct 2015, 1:16 pm

Interesting. Because you have claimed you would welcome more moderate muslims, yet at the same time questioned my "lax" approach to how Muslims are viewed as similar to someone being lax with which Nazis were anti-semitic. So, I should instead tar them all with the same brush so we don't get a Nazi situation.

Godwin's Law always bring a real edge to proceedings. And it can earn people a day off.

by Duty281 Sat 10 Oct 2015, 1:16 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Everyone can, Duty, but those who feel the need to constantly refer any negativity they can to Muslims, in whatever form we are talking here, are people I struggle with. I struggle to believe the Gobbler retains just an issue with Islamists and extremists.

I find this need some people have to highlight the ills of some Muslims to be miserable. And that it becomes some weird point-scoring game where they are happy if a Muslim commits any atrocity so they can use it to paint any Muslim as a foe.

I don't like any bigot.

Why? He hasn't said anything negative about moderate Muslims, to the best of my knowledge.

So how have you arrived at such a conclusion?

Inference from other posts on other topics which I cannot bother to look for, combined with an apparent fascination with just the extremists that align themselves with Islam.

There's a very "Britain First" feel. Much reading between the lines, I'm sure, but I'm not the only one to come to this conclusion, and there isn't much shock that you are defending him.

Well this is a thread, predominantly, about ISIS, so it's no surprise to see him commenting on the extremist faction of Islam.

And, equally, it's no shock to see myself defending him. As a believer in freedom of speech (something that Islam doesn't cater for) it's rather hurtful to see him post a perfectly valid viewpoint, and then for you to come in with your vast intolerance and sweeping inferences on what he is saying.

by ONETWOFOREVER Sat 10 Oct 2015, 1:19 pm

greengoblin wrote:Thanks Duty for pointing out I have only ever referred to islamists. I would welcome moderate muslims to become more vocal in their opposition to the islamists.

I do wonder if it was the likes of Dolphin that allowed the Nazis to get in the position they did.

Oh well, don't paint them all with the same brush, not all anti Semitic, blah blah blah....

What world do you live in???

You blame moderate muslims for not doing enough?

what about the millions of peaceful muslims who have died and seen their lives destroyed by these wars that the west have either instigated or supported with their twisted policy?

Maybe these muslims who are the consistent victims of this shady war on terror should ask YOU to become more vocal in the opposition to western regime change policy.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Sat 10 Oct 2015, 1:24 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Everyone can, Duty, but those who feel the need to constantly refer any negativity they can to Muslims, in whatever form we are talking here, are people I struggle with. I struggle to believe the Gobbler retains just an issue with Islamists and extremists.

I find this need some people have to highlight the ills of some Muslims to be miserable. And that it becomes some weird point-scoring game where they are happy if a Muslim commits any atrocity so they can use it to paint any Muslim as a foe.

I don't like any bigot.

Why? He hasn't said anything negative about moderate Muslims, to the best of my knowledge.

So how have you arrived at such a conclusion?

Inference from other posts on other topics which I cannot bother to look for, combined with an apparent fascination with just the extremists that align themselves with Islam.

There's a very "Britain First" feel. Much reading between the lines, I'm sure, but I'm not the only one to come to this conclusion, and there isn't much shock that you are defending him.

Well this is a thread, predominantly, about ISIS, so it's no surprise to see him commenting on the extremist faction of Islam.

And, equally, it's no shock to see myself defending him. As a believer in freedom of speech (something that Islam doesn't cater for) it's rather hurtful to see him post a perfectly valid viewpoint, and then for you to come in with your vast intolerance and sweeping inferences on what he is saying.

I'm not getting into this with you, Duty, as you have a certain mindset in arguments like this and have zero wiggle-room on opinion. The other posts on other topics thing would have been pretty clear, and the fact that talking about ISIS doesn't mean inferences can be made, as ever with some, to Muslims as a whole.

But hey, GG will be happy. He was annoyed that people like me were too tolerant of the Lee Rigby murder, so being less tolerant of his views can only be a step in the right direction

by **Hero** Sat 10 Oct 2015, 1:25 pm

Wow there must be something in the water when I'm siding with OneTwo.

by Duty281 Sat 10 Oct 2015, 1:35 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Everyone can, Duty, but those who feel the need to constantly refer any negativity they can to Muslims, in whatever form we are talking here, are people I struggle with. I struggle to believe the Gobbler retains just an issue with Islamists and extremists.

I find this need some people have to highlight the ills of some Muslims to be miserable. And that it becomes some weird point-scoring game where they are happy if a Muslim commits any atrocity so they can use it to paint any Muslim as a foe.

I don't like any bigot.

Why? He hasn't said anything negative about moderate Muslims, to the best of my knowledge.

So how have you arrived at such a conclusion?

Inference from other posts on other topics which I cannot bother to look for, combined with an apparent fascination with just the extremists that align themselves with Islam.

There's a very "Britain First" feel. Much reading between the lines, I'm sure, but I'm not the only one to come to this conclusion, and there isn't much shock that you are defending him.

Well this is a thread, predominantly, about ISIS, so it's no surprise to see him commenting on the extremist faction of Islam.

And, equally, it's no shock to see myself defending him. As a believer in freedom of speech (something that Islam doesn't cater for) it's rather hurtful to see him post a perfectly valid viewpoint, and then for you to come in with your vast intolerance and sweeping inferences on what he is saying.

I'm not getting into this with you, Duty, as you have a certain mindset in arguments like this and have zero wiggle-room on opinion. The other posts on other topics thing would have been pretty clear, and the fact that talking about ISIS doesn't mean inferences can be made, as ever with some, to Muslims as a whole.

But hey, GG will be happy. He was annoyed that people like me were too tolerant of the Lee Rigby murder, so being less tolerant of his views can only be a step in the right direction

Everyone has a certain mindset, formed of their beliefs and opinions. I don't like Islam, or any religion that I have come across for that matter, and I don't like the extremist aspects of any religion, particularly Islam and Christianity. I'm perfectly open-minded, hence why I have read the Bible and the Quran, or other works of literature promoting ideas that I disagree with. I try to see things from both sides before arriving at a conclusion that I'm happy with.

When I'm presented with a opinion that I disagree with, I'm perfectly happy to debate it, and appreciate that what the other person is saying is a wholly valid point of view to hold. That is the essence of free speech. I don't say things like...oh I don't know:

"I've been exposed to your comments like someone gets exposed to Ebola. I wish it hadn't happened and don't feel better for it. Sickened too."

by incontinentia Sat 10 Oct 2015, 1:47 pm

by **Hero** Sat 10 Oct 2015, 1:50 pm

in regards to freedom of speech then Duty do you disagree with the banning of hate speech by far right Muslims in this country or in the case of Germany the banning of any Nazi material?

by Duty281 Sat 10 Oct 2015, 2:00 pm

Hero wrote:in regards to freedom of speech then Duty do you disagree with the banning of hate speech by far right Muslims in this country or in the case of Germany the banning of any Nazi material?

Inciting open hatred or violence would obviously be a violation of free speech and would need to be punished by the law.

by **Hero** Sat 10 Oct 2015, 2:03 pm

So should the likes of Britain First, EDL etc be banned?

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Sat 10 Oct 2015, 2:06 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Everyone can, Duty, but those who feel the need to constantly refer any negativity they can to Muslims, in whatever form we are talking here, are people I struggle with. I struggle to believe the Gobbler retains just an issue with Islamists and extremists.

I find this need some people have to highlight the ills of some Muslims to be miserable. And that it becomes some weird point-scoring game where they are happy if a Muslim commits any atrocity so they can use it to paint any Muslim as a foe.

I don't like any bigot.

Why? He hasn't said anything negative about moderate Muslims, to the best of my knowledge.

So how have you arrived at such a conclusion?

Inference from other posts on other topics which I cannot bother to look for, combined with an apparent fascination with just the extremists that align themselves with Islam.

There's a very "Britain First" feel. Much reading between the lines, I'm sure, but I'm not the only one to come to this conclusion, and there isn't much shock that you are defending him.

Well this is a thread, predominantly, about ISIS, so it's no surprise to see him commenting on the extremist faction of Islam.

And, equally, it's no shock to see myself defending him. As a believer in freedom of speech (something that Islam doesn't cater for) it's rather hurtful to see him post a perfectly valid viewpoint, and then for you to come in with your vast intolerance and sweeping inferences on what he is saying.

I'm not getting into this with you, Duty, as you have a certain mindset in arguments like this and have zero wiggle-room on opinion. The other posts on other topics thing would have been pretty clear, and the fact that talking about ISIS doesn't mean inferences can be made, as ever with some, to Muslims as a whole.

But hey, GG will be happy. He was annoyed that people like me were too tolerant of the Lee Rigby murder, so being less tolerant of his views can only be a step in the right direction

Everyone has a certain mindset, formed of their beliefs and opinions. I don't like Islam, or any religion that I have come across for that matter, and I don't like the extremist aspects of any religion, particularly Islam and Christianity. I'm perfectly open-minded, hence why I have read the Bible and the Quran, or other works of literature promoting ideas that I disagree with. I try to see things from both sides before arriving at a conclusion that I'm happy with.

When I'm presented with a opinion that I disagree with, I'm perfectly happy to debate it, and appreciate that what the other person is saying is a wholly valid point of view to hold. That is the essence of free speech. I don't say things like...oh I don't know:

"I've been exposed to your comments like someone gets exposed to Ebola. I wish it hadn't happened and don't feel better for it. Sickened too."

But as someone so intelligent, you cannot understand exaggeration nor how your arrogance in this matter is actually insulting to people too.

Now, with this wonderful intelligence, you didnt understand the connotation of certain in that context, and you shouldnt underestimate how empty and disingenuous I find you saying that you "appreciate that what the other person is saying is a wholly valid point of view to hold."

Funnily enough, it is perfectly within my rights of free speech to belittle his opinion as so. It is funny when people use these buzz words and phrases to make themselves seem pure and genuine, when really they are trying to raise themselves above other people. Equally, what I have said in that simile, which is then explained, is that I wish I hadn't heard his opinion and I don't feel better for doing so. Based of course on his comment that I am merely standing against his opinion because I'm closed minded. Which it wasn't, its because its the refrain of someone who would espouse hatred based on a stance of bigotry.

Personally, I think it is very narrow-minded to dislike a religion and show a lack of respect for people holding those beliefs. You can have read the bible and the Qu'ran, even if you'll forgive me for not taking your word for it, but it mattered little as your opinion was made up and it wasn't the words in those pages that you had any issue you when questioning faith.

I am not a religious man, but I respect and often envy those with faith. Some of the stuff OneTwo comes out with on here I consider bonkers, but it is only when preached as hate against anyone that I would consider it an affront.

I won't apologise for being a little more sensitive to bigots, homophobes, racists and the like. They get away with bullying people too freely as it is.

by Duty281 Sat 10 Oct 2015, 2:21 pm

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Everyone can, Duty, but those who feel the need to constantly refer any negativity they can to Muslims, in whatever form we are talking here, are people I struggle with. I struggle to believe the Gobbler retains just an issue with Islamists and extremists.

I find this need some people have to highlight the ills of some Muslims to be miserable. And that it becomes some weird point-scoring game where they are happy if a Muslim commits any atrocity so they can use it to paint any Muslim as a foe.

I don't like any bigot.

Why? He hasn't said anything negative about moderate Muslims, to the best of my knowledge.

So how have you arrived at such a conclusion?

Inference from other posts on other topics which I cannot bother to look for, combined with an apparent fascination with just the extremists that align themselves with Islam.

There's a very "Britain First" feel. Much reading between the lines, I'm sure, but I'm not the only one to come to this conclusion, and there isn't much shock that you are defending him.

Well this is a thread, predominantly, about ISIS, so it's no surprise to see him commenting on the extremist faction of Islam.

And, equally, it's no shock to see myself defending him. As a believer in freedom of speech (something that Islam doesn't cater for) it's rather hurtful to see him post a perfectly valid viewpoint, and then for you to come in with your vast intolerance and sweeping inferences on what he is saying.

I'm not getting into this with you, Duty, as you have a certain mindset in arguments like this and have zero wiggle-room on opinion. The other posts on other topics thing would have been pretty clear, and the fact that talking about ISIS doesn't mean inferences can be made, as ever with some, to Muslims as a whole.

But hey, GG will be happy. He was annoyed that people like me were too tolerant of the Lee Rigby murder, so being less tolerant of his views can only be a step in the right direction

Everyone has a certain mindset, formed of their beliefs and opinions. I don't like Islam, or any religion that I have come across for that matter, and I don't like the extremist aspects of any religion, particularly Islam and Christianity. I'm perfectly open-minded, hence why I have read the Bible and the Quran, or other works of literature promoting ideas that I disagree with. I try to see things from both sides before arriving at a conclusion that I'm happy with.

When I'm presented with a opinion that I disagree with, I'm perfectly happy to debate it, and appreciate that what the other person is saying is a wholly valid point of view to hold. That is the essence of free speech. I don't say things like...oh I don't know:

"I've been exposed to your comments like someone gets exposed to Ebola. I wish it hadn't happened and don't feel better for it. Sickened too."

But as someone so intelligent, you cannot understand exaggeration nor how your arrogance in this matter is actually insulting to people too.

Now, with this wonderful intelligence, you didnt understand the connotation of certain in that context, and you shouldnt underestimate how empty and disingenuous I find you saying that you "appreciate that what the other person is saying is a wholly valid point of view to hold."

Funnily enough, it is perfectly within my rights of free speech to belittle his opinion as so. It is funny when people use these buzz words and phrases to make themselves seem pure and genuine, when really they are trying to raise themselves above other people. Equally, what I have said in that simile, which is then explained, is that I wish I hadn't heard his opinion and I don't feel better for doing so. Based of course on his comment that I am merely standing against his opinion because I'm closed minded. Which it wasn't, its because its the refrain of someone who would espouse hatred based on a stance of bigotry.

Personally, I think it is very narrow-minded to dislike a religion and show a lack of respect for people holding those beliefs. You can have read the bible and the Qu'ran, even if you'll forgive me for not taking your word for it, but it mattered little as your opinion was made up and it wasn't the words in those pages that you had any issue you when questioning faith.

I am not a religious man, but I respect and often envy those with faith. Some of the stuff OneTwo comes out with on here I consider bonkers, but it is only when preached as hate against anyone that I would consider it an affront.

I won't apologise for being a little more sensitive to bigots, homophobes, racists and the like. They get away with bullying people too freely as it is.

It is indeed within your rights of free speech to belittle his opinion, but it doesn't show a particular openness or willingness to engage with his point of view, which I believe is a closed-minded approach. He has not written anything remotely distasteful, you are merely inferring a lot of things that he might say, based on no evidence.

If I dislike a religion, it doesn't show a lack of respect for people holding such beliefs. In much the same way, I dislike socialism, but it doesn't mean I disrespect (for instance) Jeremy Corbyn. If a person wishes to believe in Yahweh, or Allah, then of course it is fine. I merely ask that such beliefs are not imposed on myself, that such beliefs have no effect on the legislature of this country, that such beliefs are not used to incite violence or hatred, and that children are not indoctrinated.

You mention how you are sensitive to bigots and homophobes. Perfectly fair.

The Quran is riddled with bigotry, misogyny and homophobia - yet it is narrow-minded for me to dislike it? I would happily quote you a few verses from the Quran, but I don't think that is allowed on this board.

by Duty281 Sat 10 Oct 2015, 2:24 pm

Hero wrote:So should the likes of Britain First, EDL etc be banned?

Tough one, tough one. I lean towards the point of view that Britain First should be, but I know very little about them, admittedly.

EDL? Probably not.

by Sponsored content