Topic: Islamism

[Twelfth Man]

What's his proof for any of this?  Which Universities? Which people is he referring to that studied in the Universities and came over to the West? What is he talking about? It's all nonsense.

Care to expand a little on this? I'm intrigued. Syed Qutb and his followers is the guy he is referring to. 

[Libero]

I'm fairly certain they don't but its always best to look into it yourself.
From what I see their allegiance is to Israel and they fight for the "Israeli" Defense Force, they are willing to die and kill for Israel not the UK.
A new name is adopted and officially their place of birth becomes Israel ( they don't see it as naturalized ) it really is a strange carry on and quite unique.  Its also driven by the same kind of religious hocus pocus that drives all these fundamentalist mental.
 

Yeah true, double standards are in evidence the world over.

Here's an example in this video which sums it up perfectly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6-sxZ4EB4s
 

The only thing I'd take issue with is that the Zionist man lays claim to being Jewish - I disagree, and Torah Scholars would too.  Anyway, the double standards are there to see.

But hey, they've hijacked and blended Zionism with Judaism, the same way Islamist have hijacked Islam; and the Extremist Atheists ALWAYS seem to hear the words of the extremist minority of course!

In the end, madmen & terrorist are cited repeatedly and more prominently than Islamic & Jewish books.  Evil oppressive minority ideologies have always taken to speaking on behalf of religions I suppose.

Anyway, got a footy match to watch Now.... 

 

[bigbonedrawky]

I was too young to have an opinion at the time, so yes it's with hindsight. There again, don't knock hindsight.

In fact Geoff mate, this is for you. I made a doc about the Battle of Grosvenor Square for the Beeb back in 2000. One of the folks I interviewed was the great (and late) Micky Farren who was there on the day. There were others in the film too, but someone has since decided to edit the bits with Micky in and post it on youtube. The footage of the riot will take you back, I'm sure!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcCzQA_0MHM

What !!! You worked for the Evil BBC  I'm now going back to that BBC License thread to see if Chris Patten is a secret RAWK user 

[Corkboy]

b)"If the death penalty for adultery and apostasy was not Islamic, how come so many Muslims agreed with it."
If 'x' is not Islamic, why do so many Muslims agree with "x".
The underlying premise of question (b) seems to be "if Islam 'a' is to be adhered to by Muslims 'b' then actions that Muslims 'b' commit must be because Islam 'a' allows it.

Nope. That bit you made up. That's called a "straw man". My question was simple enough and perfectly analogous to the other way I phrased it. You had to wander off in search of another question to answer.

[Corkboy]

Doc, I know you and SadRed are desperate to explain how Islam is not a monolithic block and that not all Muslims think the same about issues like FGM and apostasy. What you don't understand, and this may be why you find discussing this stuff with me frustrating, is that your attitude supports what I think.

Killing someone for losing their religion or loving the wrong person is not an insignificant issue. It's not like wearing the wrong fabric, or not going to prayers. It's the taking of a human life for reasons which are base, barbaric, primitive and usually misogynist. No civilised society could countenance such punishments, and lo, none of you Western Muslims do. But your brethren in Saudi and Pakistan and Yemen queue up to watch the killings or cheer the result, and in Indonesia they offer their baby girls up for cutting and they do it in the name of their religion, which is also your religion.

Terrorists, you can explain. Disaffected youth, American brutality, twisted and vanishingly small section of an otherwise peaceful faith. But when confronted with widespread acceptance and religious justification of the workaday horrors of many Islamic countries, the stonings and the beheadings and cuttings, you cavil and deflect and flounce off only to return and complain some more.

It comes as no surprise to me that Islam condones primitive acts in certain parts of the world. As you mentioned, plenty of other religious people stone women for adultery or mutilate their baby girls. Again, you think this is a defence to what I'm driving at but it's the opposite. The dominant religion always finds a way to assimilate local customs into their shtick. All religions do this, from Christian FGM scum, to Yazidi stoner fuckers, even down to the hijacking of common feast days in favour of something more pious. Religions are populist. It's a clear indication that the message of any religion comes not from God, but from man.

And you will no doubt react to this little screed by reassuring yourself that your nuanced, moderate version of your religion is, indeed, still the one true faith. Of course it is. You made it yourself.

[Twelfth Man]

The British state has a dishonourable tradition of complicity with extremists
For years, Islamist groups were allowed to use this country as a base to carry out attacks abroad

KIM SENGUPTA
Monday 25 August 2014


Theresa May threatens jihadists with Asbos; Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson demands presumption of guilt on those who travel to Syria and Iraq; David Davis and George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, want Islamists who have gone to fight abroad to be stripped of their British passports. Politicians and public figures are falling over themselves to offer punitive solutions to the problem of extremism in Britain’s Muslim community.

The fact that a vicious and reactionary form of Islam has been breeding in this country is hardly something new. A year before the “wake-up call” of the 7/7 bombings in 2005, the security service was warning that around 4,000 Muslims from these shores had been to training camps in Pakistan.


The British state is culpable for what has unfolded. For years, violent Islamist groups were allowed to use this country as a base to carry out attacks abroad. This was founded in the belief that they would not bomb their home, and that the security service would be able to infiltrate them. At the same time mosque after mosque was taken over through intimidation by the fundamentalists. Police and others in authority refused pleas from moderate Muslims with the excuse that they did not want to interfere in community matters.


There was even a name for this amoral accommodation: the “covenant of security”. It is the case that some of the extremist leaders, while espousing Islamic domination were also informants for MI5 and the police: but we do not know whether the lives such information may have saved were more than those taken by their followers abroad. At the end, of course, we discovered that jihadists will indeed blow up their home country.


Abroad, complicity between British and American officials and reactionary Islam go back a long way with Western powers using it as a weapon against nationalist anti-colonial movements. This included plotting with the Muslim Brotherhood to assassinate Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt; the coup against the democratically elected Iranian leader Mohammed Mussadiq with the help of the ayatollahs, with a young cleric called Ruhollah Khomeini; the removal of Ahmed Sukarno in Indonesia in a coup carried out with the help of Darul Islam, whose followers went on to massacre socialists and trade unionists.



Then, of course, there is the use of Islamists during the Cold War and its aftermath: the creation of the international jihad against the Russians in Afghanistan, during which the murderous Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was a guest of Margaret Thatcher at No 10 – the US would later put a bounty of $5m on his head; the sending of Muslim fighters to the Balkans, central Asian Soviet republics, into China; support for the Pakistani secret police, ISI, with its terrorist links.


Britain has associated itself with Muslim extremists, home and abroad, for a long time. There is no reason to think there can be a quick fix which can detach this country from its consequences while the forces of international jihad continue on their bloody path.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-british-state-has-a-dishonourable-tradition-of-complicity-with-extremists-9690085.html

[GREGtheRED]

Thats what people would like to think, just because they cannot accept the very thing staring in their face.

Ex-MI5 boss

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10693001

A year after the invasion, she said MI5 was "swamped" by leads about terrorist threats to the UK.

"Our involvement in Iraq, for want of a better word, radicalised a whole generation of young people, some of them British citizens who saw our involvement in Iraq, on top of our involvement in Afghanistan, as being an attack on Islam," she said, before immediately correcting herself by adding "not a whole generation, a few among a generation".

"What Iraq did was produce fresh impetus on people prepared to engage in terrorism," she said, adding that she could produce evidence to back this up. "The Iraq war heightened the extremist view that the West was trying to bring down Islam. We gave Bin Laden his jihad.

So Britain's role in Iraq and Afghanistan - to oust murderous regimes in Hussein and the taliban - created a huge number of extremists. They were intent on punishing the British population for electing a government willing to pursue use military force in the Muslim world, and yet we now have another alarmingly sized batch of young British jihadists who have mainly been inspired to join jihadist groups (posing a very serious threat to British citizens at home) following Britain's (and the West's) reluctance to use military force in the Muslim world and end the Syrian conflict by removing Assad's regime?

What can Britain actually do to stop young men from this country becoming disenchanted, filled with hate, and intent on joining jihadist groups? We intervene, and British muslims are radicalised. We refrain from intervening, and British muslims still find a way to involve themselves and become radicalised, this time joining IS, probably the most heinous and barbaric group we've seen to date.

[jooneyisdagod]

Because that is what humans are. They interpret things the way they want. Its not just for religion, but for everything. For politics, for war, for economics. To the shock of some, religion does not have every single thing for every single possible scenario written down in a gigantic book somewhere.

Just like secular laws. Why do we need a lawyer and for people to research law? Isnt there one gigantic book that tells you what is correct and what is wrong? No there isnt. Religion is the same.

Its patently not. When a lawyer finds a loophole in the system, the option remains for those in charge of the law to correct the loophole. Nothing of that sort can ever exist with religion. This is of course without going into the other factually incorrect bollocks religion spouts. The law makes not such presumptions.

[jooneyisdagod]

It was a "mad war" not because of its aim being to dispose Hussain, it was a mad war because it did not address the issue of 9/11.  It didn't have any way of tackling those who brought down the twin towers.

It was also silly as there was no clear succession plan for how the replace Hussain's government.

There is nothing illegitimate about deposing a dictator who kills hundreds of thousands of his own people in cold blood.

I work with a Kurdish person that hates Saddam as much as anyone. But even he thinks the situation became worse after he was deposed. I don't have a problem with interventions as such but there is such a lack of understanding of how far some of these conflicts go back in time. And a lot of it isn't even religious conflict. Its more sectarian conflicts within the same religion. Which makes it an absolute time bomb waiting to go off and previous western interventions in particular Iraq have caused a massive shift in power scales in the region and destabilised the entire area.

[TepidT2O]

I work with a Kurdish person that hates Saddam as much as anyone. But even he thinks the situation became worse after he was deposed. I don't have a problem with interventions as such but there is such a lack of understanding of how far some of these conflicts go back in time. And a lot of it isn't even religious conflict. Its more sectarian conflicts within the same religion. Which makes it an absolute time bomb waiting to go off and previous western interventions in particular Iraq have caused a massive shift in power scales in the region and destabilised the entire area.

We've seen though in Tunisia and Libya that this would probably have happened anyway.

The problem was that Bush had no plan to remove Hussain more smoothly, not that there was no justification for the war (which was the original point and is now way off topic!)

[viteslesrouges]

British foreign policy should be held hostage to what is morally correct. If Islamist far right raises up the issue of illegal war in Iraq, they cannot be dismissed just because they are saying it. There is clear and unquestionable link between the two.

I dont buy that. Every major intellgence group accepts a link there. If what was the case, how many are going to join jihadists now and how many were going before Iraq war? This is what woolwich murders said:

"The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers."

I deplore the fact that you've quoted this creature but it begs a question which is at the centre of this thread. How many muslims are dying daily at the hands of islamists and why did he not choose to face those people?

"So what if we want to live by the Sharia in Muslim lands?"

Did these 2 not have passports and the opportunity to go live in a muslim land practicing Sharia?

In my opinion you've attempted a justification for the Woolwich murder which is beneath contempt.

And you act loose and free with the word "moral".

[Jebediah]

There's nearly a thousand Jewish UK residents a year who leave the country to fight in the IDF.
 

A new name is adopted and officially their place of birth becomes Israel ( they don't see it as naturalized ) it really is a strange carry on and quite unique.  Its also driven by the same kind of religious hocus pocus that drives all these fundamentalist mental.
 

Of course every point that you make here is entirely made up.

For starters, last year 510 people emigrated from the UK to Israel, of which only a very small proportion entered the IDF.

The name on my Israeli passport is the same as on my birth certificate and the 'Country of Birth' is listed as 'United Kingdom'.

Regardless, anyone who wishes to compare moving to Israel and fighting for the IDF to going off to join ISIS is quite frankly a nutjob.

[youll never walk alone it]

Yes i agree jeb, the IDF are far more bloodthirsty...

[.adam]

Yes i agree jeb, the IDF are far more bloodthirsty...

Bloody hell.
 
Some bad tits in here, Jez. I don't know why you bother.

[Jebediah]

Bloody hell.
 
Some bad tits in here, Jez. I don't know why you bother.

 

to be honest i am way out of my depth in this thread. Not as much as some posters however...

[bigbonedrawky]

.

Regardless, anyone who wishes to compare moving to Israel and fighting for the IDF to going off to join ISIS is quite frankly a nutjob.

Yes because comparing someone who goes to fight kill and die in the Middle East for Religious reasons, with someone who goes to fight, kill and die in the Middle East for Religious reasons is totally crazy.

Are you one of those who "returned" to a place you'd never been before 

[Alan_X]

Locked for a bit. Some fairly unpleasant stuff in here at the moment.

Also if you're going to sling 'facts' around can you please provide a source for them.