Topic: Islamism

[bigbonedrawky]

That number is hugely inflated. There are less than a thousand British nationals serving in the Israel Defense Forces in total. There certainly are not a thousand joining its ranks every single year.

You're right about the numbers regarding the joining of the IDF because certain people are exempt but their Children will serve after a few years of indoctrination.

Regardless, it would be irrelevant if there were. British Jews joining the Tzahal are not indoctrinated with a poisonous ideology that would see them hating the very values we hold dear in the West, leading to them posing a very real and alarming terrorist threat to the British people upon their return. But I think you fully understand the difference and are simply being obstinate.

You start with "Regardless" and you end with me been "Obstinate" 

"British Jews joining the Tzahal are not indoctrinated with a poisonous ideology that would see them hating the very values we hold dear in the West"
I'm in the "west" so who is this "we" you talk of ? I don't hold the values of Ethnic cleansing, Collective punishments, Racial superiority, Religious superiority, Discriminatory Immigration policies or the building of any State based on Religious mumbo jumbo.

"posing a very real and alarming terrorist threat to the British people upon their return"
Well back in the day they didn't mind killing British Soldiers but I suppose it was all for a good cause from their point of view.
In the current climate I don't actually see them been a threat to Britain but if we started bombing them, they would become a threat just like those Islamist.   

Anyway double zero will be along in a minute to tell us off for using a "customary diversion" tactic and even if I wanted to open a thread about the negative side of Judaism or Zionism (which I don't) I don't think I'd be brave enough to do it      

[TepidT2O]

Except there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. There was no link to 9/11. There sure is ISIS now.

So, we decide to kill millions of them in cold blood?

I cannot believe I am reading this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

Why dont we go about invading everyone else that do this? There are over 50 countries that have dictators accused of terrible human rights absues. Some we bring over to Bukcingham Palace, others we decide to dispose off when we feel like it. The millions who die are just collateral.

Such right wing neo con hawikish ideology is just as dangerous in my opinion. Infact one supports the other. Neo cons in the west want to bomb the shit out of countries because people there are terrorists, terrorists keep going because the west keep bombing people and inadvertantly killing civilians. Which makes more terrorists. Which will lead to more bombing. Which will lead to more terrorists.

To say it is legitimate to depose Hussain did  not suggest that it addressed the problem of Al Qaeda.
It didn't.  It addressed the issue of weapons of mass destruction.  Sadly the intelligence was utterly wrong.
It was a response to 9/11, there would have probably been a different course of action if it weren't for that.
9/11 made western leaders take action on things they would have previously have treated differently.

To suggest millions have been killed in cold blood in Iraq is somewhat absurd. 
Cold blood is gassing thousands just for the hell of it.
To suggest that Islamic extremists wouldn't have come about is also absurd.

They occurred in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya too.... Is that the fault of the US and the UK?

Of course not.  These murdering bastards are a natural result of the power vacuum created by the fall of dictatorships.

[Yorkykopite]

Because you said 'We dont do it that way in Britain', i.e. decide in morality of war. But people in Britain did and they marched against this war, the largest I have ever witnessed. So I meant you cannot speak for everyone when you say 'We dont do it this way'. Its a tangent though, lets get back on topic.

I now think I'm on the end of a clever wind-up. But what the hell. Here's the idiot's guide.

"We the British people do not do it that way" = we have a system whereby we don't simply hand over the conduct of our foreign policy to a small number of people who feel that the current foreign policy is so bad that it's worth murdering someone to get it changed.

It's wonderful that so many people marched in London against the war. I did so myself. But one gigantic street protest does not mean that everyone in Britain agreed with the protestors. They clearly didn't. In fact within weeks the protest had dribbled away into a tiny and sectarian Stop The War movement. That suggests that many people on the march were conflicted too and had wildly divergent reasons for opposing the war in Iraq. And why wouldn't they be conflicted? The war to remove Saddam was a complex one. Those who reduced it down to "illegal war!" were, likely as not, a bit simple-minded. Too simple-minded to attract the support of most people.

[Mutton Geoff]

Because you said 'We dont do it that way in Britain', i.e. decide in morality of war. But people in Britain did and they marched against this war, the largest I have ever witnessed. So I meant you cannot speak for everyone when you say 'We dont do it this way'. Its a tangent though, lets get back on topic.

You are right Yorkie doesn't speak for everyone, however people in Britain are free to mount these protests simply because of our moral and free thinking society, could i say that would not be the case with the countries you are defending and the day we have to check with some Islamic mindset before we engage in Foreign Policy will be a sad day for all.

Also as a proud veteran of it i guess you are too young for the Anti- Vietnam Grosvenor Square Demo

[Yorkykopite]

Also as a proud veteran of it i guess you are too young for the Anti- Vietnam Grosvenor Square Demo

Now that was a war worth opposing.

[SadRed]

in my opinion if they had been honest and said it was a regime change more would have supported it given what Sadam had already done to his own people, people i think only had a problem with the subterfuge used for WMD's . I am sure the Kurds agreed with the war.

The problem we always get though is not being able to manage the peace as well as they managed the conflict.

However as a caveat i also think the creation of Iraq was a political disaster waiting to happen, we used to have a mindset of drawing lines on a map rather than looking at the people living between these lines.

But Touchstone, Iraq is not the only country which has a dictator. There are 50 others. And guess what we are doing? We support them till we see fit. Else we want regime change?  Not just this, but there is clear credible evidence of western intelligence supporting overthrow and destabilization of democractically elected geovernment of false pretexts.

It shouldnt be the job of British Government to cause regime changes, break up countries. The only thing that British government should do is to stop giving the dictators support. The worst countries are not even in the middle east but in central asia, absolutely brutal, which are buying weapons like crazy. And we keep giving it to them.

Its a funny dilemma, selling weapons to dicatators is good for economy, but morally incorrect. Too often foreign policies are based on self interest and morality has no role, its just a cover. This needs to change.

[SadRed]

You are right Yorkie doesn't speak for everyone, however people in Britain are free to mount these protests simply because of our moral and free thinking society, could i say that would not be the case with the countries you are defending and the day we have to check with some Islamic mindset before we engage in Foreign Policy will be a sad day for all.

Also as a proud veteran of it i guess you are too young for the Anti- Vietnam Grosvenor Square Demo

Which Islamic countries do I support? When you stand up for an illegal war how does that automatically translate to support for Islamic countries? I cherish the freedom in Britain, and every country in the west is a million miles better than any Islamic country I have ever been to.

But that cannot excuse an illegal war or support for dictators.

[SadRed]

Now that was a war worth opposing.

Yorky, is that only with the benfit of hindsight? Iraq was just as abhorrent and illegal. Absolutely unacceptable. People who carried out these must be sent to the Hague.

[Mutton Geoff]

But Touchstone, Iraq is not the only country which has a dictator. There are 50 others. And guess what we are doing? We support them till we see fit. Else we want regime change?  Not just this, but there is clear credible evidence of western intelligence supporting overthrow and destabilization of democractically elected geovernment of false pretexts.

It shouldnt be the job of British Government to cause regime changes, break up countries. The only thing that British government should do is to stop giving the dictators support. The worst countries are not even in the middle east but in central asia, absolutely brutal, which are buying weapons like crazy. And we keep giving it to them.

Its a funny dilemma, selling weapons to dicatators is good for economy, but morally incorrect. Too often foreign policies are based on self interest and morality has no role, its just a cover. This needs to change.

Funny you should say that, all foreign policy should have elements of self interest we would not support something to harm us would we, that would be idiotic. However you also have a problem seen nowadays i believe in Africa we lessen our support for projects etc in said dictatorship and guess what the Chinese move in and make all the economic, political gains for their country.

 Its fanciful to think that if we don't prop up some dictatorships that they will suddenly be able to stand on their own two feet.

We pull out this creates a vacuum and perhaps somebody with even more evil ambitions fills the space. I would also like to add out of these 50 dictatorships how many right now are a problem on the world stage?

Not to put to fine a point on it, you link countries and dictatorships for your argument on Islamism haphazardly, are you suggesting Iraq would have been better if we left Saddam carry on murdering his own people?

[Yorkykopite]

Yorky, is that only with the benfit of hindsight?

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

[Mutton Geoff]

Yorky, is that only with the benfit of hindsight? Iraq was just as abhorrent and illegal. Absolutely unacceptable. People who carried out these must be sent to the Hague.

Can't speak for Yorkie but Hindsight in your case perhaps,  some of us lived it and knew it was wrong from day one!

Who would you send to the Hague then given Blair might have possibly given knowingly or unknowingly false information to Parliament, if Parliament does not vote for it we don't go in, that is our democratic way

So do you want a packed Hague courtroom with over 500 MP's in it?

[Mutton Geoff]

Cheers Yorkie i was merely a teenage foot soldier, however being the son of a policeman made life interesting for me.

Anyway  i often badly paraphrase this sometimes!

“You can't stop the future
You can't rewind the past
The only way to learn the secret
...is to press play.”
― Jay Asher, Thirteen Reasons Why

[SadRed]

Funny you should say that, all foreign policy should have elements of self interest we would not support something to harm us would we, that would be idiotic. However you also have a problem seen nowadays i believe in Africa we lessen our support for projects etc in said dictatorship and guess what the Chinese move in and make all the economic, political gains for their country.

Its fanciful to think that if we don't prop up some dictatorships that they will suddenly be able to stand on their own two feet.

No they wont be. We sell them weapons. Weapons = Power. Chinese only make economic investments, they have never initiated regime changes. Thats one of the reasons why African countries have accepted much easily.

We pull out this creates a vacuum and perhaps somebody with even more evil ambitions fills the space. I would also like to add out of these 50 dictatorships how many right now are a problem on the world stage?

Problem is when we decide they are a problem. It may not be a problem for you and me but they sure are for the people who live there. The bigger problem is what media tells you is the problem. Do you know about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andijan_massacre Is Uzbek government a problem then? Why do we support them?
Iraq was no different from 50 others. But we decided, by some fanciful taxi driver telling someone about WMD. It was clear that they were lies.
Tomorrow it will be Iran because we dont like them and someone will invent some nonsense lies about them.

They may destabilize the countries but whats the alternative? Let the population be brutalized? And then we are surprised when there are terrorists?

Not to put to fine a point on it, you link countries and dictatorships for your argument on Islamism haphazardly, are you suggesting Iraq would have been better if we left Saddam carry on murdering his own people?

No I dont. I am suggesting we shouldnt have funded Saddam in the first place. In any case, are you suggesting Iraq is a better place now?

[Doc Red]

My apologies for not being clear. What I meant was that I had badgered you for about two weeks to answer the question, if the death penalty for adultery and apostasy was not Islamic, how come so many Muslims agreed with it? Your answer was, I don't know.

Corky, you're manipulating and twisting statements again. Your question was "Do you think killing people who leave Islam is wrong?If so, why do so many Muslims think it's right?
To which I answered "Yes" to the first question, and to the second- "I can't explain why people in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, hold those views. If I was inclined, I might have a deeper look at their recent history, and probably try to find a few representative from those countries to give their opinion on the survey." I'm sure if I dug a bit deeper (and as I mentioned, discussed with people from that region, had a look at their history etc) I could provide some thoughts on the matter, but I didn't have the interest to continue down that road.

I was never asked the question "if the death penalty for adultery and apostasy was not Islamic, how come so many Muslims agreed with it. That was not a question I asked, and therefore it isn't a question I answered.

[Card Cheat]

So you say. Others disagree. At the very least you might notice that the electorate continued to vote for the person you call "a war criminal".

And now you appear to be saying that the Islamist Nutters can decide the matter themselves and do something the British electorate couldn't do - ie decide on the "morality" of the war. 

Sorry. It's just not the way we do it in Britain.

I think its unfair to generalise an electorates opinion of the War on Terror from which candidate they voted for on a particular day in 2005. There are too many issues at play, it was certainly the most dead-rubber election in my memory, and if anything victory didn't endorse Blair's decision to go to war it just highlighted how Labour's slide to the right had harmed the Tories electability; and of course only Sedgefield constituents had the option of Blair himself.

[SadRed]

Funny you should say that, all foreign policy should have elements of self interest we would not support something to harm us would we, that would be idiotic. However you also have a problem seen nowadays i believe in Africa we lessen our support for projects etc in said dictatorship and guess what the Chinese move in and make all the economic, political gains for their country.

Its fanciful to think that if we don't prop up some dictatorships that they will suddenly be able to stand on their own two feet.

No they wont be. We sell them weapons. Weapons = Power. Chinese only make economic investments, they have never initiated regime changes. Thats one of the reasons why African countries have accepted much easily.

We pull out this creates a vacuum and perhaps somebody with even more evil ambitions fills the space. I would also like to add out of these 50 dictatorships how many right now are a problem on the world stage?

Problem is when we decide they are a problem. It may not be a problem for you and me but they sure are for the people who live there. The bigger problem is what media tells you is the problem. Do you know about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andijan_massacre Is Uzbek government a problem then? Why do we support them?
Iraq was no different from 50 others. But we decided, by some fanciful taxi driver telling someone about WMD. It was clear that they were lies.
Tomorrow it will be Iran because we dont like them and someone will invent some nonsense lies about them.

They may destabilize the countries but whats the alternative? Let the population be brutalized? And then we are surprised when there are terrorists?

Not to put to fine a point on it, you link countries and dictatorships for your argument on Islamism haphazardly, are you suggesting Iraq would have been better if we left Saddam carry on murdering his own people?

No I dont. I am suggesting we shouldnt have funded Saddam in the first place. In any case, are you suggesting Iraq is a better place now?
 

I think when the west decides on regime change, it will bomb the country and inadvertantly killing civilians. Which makes more terrorists. Which will lead to more bombing. Which will lead to more terrorists.

[SadRed]

You mean that the uk shouldnt get involved in wars in Muslim countries.

What annoys me so much about this position is Kosovo.  The Muslims in Kosovo would have been slaughtered if it weren't for the British government.

Or Libya where the west help overcome the dictatorship that repressed peoples religious freedoms.

Extremists forget this of course. They pick and choose their agenda to suit themselves.

Ofcourse they do they are crazy.

What Britain did to save innocents in Kosovo was admirable. What US is doing in Iraq now is admirable. But that cannot excuse what happened in Iraq.

[Corkboy]

Corky, you're manipulating and twisting statements again.

Right. If you think there's a substantive difference between...

why do so many Muslims think it's right?

...and...

how come so many Muslims agreed with it?

...then I am indeed manipulating and twisting all over the shop like a mad thing.

[Mutton Geoff]

No they wont be. We sell them weapons. Weapons = Power. Chinese only make economic investments, they have never initiated regime changes. Thats one of the reasons why African countries have accepted much easily.

Naive at best the Chinese influence in Africa is becoming the next major problem in my opinion.

Problem is when we decide they are a problem. It may not be a problem for you and me but they sure are for the people who live there. The bigger problem is what media tells you is the problem. Do you know about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andijan_massacre Is Uzbek government a problem then? Why do we support them?

Do you know i never get any information from Wiki a schoolkid can edit it and do

Iraq was no different from 50 others. But we decided, by some fanciful taxi driver telling someone about WMD. It was clear that they were lies.
Tomorrow it will be Iran because we dont like them and someone will invent some nonsense lies about them. 

Out of those other 50 countries how many at that time was the leader gassing his own people?

They may destabilize the countries but whats the alternative? Let the population be brutalized? And then we are surprised when there are terrorists?
Well sometimes you know a dictatorship is exactly what is required to establish the rule of law and brings some stability to the area however when the person in charge becomes a danger to his own people then action needs to be taken, it would be nice if the UN had some teeth and could stop this without military intervention but as the UN does not have the teeth it needs this doesnt happen

No I dont. I am suggesting we shouldnt have funded Saddam in the first place. In any case, are you suggesting Iraq is a better place now?

Paying one devil to get rid of another is something i don't like it has never worked in my opinion, however what i was suggesting is that Iraq was a bad idea and we should never had created this country in the first place.

[SadRed]

Who would you send to the Hague then given Blair might have possibly given knowingly or unknowingly false information to Parliament, if Parliament does not vote for it we don't go in, that is our democratic way
So do you want a packed Hague courtroom with over 500 MP's in it?

Do ask this question to the families of millions who died.

In my opinion, Blair because he gave false information to the Parliament. If he stood there and delivered a speech saying we can be attacked in 45 minutes by Saddam Hussein, which was clearly wrong. They knew it was wrong. There is clear evidence for this. It was an illegal war. Life of an innocent Iraqi cannot be discounted because he is an Iraqi in a far away land.

And just saying, that he was acting on bad intelligenceetc etc does nto cut it when lives of million people are at stake. There is a reason no one else joined in this cavalier mission. Anybody can make such weak excuses. Everyone who voted for it in the Parliament should be utterly ashamed.

[SadRed]

Paying one devil to get rid of another is something i don't like it has never worked in my opinion, however what i was suggesting is that Iraq was a bad idea and we should never had created this country in the first place.

I agree with that, my point is British foreign policy and terrorist attacks cannot be disconnected. To say they would have happened anyway is just wrong because numerous people have admitted that muslims are being radicalised due to this.

[SadRed]

Well sometimes you know a dictatorship is exactly what is required to establish the rule of law and brings some stability to the area however when the person in charge becomes a danger to his own people then action needs to be taken, it would be nice if the UN had some teeth and could stop this without military intervention but as the UN does not have the teeth it needs this doesnt happen

This is a silly idea, because dictaotrs always become dangers to their own people. Thats why we have democracy. Such type of support for dictators is led to where we are.

Out of those other 50 countries how many at that time was the leader gassing his own people?

He wasnt doing it actively, he did it 1988. But we cannot decide to change governments 25 years later. I am not supporting saddam, no one would, but that was not the reason we invaded Iraq. We need to stop supporting them and gving them weapons in the first place. Who gave saddam the weapons which he used in Halabja?

That still doesnt excuse what the current crop of dicatators we are supporting, or future saddams, doing. You dont like Wikipedia - you are not going to tell me bbc can be edited.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4550845.stm

So what about him?

What about Egypt? Current dictatorship in egypt  http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/12/egypt-rab-killings-likely-crimes-against-humanity

Infact what about China? Should we remove Chinese government because they killed a hell of a lot of people in Tiananmen Square?

[Twelfth Man]

I agree with that, my point is British foreign policy and terrorist attacks cannot be disconnected. To say they would have happened anyway is just wrong because numerous people have admitted that muslims are being radicalised due to this.

Theocratic, literal, Islamist thinking started in the UK in the late 80's, exported by our good Saudi friends. A lot of the extremism you see today was being groomed back then, when there was no Iraq/Afghanistan.

[Yorkykopite]

Theocratic, literal, Islamist thinking started in the UK in the late 80's, exported by our good Saudi friends. A lot of the extremism you see today was being groomed back then, when there was no Iraq/Afghanistan.

Salman Rushdie agrees with this.

[Doc Red]

Right. If you think there's a substantive difference between...
"Do you think killing people who leave Islam is wrong?If so, why do so many Muslims think it's right?
...and...
"If the death penalty for adultery and apostasy was not Islamic, how come so many Muslims agreed with it."

I do.

...then I am indeed manipulating and twisting all over the shop like a mad thing.

Agreed.

[SadRed]

Theocratic, literal, Islamist thinking started in the UK in the late 80's, exported by our good Saudi friends. A lot of the extremism you see today was being groomed back then, when there was no Iraq/Afghanistan.

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.

[Corkboy]

I do.

Ah, I see. You're drawing a distinction between "what you think" and "what is Islamic". That's interesting. So you're a Muslim but you hold views which are unIslamic?

[Doc Red]

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.

A Bin Laden that was fresh from his exploits in Afghanistan, where he was trained and supported by the West, where he had faced off the Russians. A Bin Laden left twiddling his fingers trying to find something useful to do, still flush with the feeling of "success" in preventing the takeover of a Muslim country.

[Twelfth Man]

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.

Of course Iraq helped Islamists arguments, but the notion that that is the sole reason for radical extremist Islamic thinking in the UK is ridiculous. Saudi-funded literal Islamist literature flooded in to UK mosques in the 80's, radical thinkers were allowed by MI6 to stay in the UK, because they thought that they would not attack the country they were given asylum in, and they could keep an eye on them. They want on to spawn more radical thinkers and the rest is history.

Richard Watson has written extensively about this, and produced a documentary. Here he hosts a talk with Muslim panelists, it is from 2008, after the publication of his Granta essay - the Rise of British Jihad. http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/826320

[LFC when it suits]

Theocratic, literal, Islamist thinking started in the UK in the late 80's, exported by our good Saudi friends. A lot of the extremism you see today was being groomed back then, when there was no Iraq/Afghanistan.

You do realise that these same extremists hate Saudi Arabia and want to bring it down even more than the West? Yet you say that it was exported by Saudi Arabia. This is nonsense.

What I find strange about this is that the West funded and supported these guys to take down Assad and then they act like they didn't know they were arming extremist khawariij. Way too idiotic to be an accident.

[SadRed]

Of course Iraq helped Islamists arguments, but the notion that that is the sole reason for radical extremist Islamic thinking in the UK is ridiculous. Saudi-funded literal Islamist literature flooded in to UK mosques in the 80's, radical thinkers were allowed by MI6 to stay in the UK, because they thought that they would not attack the country they were given asylum in, and they could keep an eye on them. They want on to spawn more radical thinkers and the rest is history.

Richard Watson has written extensively about this, and produced a documentary. Here he hosts a talk with Muslim panelists, it is from 2008, after the publication of his Granta essay - the Rise of British Jihad. http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/826320

Precisely what this man said:

You do realise that these same extremists hate Saudi Arabia and want to bring it down even more than the West? Yet you say that it was exported by Saudi Arabia. This is nonsense.

The greatest threat Saudi Arabia is Islamism. What it exports is a very socially conservative brand of Islam, but they hate terrorists or anything to do with political Islam. The two are not the same. How much noise was Saudi making when Israel was bombing Gaza? There are currently unprecedented ties between US, Israel and Saudi. Entire Saudi foreign policy is just two things - they hate Islamists and they hate Iran. Aligns perfectly with Israel, USA and the west in general.

[Twelfth Man]

You do realise that these same extremists hate Saudi Arabia and want to bring it down even more than the West? Yet you say that it was exported by Saudi Arabia. This is nonsense.

Saudis are facing a similar situation to Pakistan. It spawned the Taliban to help fight its proxy wars on both borders, now the monster has come back to wage Jihad in Pakistan. The Saudis are spooked by IS (they have thousands of Pakistani troops on their border with Iraq), which we all know is well funded by wealthy Gulf and Saudi backers. Yes, they do want to bring it down. Once you let the genie out of the bottle, you can't control what it might do. From a realpolitik point of view, Pakistan, encouraging radicalism, makes perfect sense, you get a cheap religiously inspired fighting force to do your bidding.

[Mutton Geoff]

This is a silly idea, because dictaotrs always become dangers to their own people. Thats why we have democracy. Such type of support for dictators is led to where we are.


He wasnt doing it actively, he did it 1988. But we cannot decide to change governments 25 years later. I am not supporting saddam, no one would, but that was not the reason we invaded Iraq. We need to stop supporting them and gving them weapons in the first place. Who gave saddam the weapons which he used in Halabja?

That still doesnt excuse what the current crop of dicatators we are supporting, or future saddams, doing. You dont like Wikipedia - you are not going to tell me bbc can be edited.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4550845.stm

So what about him?

What about Egypt? Current dictatorship in egypt  http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/08/12/egypt-rab-killings-likely-crimes-against-humanity

Infact what about China? Should we remove Chinese government because they killed a hell of a lot of people in Tiananmen Square?

Not sure if you live in the real world, but lets take them on for now!

Your Chinese comparison is a bit silly, if you had said the Provinces and Tibet, Mongolia you might have more leverage.

As for the BBC let me know when a schoolboy with some decent IT skills can rewrite the news for them, the notion that they are as easy to manipulate as Wiki is frankly balderdash sir!

You are quite right about some of the timescale with Saddam and actually they should have taken him out with Desert Storm in my opinion.

All dictators are not evil and all democracies are not good, Thatcher is a good example of this, one does not follow another you know. So can you name all these 50 evil dictators we are actively supporting and arming for me

Well what about Egypt for me a massive tragedy i was taken along with the idea of the Arab Spring and hoped it could be something of a new order in the area, however the problem was they got rid of a dictator and then replaced it with the Muslim Brotherhood an equally corrupt and evil government voted in democratically, a chance missed for that area in my view.

[LFC when it suits]

Saudis are facing a similar situation to Pakistan. It spawned the Taliban to help fight its proxy wars on both borders, now the monster has come back to wage Jihad in Pakistan. The Saudis are spooked by IS (they have thousands of Pakistani troops on their border with Iraq), which we all know is well funded by wealthy Gulf and Saudi backers. Yes, they do want to bring it down. Once you let the genie out of the bottle, you can't control what it might do. From a realpolitik point of view, Pakistan, encouraging radicalism, makes perfect sense, you get a cheap religiously inspired fighting force to do your bidding.

And did the West not fund these groups to wage proxy wars for their own benefit? Does that mean that the US encouraged radicalism?

[Twelfth Man]

And did the West not fund these groups to wage proxy wars for their own benefit? Does that mean that the US encouraged radicalism?

Yes, absolutely, and not just the US, the British intelligence services are culpable to, for their policy of, we don't mind them preaching radicalism as long as they don't attack the UK or Britain's interests overseas.

[LFC when it suits]

Yes, absolutely, and not just the US, the British intelligence services are culpable to, for their policy of, we don't mind them preaching radicalism as long as they don't attack the UK or Britain's interests overseas.

This is what it all comes down to. The interests of the West are what's important here. Not the lives and well being of the people in the Middle East or anywhere else other than their own citizens. That's why they funded these extremist khawariij in Syria in the first place.

[Yorkykopite]

You do realise that these same extremists hate Saudi Arabia and want to bring it down even more than the West? Yet you say that it was exported by Saudi Arabia. This is nonsense.

Don't we call that 'blowback'?

[Twelfth Man]

Listen to this guy at 102 minutes on foreign policy, talks a lot of sense. http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/826320

[LFC when it suits]

Listen to this guy at 102 minutes on foreign policy, talks a lot of sense. http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/826320

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.

Don't we call that 'blowback'?

Then it's a "blowback" for the West too and it's been a "blowback" for Saudi Arabia since the late 70s.

[Doc Red]

Ah, I see. You're drawing a distinction between "what you think" and "what is Islamic". That's interesting. So you're a Muslim but you hold views which are unIslamic?

thenI am indeed manipulating and twisting all over the shop like a mad thing.

Like a freshly caught fish, to be exact.

a)"Do you think killing people who leave Islam is wrong?If so, why do so many Muslims think it's right?
Is your opinion is 'x'? If so, why do many Muslims think 'y'?
Question (a) is asking me of my opinion 'x', and if I can provide an explanation for why many Muslims (from 3 countries in this survey) think 'y' if my opinion is 'x'. Nothing is directly implied by the difference of opinion between myself and those surveyed beyond "why would those surveyed in the three countries not agree with you"?.
*Question (a) was asked of me.


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.
Firstly, I wasn't asked this question, and secondly, if it were asked of me, I would have rejected the initial premise as a fallacy.

As far as I'm concerned, there is a difference in both questions, especially in the underlying argument of the latter question. I've already wasted a couple of replies already countering your claim, but my position still stands;You and I never came to the same conclusion that "a religion can get it so wrong, even within its own ranks".

And if you still feel that both sentences are the same, then we might as well just leave it at that.