A Propaganda Struggle To Recognise ISIS Members As Victims
Myself and Larry Hughes (LH) exchanged opposing opinions about the Manchester Bomber Salman Abedi. LH was critical of the MSM (mainstream media) and thought they were unfair to Abedi who LH believed was a victim of western ‘carpet bombing’ in the Middle East. Our exchanges can be found at Daithi O’Donnabhain’s article Cubs of the Caliphate.
I have heard others make similar excuses for young British Muslims traveling to the Middle East to commit unspeakable war crimes. I remain unconvinced by arguments that young British Muslims face nothing but discrimination and marginalisation in the UK; thus what alternatives have they got? But more, I am repulsed by LH’s view that ISIS members, no matter the atrocity, are victims and not calculated perpetrators of their own acts of barbarity like the one in Manchester.
I do not know if The Manchester Bomber was ever mistreated by the UK. But I do know that he was the son of a Libyan defector, Ramadan Abedi. In the 1990s, the UK provided Abedi senior, and his then young family, safety from the Libyan Gaddafi regime. This is hardly enough evidence of Abedi as a victim of anything other than maybe the Gaddafi regime.
LH’s arguments highlighted the fallacy of trying to apply the logic of freedom or resistance struggles attacking oppressive occupiers on their home territory. This logic does not work with religious fanatics. In attempt to explain Abedi’s actions LH replaces the word ‘Allah’ with ‘retaliation’; in other words Abedi was acting in retaliation to western aggression and not really in the name of Allah. This is the same error others in the West make; they impose their own judgment value on Islamists because an action in ‘retaliation’ implies there was a provocation. This sort of altered narrative suggests that Islamists are acting with noble motives and not out of religious fanaticism in its own right. If Islamists blow themselves up or slaughter others in the name of Allah then we should take them at their word the reason why they do so and not impose our own reasoning in attempt to justify or rationalise their actions in ways that Islamists do not. Islamists are well able to articulate their motives and they do.
In a conventional freedom or insurrection struggle the oppressed demand emancipation from tyranny and oppression. There is a cogent connection or rational between attacks, which tend to be more primitive and understandable than complex or obscure. When oppressed indigenous activists plant bombs in the homeland of their occupier the message is simple; you leave us in peace and we will leave you in peace. Or, an attack might be in direct retaliation for an atrocity committed by the occupying forces.
My difficulty with LH is that he uses the rational of the oppressed to explain religious fanaticism. This is not to say the fanatic has not been oppressed, maybe they were/are, but their objectives are not one of emancipation. Islamist objectives are to convert everyone to Islam or kill the non-believer where they find them. Although their atrocities might have a retaliatory element at times but that would only be incidental to their primary objective in securing the Caliphate.
The MSM is the creation of various influences and motives which helps maintain its own ruthless self-interests; be they viewer ratings; the wishes of advertisers; or political wheeling and dealing. Their news outputs cannot always be trusted. Unlike LH, I do not fault the MSM for not portraying the Manchester Bomber as a victim because Abedi is not a victim but a cruel perpetrator who deliberately targeted children. The evils of the MSM are much lesser than that of the objectives of the Islamist and the ISIS member Abedi.
Without any direct evidence LH related the Manchester atrocity to bombs being dropped in the Middle East. Based on his speculation, it is LH’s view that ISIS are victims. Conflicts are made up of complex mix of interests and alliances. But neither Abedi nor ISIS ever claimed that the Manchester attack on children was intended as a message to leave the Middle East or was in retaliation for some event committed by western forces. Had they done so then perhaps we might relate 'cause and effect'. But that is not ISIS motivation nor its objective. ISIS readily commit horrific war crimes and genocide out of religious fanaticism alone.
LH attempts to re-interpret ISIS objectives and motives is an injustice to not only the victims of the Manchester Bomb but to all of ISIS victims wherever they might happen, be that in the UK, France or the Middle East. ISIS claim their atrocities in the name of Allah and their objective is a holy war to convert the world to Islam. LH was motivated to explain Islamists in better light; that they, and the Manchester bomber, are fighting a nobler and more just cause. He is mistakenly trying to graft or morph religious fanaticism into an underdog fighting a just liberation struggle. His thinking reveals the dangers of being fixated on the single story of conflict between an oppressor and their down trodden oppressed victims.
Religious fanaticism defies rationale and is self-motivated.
Christy, Its preposterous to conceive of IS soldiers as victims. But I am never sure when Larry is being serious or not. In the same thread he tried baiting me with the claim I was sympathetic to the Shankill Butchers. I didnt respond to it but he was clearly on a windup in that instance.ReplyDelete
We saw how CAGE represented the story of Jihadi Johns "radicalisation" , essentially all the themes Larry touched on in terms of repressive state intrusions on a previously moderate young man etc, it was a siren song to progressives.But in the Dabiq hagiography after his death by droning, the true history of his path to IS was given, and it demolished the victimhood scenario. Perhaps the scars of an oppressive state and a complicit media mean that many (ex)republicans are incapable of objective reasoning on this subject.
a piece that raises many good points and needed written.
Even where you disagree with Larry, he has to take credit for expressing thoughts that prompt you to begin a process of deconstruction.
I don't think IS members are any more victims than say the Israeli troops killed as they went about the business of murdering Gaza civilians a few summers back.
I think republicans are thoroughly capable of objective reasoning because when they reflect on experience they know that state violence produces street violence.
I think the people less capable are those who can see no differentiation within Islam, who think there is this undifferentiated whole and the murderous actions can be restricted to explanations that focus on ideology to the exclusion of all else.
It would be utterly foolish as Christy points out to ignore the religious factor. It is so central to the discourse of ISIS and for those who think they are not fascist nor wish to set up a theocratic fascist state, I believe that is unsustainable. However, what causes the mushrooming of political violence - Ideology or circumstance? Most people fighting in the IRA were teenagers or in their early 20s. They all claimed at some point to be fighting for a united Ireland but that was hardly the recruiting factor. Very few at that age had much of a political grasp.
On top of that I tend to return to Althusser's question of: do people believe in god and then fall down on their knees and pray or do people fall down on their knees and pray and then believe in god? Rituals play a big part in this but the object of interest (to borrow from Althusser again) is how are people interpellated into ISIS thinking?
For those who believe it is all about religion, the biggest contribution they can make to resolving the problem is highlight the religious absurdity of some afterlife concept. That is the main selling point of religion. Rid ourselves of that rather than pretend that our afterlife promise is real and yours is false, and we could make serious steps towards going to the root problem of religiously inspired violence.
But had Islam never existed, the circumstances for the type of violence we saw in Manchester and London, would still be exist and would feed into it. Was religious belief the cause of suicide attacks on Israeli civilians at nightclubs and on buses or was it Israeli state repression of Palestinians? That is not to say that religious fanatics were not involved in carrying out the attacks.
Moreover, don't be surprised when we hear as we will (much like as in Ireland) that some of these characters were working for the intelligence services. They were most unlikely to find Allah or Mohammed in there.
I do not support or have any empathy for ISIS. I do see a connection between the mess now ongoing in several Muslim countries and UK foreign policy. If people cannot or will not see said connection, that I believe, is a deliberate decision for political reasons on their part. Pontias Pilot would be proud of them. If Russia for example left London, Manchester Leeds and Nottingham in a pile of rubble sumply because it could, would young English men be patronisingly lectured that there was no need for retaliation nor any excuse for being angry? I doubt very much there would have been attacks by islamists like ISIS in the UK had Blair and Bush not began the carnage that has been ongoing all across N. Africa and the Middle East since 2003.ReplyDelete
You can continue your British offical propaganda line of head in sand and continue tyour attemt to slander me as a supporter of ISIS. It causes me no sleep loss. Whatever was going through that young lads head after his Mi5 inspired and facilitated trips back and forward to Libya is anyone's guess. I couldn't possibly second guess him. But in typical UK fashion, they will arm, train, finance and direct terrorists, they simply won't 'negotiate' with them. Best comedy act in history.
Christy Wals I think yourself and Diathi D should open up a partnership in psychiatry practice, you both have a penchant for mind reading and prognosis. Not a very good one, but you pay yer money you take yer choice. You might do very well at the bottom end of the market.
AM, and republicans would have been broadly correct when the State/Anti-State dynamics takes place where the golden rule of Western civilisation (the principle of reciprocity) and a concept of equality among citizens is at least held as an ideal.But this limits the effectiveness of your analogies with IS because what motivates them would exist in a place of world peace if in that world not everyone had submitted to Islam. This is very different to essentially nationalist organisations involved in Irish/Palestinian liberation movements. I think this difference limits the effectiveness of previous British Intelligence subversion tactics, they seem to be reeling from this phenomena, and we know how depressingly first rate they can be.ReplyDelete
I dont doubt there is a spectrum of IS adherents beliefs, we can see this by the numbers that tried to escape their lands after falling for the snuff'n'travel brouchers, but if someone has strapped a bomb to themselves to end their life in this world, we can assume he involves himself in the political to advance the religious.
It is not what motivates ISIS or bodies like ISIS but what motivates it in such high numbers. In a place of world peace ISIS like groups would still exist, much as the various IRAs exist in the midst of Irish peace. If this is timeless why has it not been happening forever and a day.
The MIT's Centre for International Studies looked at this back in 2006 in response to the suicide bomber phenomenon and concluded that regardless of the use of religious framing the motives behind their actions were something else.
It seems inconceivable to me that had the West not attacked other countries the problem would be anywhere near as substantial.
if someone has strapped a bomb to themselves to end their life in this world, we can assume he involves himself in the political to advance the religious.
Why? We could equally assume that he is involved in the religious to advance the political. What if he is atheist? Were Fatah employing suicide bombers to promote the religious?
If the roots are religious then work to end the nonsense of the afterlife. That is what sustains the religious.
there has to be a connection between the growth of ISIS as a serious entity and Western foreign policy. But ISIS remains a fascist phenomenon which wants to constitute an existential threat to the West. The degree to which it is enabled is determined not by the fervour of religious conviction but the violence of the West.
EXACTLY my point all along. I see Teresa May has added the DUP to her Saudi friends list. Cozy bedfellows for sure. Just watch the MSM sanitise the TORY DUP copulation in the same way they slaughtered Corbyn for meeting SF. The Orange card hasn't gone away you know. DUP Taliban now controlling UK government. Hopefully only briefly.
I have always agreed that western aggression is a contributory factor. We then disagreed on the legitimacy of children as targets in their own right. I would agree with your point if the attack had been against a military or airforce target but it was specifically directed at children. The attack was carried out in the name of Allah so argue your point with Abedi and ISIS if you think they should target innocent people for other reasons. You still have not said anything to convince me that you have a point or that members of ISIS are victims. I do not buy into your excuses for Islamist atrocities anymore than I would agree with atrocities committed by the West.
Larry, it doesn't take a shrink to set the binary of you taking the piss or being serious.Maybe you are on a spectrum ? But Christy included the link to the article where you said these things,others can see very easily who is telling the truth ,I interpreted you the way Christie did.ReplyDelete
ps Larry, my comments read harsher than I intend. I find what you say laugh outloud funny, and took no offence in our dealings. I didnt respond the Butchers stuff cause the comments were getting too big follow each point. Cod psychology for free : you said something in a way you didnt intend and decided to argue the point for a laugh.ReplyDelete
AM, lets take the numbers thing. AQ was formed after the Soviet invasion ended in Afghanistan, its estimated to have trained between 10,000 and 30,000 fighters in training camps between 1996 and 2001. The numbers that entered general Jihadi training might have been bigger after Blair and Bush's Wars, but its not like the numbers would of been insignificant. And we are not considering a period of forever and day, just look at the a 20 year span of the last 10 years of Mohammeds life and the 10 after he died. It found reasons to expand to subjugate non-believers in ways that could be considered unconnected politically, the only thing that did connect them was they were unbelievers.ReplyDelete
the catalyst for Al Qaeda was not the end of the Soviet invasion but the start of it. Its core was made up of people who were either in Afghanistan or went to it to fight against foreign occupation. It tells us something about the impact of foreign policy, in this case that of the Soviets. And of course who financed it back in the day? The usual suspects - the US and the Saudis.
Mohammed like many of the popes opted for war. He hardly started a warring religion to oppose peaceful Christianity. The need by the Trumps of the world to blame Islam is merely a deflector from their own foreign policy.
If the West stopped invading other countries there would still be Islamicists but it is hard to see that they would be remotely as strong as they are today.
Take Palestine, do you really believe that religious fanaticism is behind the suicide attacks or Israeli policy?
AM, I know very little about Israel/Palestine so my opinion isnt so firm, but it seems to me Palestinian tactics (like suicide bombs) are a function of the limited range of resistence open to them, even non-military avenues like political organising.As such organising from population centers like a Mosque will invitably lead to a religious veneer for their actions, but I dont think the Hamas charter for example, was a religious document in itself,neither was the general ambitions of their movement.ReplyDelete
and if the Palestinians can expand their options why not ISIS?
How often were ISIS bombing London and Paris prior to Western invasions?
I think as Fisk says: "As long as we bomb the Middle East instead of seeking justice there, we too will be attacked."
Makes a lot of sense
AM, the critical difference is the ideology which the tactics are in service of.How would one pursue justice in these regions? Perhaps start with sanctions on a bad dictator, and then escalate from there? D'oh!ReplyDelete
We need to disengage from the region no doubt, forget about justice, we cannot dispense it and it wouldnt be welcomed. Not selling arms to tyrants is one aspect we can pursue. But also developing our own energy sources is another, which progressives find a multitude of reasons (mostly enviromental) to block in tandem with denying the concept that an ever increasing population impedes the ability to switch to similar scale production of such energy sources.
I don't think any of the carnage should be going on period. Of course there is no excuse for targetting anyones children.
yes correct, I do enjoy the banter. Never any serious offence taken.
a difference but not a critical one if as we believe ideology is more a legitimising tool than it is a pull factor in the growth of ISIS.
It is standard fare for those who prefer the simple explanation rather than the more substantive one that it is all the fault of a few bad eggs or as was said to sum up British policy to Indians: the officers would say "shoot the big bugger in the turban." It was his fault his ideas but not the slightest clue about what it was that produced grievances to the degree where the violence promised by the "big bugger in the turban" seemed an attractive option.
Larry is right that if you bomb, torture, rape, burn people there will be consequences.
How could justice be pursued?
Stop the land grabbing settlements.
Stop arming and reinforcing the regional despots who insist on repressing the people they rule over.
Stop lauding human rights while at the same time reinforcing regimes in which people are not allowed the rights we want for ourselves.
Stop intervening in other countries out self interest.
Stop supporting groups like ISIS or thugs like Saddam, Assad and Netanyahu because they are better for you than they are for the people they lord it over.
Added that to your own ideas and a shape forms.
And if you cannot pursue justice as you believe and may well be right don't reinforce injustice.
It is not for you or anyone else to re-interpret ISIS motives in a way that you find more palatable or legitimate explanation. In doing so you are assuming your values and standards are compatible with theirs and in that way their atrocities seem to make sense to you. ISIS do not claim to be retaliating to planes in the skies but to voices from the Heavens telling them to kill anything non-Muslim anywhere in the world. If they want you to act as their PR spokesperson they will let you know. But, how you tell it is not like they tell it and they seem happy with their version and not yours.
I have not suggested you did want to see any carnage; its your rational of ISIS being victims and who they target as legitimate targets that I take issue with. If ISIS were ever victims then they lost that claim once they became perpetrators of war crimes and genocide.
I could understand why someone from Afghanistan might think to strike-back in the UK in retaliation for something the Brits did in Kabul but if they do something awful in the name of Allah I would not rationalize their behaviour to have really been about Kabul because that might make better sense to me than Allah.
I can even agree with AM: "Larry is right that if you bomb, torture, rape, burn people there will be consequences." That does not mean that any 'consequences' will be a justified retaliatory response. The Manchester Concert attack was not a legitimate response to anything that the Brits did in the Middle East no matter how bad that may have been -for example it was not until 1979 when the IRA said that it had gotten payback for Bloody Sunday by killing 18 paras at Warrenpoint -they did not respond in kind on a busy street in an English city in 1972 because that would not have been a legitimate response.
Given the sheltered and privileged** backgrounds of Abedi and Jihadi John then I get the sense that you see their victim-hood derives from just being Muslim and not anything specific they suffered.(**privileged enough that they dropped out of third level education to become barbaric killers)
It is not for you to decide what is or is not a legitimate response to mass murder and global destruction by the UK and the West in general as you sit in your priviledged and safe place on yer hole at yer computer. The IRA responded to Dublin and Monaghan bombings with Birmingham and Guilfod did it not? You have a serious problem with Muslims and Islam. You just seem to hate them for their religion and nothing else matters or registers with you. Are you in the DUP?
Isn't that where we disagree. I refuse to accept that children should ever be legitimate targets and you think they can be. I told you before I did not come up with the idea of just war theory it has been around for a while, it pre-dates codification in the Geneva Convention. The Convention tries to reduce or remove inhumane modes of warfare by putting certain behaviour and types of weapons out of by making them war crimes.
It's not about hating Muslims, I think there should be ethical and moral limits to warfare and the standard is applied to friend and foe alike. We have seen ISIS have no limits and your defence of them shows that neither do you.
The standards also incorporate how captured enemy combatants should be treated. Being an ex-republican prisoner I would have thought even you might have a limit but given how ISIS treat its prisoners including male and female prisoners, child and adult alike, it is clear that ISIS can do no wrong in your eyes.
You are seriously messed up in the head and a bit depraved in your own right.
When did the UK/USA ever adhere to the Geneva Convention? Where did I say child murder/targetting is OK? You are a literate retard. You also spinelessly tacitly back western governments in their dirty genocide agenda against the peace loving and innocent religion of Isalam and promote the destruction of inofensive Muslim nations for no reason other than imperial profit. You would also attempt to deny those targetted peoples the human right of being angry at their treatment by the west or even the dignity to be offended by it. You are a special kind of sick. People like you are responsible for the attacks now happening across Europe. I think you should apologise for that to the victims of Manchester and London. The link below is an example of your mealy mouthed cynical mental condition. You need help, go see Daithi the D shrink ASAP.
you said "I feel equally sorry for the wee lad who felt angry enough to go to that extreme". You yourself placed him in the same catagory as his victims. You can talk about 99% of the other things you said in the comments as your true views, but comments like this one (it took 5 seconds to find, there will be others too) are what Christy called you up for refusing to retract.
I do feel sorry for him his head must have been fried on his numerous Mi5 facilitated trips back and forward to his grandparents and parents country (Libya) seeing it in such a mess. That doesn't mean I support what he did. YOU and Christy Walsh seem determined to assume and indeed insist that I do. Assumption Daithi, the mother of all fuck ups lad!! You both need to move beyond the join the dots level of little pictures where your critical analysis is concerned.
Your delusions about Islam being peaceful and ISIS as victims say it all.
Who has Iran ever attacked or invaded? They are next on the Wests bucket list. Anyone with their head fried by needless pointless wars is a victim. That doesn't make them correct, just sad. I am certain many people here who felt angry enough to risk life and liberty driving bombs years ago would today never tire of waterboarding or pitchforking the trash who sent them out. Or alternativelt looking at the endless commemorations simply thank God one of them isn't their own.
When Iran or wherever next is destroyed you will no doubt tell us those reacting in whatever way are without reason or excuse and simply natural born evil. Good for you.
Christy, Im starting to wonder if Abu Larry-al Donegali is the ice sweeper clearing the way for IS in Ireland, I thought his thanking God in many comments was reflexive, but maybe he has decided that Jihad could do what Gerry couldnt in the North?ReplyDelete
Neither I nor my Mrs carry a Muslim head scarf in our bag to pop on in case we feel the need. You are a daft Jackeen to be sure. No worry for the huns about YOU entering any upcoming DUP/TORY instigated fray north of the border here. You'd take a wee nose bleed that far north. Sash in me pocket Daithi D...
Now, with your fragile disposition maybe ye want to invest in a Burka for the tube? What a pussy. God save Ireland WEPT the heroes. If you cannot find a Burka be sure and have your make up just right for work tomorrow and your wee headscarf handy. Alla Hu Akbar..please don't hurt me I'm Irish ya know... I can just picture it. lol
Larry, this trait of denying the content of text (anticipating others wont take the time to read it and decide) is well used by Islamofacscists today too. Its all making more sense now.ReplyDelete
your eye shadow is smudged.
Do you really think that your resort to personal insults are appropriate response to your unconscionable sympathy for ISIS and their crimes against humanity?
USA assists ISIS as do you by promoting the MSM propaganda. You lads are Islamaphobes. It is totally transparent. You give not one hoot about the UK public.
You were one of the last I expected you to use the PC term Islamophobe.
Brendan O'Neill @ Spiked got it right when he said this use of the phobe terms was the pathologising of dissent. Pretty much when people are described as homophobes merely for expressing their opinion that they don't believe in or feel comfortable with gay culture.
It's called guyliner these days Larry you metrophobe.interesting how every type of dissension is pathologised these days isn't it? Almost like we are buying the rope the state will hang us with, to turn a phrase.ReplyDelete
haha I'm not that rigid. But denying a connection between foreign policy and attacks in UK is akin to holocaust denial. So, apt enough for those lads on this issue.
I don't see them as disputing the link. They don't reduce it to the link and stress the ideological content.
I think ISIS might be something like CIRA in terms of effect (something like it would exist) were it not for foreign policy. We need to focus not on its existence but on what makes it flourish. In my mind it has to be foreign policy.
Sure Larry, maybe we should agree to honour their Blasphemy Laws and not draw their prophet either right (ala Hebdo), or position troops in Saudi Arabia (like pre-9/11). You are just supporting the Arabian version of the BNP really, hating foreigners in their countries.ReplyDelete
Bloody hell that was poor by your standards. Hating foreigners in their country? OK so the Muslim community in Dublin is carpet bombing the place is it? As for their laws, your the one with the head-scarf in the house lol
The USA have been arming and supporting them with training whislt supposedly fighting them at the same time. Saudi and Qatar similarly arming and financing all around them out there. Now the USA have attempted to isolate Qatar whilst having the larges military base outside the USA in the place. I mean lunatics running the asylum never seemed so apt.
They may give very token begrudging nod regarding foreign policy but they are obsessed with portraying my insistence on a connection as 'proof' I am a simpathiser with the bomber. Pathetic.
you expressed a sympathy with the bomber not because he was bombing but because of the circumstances that you feel led him to bomb. I think there is some merit in that but that sympathy has to stop at the point he sets out to slaughter children. I think Christy and DaithiD place too much emphasis on him being a religious lunatic with religion being the prime motivating factor. He might well be one but the question that needs asked is what makes this ISIS phenomenon so pronounced. Even if he is a religious whack job how are there so many of them applying themselves to the task in the specific context of today.
A lot of mosques have been radicalising Muslims globally. Rhere must be a more intense hatred between sects than Celtic and Rangers on an exceptionally bad weekend. Saudi Iran Qatar are all pouring petrol on the fire in their own collective neighbourhood. They are getting no shortage of help from the West. When will countries realise the West is deliberately promoting these civil wars and simply say NO. Where the hell are the DUP when you need them?ReplyDelete
You now justify ISIS because, according to you, I support the MSM and I am Islamophobic. Let me be very clear, I think ISIS should be wiped out of existence.
Neither I nor Daithi D have said anything in defence or support of US or Brit foreign policy. In fact I have repeatedly said their actions contribute to the growth of ISIS.
It's funny that you should refer to Holocaust denial. That is an apt description for you given the Holocaust/genocidal war and crimes against humanity your friends in ISIS are conducting.
If ISIS were only responding to US/Brit invaders and their allies in the Middle east then I would probably agree with you. Yes Brit/US involvement in the Middle East contributes to ISIS but the common thread between all of ISIS victims is derived from ISIS adherence to Islam -even where the victims have no direct or indirect link with the Brits/US. Thus you might be placing too much emphasis on anything other than religion not being the prime motivating factor. Islam is historically known for its fanatics and suicide bombers -even its use of children as bombers or as targets.
ISIS is not only responding to Western Foreign Policy. Ideologically it is not a body spurred on by opposition to repression. It is a theocratic fascist phenomenon. It (or something similar) would exist without the West. Yet, we are faced with trying to ascertain what propels it with such force. Religion doesn't look to me to have anywhere near the explanatory power of Western Foreign policy.
As for ISIS adherence to Islam, it is an adherence to an interpretation of Islam not shared by the bulk of Muslims. The most radical influence in Jihadi thought, Sayyid Qutb, was not promoting suicide bombings and attacks on civilians. He was handed If you look over the course of his life, you find he started out as a nationalist in opposition to the British, then a secularist before settling into Sunni Islam. His thinking at all stages of his life was shaped by factors external to Islam. He was a theocratic fascist many of whose intellectual insights made it out of the Sunni world and into Shia. Nevertheless, we find with ISIS their own interpretation of Islam.
This is what complicates asserting that Islam has done this that and the other.
I do not know how prevalent it is exactly but it is relatively common with suicide bombers that their previous life was lived in sin so to speak. I can't help but wonder if those converting, or returning lost sheep, to Islam are made to feel a sense of having to prove themselves to be more devout to make up for lost time and that plays into their extremism.
Western foreign policy is one thing but it cannot be overlooked that Muslims often have a general contempt or disrespect for Western freedoms and our 'immoral values'. I have lived with Muslims and every time they saw a white woman speaking or laughing in male company they would ask me "Is she a prostitute?". And because we live this perceived life of debauchery they think we are of weak character. This judgemental superiority probably encourages them to believe that they can win their holy war and no doubt spurs on jihadist recruits.
If Islamists were fighting a liberation struggle then attacks on legitimate targets in the west might make sense. If western foreign policy was taken out of the mix in the Middle East Islamists would still be Islamists and their objectives would still be the same. And if they were capable of generating the same momentum for the Caliphate then there is nothing to say that their recruitment levels would fall away or Peter out.
Now you are in favour of a 'final solution' policy in the region. Dear oh dear. Be careful you don't 'take out' Daithi D in his wee head scarf while implementing it. I think you should get yerself out there and apply Cathal Goulding's logic of 1969, and talk to those people. Dialogue is the only 'final solution' Keep us posted on yer progress.
As for ISIS adherence to Islam, it is an adherence to an interpretation of Islam not shared by the bulk of Muslims.ReplyDelete
AM, the more you look into very real objections about IS from Muslims, you will understand they do not object in principle to their actions, just whether IS are the legitimate realisation of doctrine to execute it. They dont object in principle to a Caliph ruling by Sharia, just that Baghdadi isnt their choice for Caliph. Their definition of innocent is very different to what we assume they mean. Always remember we are in dar al Harb (House of War) and not dar al Islam (House of Islam) as such there are no innocents to them. You deconstructed Adams and the Provos so well yet this ruse evades you still?
We often hear IS arent Muslim, they kill Muslims. If thats the case, and given the schism at the heart of the Shia and Sunni split, pray tell us Imams, which are the heretics and which are the Muslims out of these two?
Sorry to double post, just to add something if it really is a numbers game : the GFA and partitionist institutions that followed from it,are then a continuation of Republicanism because Adams and MMG said it was, and most of the support base agreed with that analysis. We must disreguard precedent and arrive at the true expression of Republicanism by observing the herd.ReplyDelete
that is not my experience. I hear Muslims all the time criticising ISIS actions: unequivocally opposed to their killings.
The degree to which most Muslims concern themselves with issues of Caliphates is probably the same as Catholics who think the teaching of Rome should take primacy over all other laws.
It seems to me a fallacy to suggest that Muslims in general don't have a view that a child is innocent and therefore can be killed by some religious authority.
If we treated all Catholics by how we see priests we would have a very dim view of them and argue that because they are Catholics they subscribe to all the bonkers teaching of the Church: no condoms; no abortions; no divorce; women are inferior.
it is not only some Muslims who have a contempt for Western values. The Catholic Church has a contempt for the same values and have tried to maintain the stance that canon law for example should have some status over and above that of a golf club; that child abuse can be covered up because canon law is not accountable to the civil law. All religious snobs look down their nose at people who don't live the way they want them to. The pro life crowd who turn out in their thousands seem as bad as the Muslims you point to.
Frankie paints a very different picture of the local Taliban in Paris as he calls them: into all sorts of rackets, brothels. I believe Marayam Namazie is right when she emphasises the internal differentiation of Islam and the need to avoid falling for the ruse that there is one Muslim community and it is the one political Islam tries to imagine.
Islamicists will always be there and always have: it is the junctures at which they flourish which probably revealmore about their capacity than religious belief.
AM,doesnt the fact they slice the genitals off pre pubescent girls tell you they have a different view on which age a child be to must submit to God?ReplyDelete
how many of them do this? Is it specifically Islamic or cultural?
There are Jewish Rabbis who circumcise children with their teeth. We can't say that it is widespread feature of the Jewish religion.
All the Christian Churches have their contempt for the unfaithful and that is more institutionalized than gangs of males feel they can act on it. The pro life crowd can be obnoxious just like some Muslims can be but I am talking at that different level. We have seen the prevalence of Muslims gangs to view non-Muslim women as loose or available -as was highlighted during the riots in Australia a few years ago, Germany New Year, or as the Rochdale pedophile rings operated targeting non-muslim children. And yes Christians abuse children but Islam still allows for FGM and children to be subjected to arranged marriages, or even worse where a rapist can avoid going to jail if he marries his victim.
I know you try to be balanced but Islam and Christianity are not like for like by a long shot. I know you have tried to be fair with that ISIS Jihadi groupie Larry Hughes, whom I presume to still have a christian background of some sort so he is a prime example of a non-Muslim with contempt. As a non-Muslim he shares ISIS view that children are legitimate targets for shooting, blowing up, beheading or forced into sexual slavery to be converted to Islam by being raped by 11 Muslims -or any other form of barbarity I have missed that ISIS can think up.
AM, stats are all estimates as its a clandestine practice for it is supposedly illegal in the UK. There was something like 6 hospital wards in London alone edicated to dealing with the medical consequences for girls that have had this mutilation, but not one court prosecution of the parents that inflict this. Ive even seen progressives defend the practice because if a girl doesnt have it done where it is a religious/cultural norm, it could lead to her ostricisation within that community. Every single thing that progressives claim to defend should have an asterisk next to them to clarify the exemptions for which the universal rights for some women living in the West are not entitled to. Is it cultural or religious? Do we only ask this when its a negative? Is there ever debate as to whether early medicine an Islamic gift or an Semetic/Arabic practice?ReplyDelete
Religious practices can become traditional or cultural. I think Jewish male circumcision should be outlawed as barbaric but it is generally viewed much less severe or debilitating than female circumcision which some forms are internationally recognized as torture. Holding the evils of other religions up as a comparison to Islam is more a dilution of the argument rather that an argument of like for like equals.
it is not something restricted to the UK or the modern era. Does Islam demand that it be done? You place great emphasis on the texts so I imagine that would be important to establish?
There is also evidence that it has been practiced by some Jewish believers.
It is disgraceful that no prosecutions arise but let's not cloud the issue with that. I have seen no progressives defend it but it would not surprise me that some SWP types might well do so. It is an abominable practice. Just as circumcision by Rabbi teeth is but when New York authorities moved against it on health grounds there was uproar.
Is it cultural or religious is asked because for your point to have any relevance you need to show that it is religious rather than the product of some cultural practice.
We need to get rid of all vile religious practices: no priests have been charged with the thwarting of condoms reaching Africa or lying about the effect of condoms in preventing AIDS.
there was a precedent case where FGM can be done medically in the UK. The test case involved UK doctors carrying out a procedure that reversed the effect of FGM. An Imam was allowed to be present during the operation to ensure that when it was done the UK doctors would then restore the FGM process. I think it involved permanent stitches that are to be left in place over the clitoris?
gang rape is not something introduced to Western culture by Muslims. The Muslims involved in those attacks make up a very tiny minority of Muslims.
Does Islam permit FGM or do some people who happen to be Muslims practice it?
I think it is hard to find an example of religious evil to compete with the Catholic Church prohibition on condoms as an AIDS preventative in Africa. So I don't buy into the notion that Christianity is somehow civilised and Islam is barbaric. A discussed here before, secularism needs to do with Islam what it did with Christianity. Had it not have happened with Christianity we would still be getting burned.
While I think Larry is wrong I don't think your characterisation of him is accurate. I see nothing where he has even remotely hinted that children should be raped.
fair point on the condoms in Africa.
Jihadi Larry has defended ISIS without fault -he has never specifically defended burning POW's in cages or chains either but there is no reason he would not think that a legitimate pasttime -especially if they are pilots --if ISIS do it it must be legitimate. I have come to see the guy as a real despicable scumbag who justifies ISIS crimes against humanity and genocide -a Nazi collaborator so to speak.
Islam does permit and practice FGM and some regions practice differing forms of it -just not all Muslims adhere to it.
AM, yes its in an Abu Muslim Hadith (elsewhere its condoned wheres its not commanded), though at the time I read these type of things, it didn’t leap out of the page to me like other worrying things. However, explicit mentions in the text was not considered an authoritative measure elsewhere in this discussion, you yourself suggested empirical observation to determine Islamic practice. There are several other layers to that type of thinking people like me and Christy come up against :ReplyDelete
1) Outright denial of its Islamic reference
2) Admittance It appears to be in there but its mistranslated from Arabic
3) Admittance its in Islamic teachings but its been taken out of context
4) Admittance its not out of context but its no different to problematic verses in OT for example
5) Called Islamophobe ( or such like) for pointing the problem text out
I identified immediately that Mr Walsh decides in his own head what people advocate and ploughs on in there ranting about it as though it were everyone else's reality too. That is why I don't engage in serious debate with him. He has a mental condition of some sort which I am not qualified to dignose. He is best not taken serious at all, or simply left alone as I suggested to Frankie. His latest sample of deciding on my behalf what I support or advocate is beyond all reason. But that is him.
Christy, I never knew that FGM story, how on earth Islam can claim its the victim in such horror angers me. I wonder if there is a procedure to re-attach even a single moral bone back into Larry 'Saddam' Hughessein's body? Maybe he prefers being a dancing bacha bazi for swarthy men.ReplyDelete
Larry Jihadi HughesReplyDelete
You condone ISIS atrocities, including deliberately targeting children, and you express your sympathy for ISIS as the victims. You have claimed that Islam is a peaceful and innocent religion. You do not qualify that claim by saying ISIS does not represent Islam which is consistent with your view that ISIS are the poor victims.
What you really seem to dislike is when I refer to ISIS atrocities as genocide and crimes against humanity. And I suspect maybe you did not like being likened to a Nazi collaborator. I only did that after you raised the idea of Holocaust denial which I thought very appropriately summed Your consistent defence of ISIS and it atrocities up.
I would have YOU of all people would be disinclined to sling about fanciful accusations regarding anyone else. Someone suggested you also seemingly have a law degree... the mind boggles even more!!
I doubt at this point that anybody is benefiting from the above three way tirade.ReplyDelete
The doctor and the Iman should both be prosecuted.ReplyDelete
This vile practice should be approached as we would hand amputation.
I think it is much too great an inference. Larry has made intemperate comments which annoy or repel people because they are seen as callous. But there is nothing in his comments that lends itself to the burning of prisoners or the rape of children.
George Carlin once quipped about ISIS beheading people and made specific reference to some mercenary contractor from Oklahoma: he said something to the effect of "Fuck him. Stay in Oklahoma. They don't chop heads off there."
I think Carlin's point was more a facetious way of undermining Western foreign policy and less one of supporting head chopping.
The Catholic evil associated with the African AIDS situation fortunately is not a perspective shared by all practicing Catholics.
Other religions must be held up as a comparison to Islam. The critique of Islam is often made from the perspective of other religions. DaithiD would criticise Islam frequently for the very things that his religion approved. His god was a genocidal tyrant but this never featured in his commentary, just the Islamic god. The Passover blazed the trial for genocide against children.
That leads us to ask the question do people really oppose these things or only oppose them if they can blame it on another religion.
Which then leads us to religion, not Islam per se, being the problem.
Circumcision for no medical purposes is cruel but not in my view barbaric like FGM is. But religion is cruel and invariably produces cruel people in the image of their cruel god. We are even reading about homeless people rushing to help the victims of the Manchester attack: people with nothing. Yet this cruel Christian god sits scratching his bollix refusing to intervene to save children from the diseases he creates.
If people are serious about stopping religious murder, they need to focus on religion per se and not just Islam.
just pulled from the web is by a campaigning group opposed to FGM holds that the problem is wider than Islam. In Islam, also, it is hotly contested: even the very hadith that DaithiD refers to is the subject of contested interpretation.
My knowledge of Larry Hughes sympathy for ISIS arose from his comments about the Manchester Bomber and his view that children are legitimate retaliatory war fodder for ISIS. I otherwise know nothing about him or her or even if Larry Hughes is his real name or not (which is irrelevant).
I was pretty straight up with him about how I was perceiving him. He has maintained his support for ISIS and their targeting of children throughout. His view is that ISIS are only a reactionary part of what he describes as an innocent religion. I asked him where his sympathy for ISIS stops. I asked if he thought the Manchester Bomber was the only member of ISIS he thought was a victim? or did he think the same about Jihadi John who had a similar UK background? or did he think all ISIS members are victims? I tried to discover where he drew the line on them ethically and morally. He has a lot to say but he choose to avoid answering if he had any reservation about ISIS atrocities.
One can only assume from his uncritical sympathy for ISIS that he has no problem with them at all and that reasonably includes the sadistic forms of evil they inflict on their victims be that adult or child alike. If he does not draw a line on his sympathy for what ISIS do then why should I? Why should he not be confronted on the crap he thinks about ISIS and innocent children being legitimate targets in their own right? Why should he not be confronted about ISIS genocide and crimes against humanity and his sympathy for them?
When he gets into difficulty he resorts to personal insults and a lot of diversion to deflect from the consequences of his position. If he wants to defend ISIS scumbags then he can hardly complain if criticism of ISIS barbarity rubs off onto him.
Whoever Larry Hughes is I see him as a real low life simply from my engagement with him.
I don't see him as having much sympathy with ISIS. What I do see is a very worrying hatred of English people and a lack of empathy with the victims of ISIS because they are English. I have had this out with him previously, finding his position at best contradictory.
It seems the entire discussion has descended into personal abuse and not just from him. I think by this point nobody is learning anything. Which is regrettable because the type of issues raised need discussed rather than diverted or deflected into name calling.
He is hardly alone in thinking Islam is an innocent religion in terms of it not being culpable of what ISIS does. Right or wrong, it is legitimate to pursue that line of reasoning.
I don't think we can "only assume" at all. I don't assume from what he has said that he is an ISIS fan. It is more useful to demonstrate than assume.
He should be confronted. I have heard nobody argue otherwise. He should also be called out when he evades the question. But he should be confronted on the demonstrable views expressed by him rather than what views others ascribe to him on grounds that seem at best tenuous. There is nothing in his comments that suggest he supports rape and torture.
Larry, I had deliberately notified AM I would put up some stuff to get you defensive, I think you mastered the direction of this thread, you subverted the articles main points too. No hard feelings, I think that takes skill. Ignore the overly personal stuff Ive said on here, I dont mean it, it was said to stall your momentum.ReplyDelete
Christy, Incase you hadnt come across Larry before on here, he is generally provocative, and enjoys the cut and thrust that arises from it. My big fear in this was he was winding us up, he never actually addressed the points in the thread, or the comment I pasted that proved it, so I think he was having one big laugh getting us to dance to his tune. But as I said, his provocative comments usually make me laugh out loud (his security jobs for the boys angle for Prods in the North is searing and funny) so I wouldnt want him to change. There we are , cards on the table.ReplyDelete
A couple of points of clarification. I do not hate English people. I grew up amongst them until I was 9 years old. I do see a distinct difference between the general English public who are the salt of the earth and government foreign policy. Simple as that. I also refuse to play along with the MSM and its carpet propaganda. As area a lot of people generally. Thelatest election there I belive demonstrated that. The Tunisia issue to me was akin to Rangers or Celtic fans deliberately entering a rival supporters pub with a swagger after a neighbouring one had already been smashed up recently. INSANE. My contempt for their not giving in to terror resulted in my slap it up them attitude. I maintain it.
I have never stated those at the concert deserved what happened to them. In having empathy/pitty with the bomber as well as the victims it is because I believe his head had been fried beyond all reason by events in his young life. Surely we have seen enough of that here in our recent past? Thankfully many here got the chance to reflect on past mistakes. Young suicide bombers don't get that chance. To my mind suicide bombers unlike our LGBT friends and neighbours are not born, they are a creation of socialisation. It is ALL very sad, not to mention unecessary. Unfortunately it is profitable for UK/USA to continue creating anger and conflict.
Christy Walsh was unable to spot the difference in an attempt on my part to rationalise motivation rather than roll over and be fed what to think and belive by a discredited MSM. He took it upon himself to decide what and whom I suported. That is why I refused to engage seriously any futher with him. It's a road to no-town.
As for his other toxic slanders (inventions) ... I REST MY CASE.
I initially thought it was deep rooted hatred for the brits but for the reasons I have said I started seeing more a mix of his defense of ISIS and reluctance to be critical of ISIS or Islam.
If Larry thinks it is legitimate for ISIS to kill children, AND, he views ISIS members as victims, AND, he is hostile to criticism of ISIS and its tactics, then one can logically conclude that that Larry does not have a problem with ISIS and its tactics. So my use of 'only assume' was misplaced but my conclusion reasonable.
If I consistently argued in defense of the KKK you could assume that I am a racist. But if I go further and thought KKK acts of violence against Blacks was legitimate then you could definitively conclude that I must be a racist. If, when challenged, I remain silent about various KKK tactics which include raping or torturing black women and children I could not really complain if people see my decision to remain silent as indirect or tacit approval of rape and torture as part an parcel of all KKK acts of violence -especially if there was previous history of defending the murder of black children.
Ultimately, we could be splitting hairs; if Larry thinks children are legitimate targets because of his hatred of the Brits or his love of ISIS, or, a mix of both -is one option really a lesser evil?
Gotcha! I figured you couldn't take a taste of your own medicine why do you think I switched to doing the same as you -you are quick and ready with the personal insults but you can't take them...
I am not at all convinced that you don’t have a hatred of English people. The gleeful manner in which you expressed satisfaction at what happened to English holiday makers has yet to be explained in a manner that would seem something other than hateful. If you see a distinct difference between government foreign policy and the English public you never expressed it in your comments of having little or no sympathy for the victims of the Manchester attack. “People can slate me or unfriend me all they like but there will be no Union Jack going on my FB in empathy with Manchester.”
You still maintain a slap it up them attitude to those murdered in Tunisia for no reason other than they were holiday makers.
Nor are you standing up to the MSM. The murder of children is unequivocally wrong. Most people can work that out for themselves without reference to the MSM. What you ty to do is pretend that your critics are bamboozled by the MSM and you are not. That is hardly plausible.
You didn’t state that those at the concert deserved what happened to them, but you found it hard to work up any sympathy because of what their government did: failing to draw the distinction between the salt of the earth and foreign policy. The bomber was a mass murderer who targeted the innocent including children. Fuck him. He had choices. He was hardly oblivious to the existence of military bases but opted not to go near them and concentrate on places with kids instead.
Christy was inaccurate in his observations of you but at the same time made many valid criticisms of your position. By the time Christy got personal the debate had descended into a bad tempered spat. But his failing with you lay not in his inability to identify that you were refusing to roll over. As DaithiD pointed out you evaded serious questions, resorted to name calling and were basically hauled under protest to a position of expressing empathy with the victims. It sounded anything but genuine.
I have seen his name before and may have even responded to him but nothing significant that I ever remembered him.
Thinking innocent children are legitimate targets in any sort of conflict is awful but if he does so as you may be suggesting because he "enjoys the cut and thrust that arises from it" would leave no room for mistake about his character.
You have pretty much captured the essence of the whole topic including where I began to get bad tempered. I don't mean to sound patronizing but I wish I had your flare as a wordsmith it is enviable.
"I doubt at this point that anybody is benefiting from the above three way tirade"
Not at all, it's illuminating to see people's anger as it's usually when they are most honest.
The point you make about the bomber targeting kids and ignoring military bases is a good one though. Obviously the attack on children is provocative of emotion more than anything else. It was obviously a sentient act on behalf of the young religious zealot. But murder is murder.
Would any of us had felt differently about this young man if he had targeted a financial center? Arguably we would have less sympathy if Bankers were victims. A point could be made that this would have been part of an effective strategy to curtail Western interest in the ME.
The fact that the young jihadi went for the softest target for maximum effect is probably more due to sheer anger and frustration on his part. Hatred is most potent when justified by religion.
I caught a bit of the news down here, about a Dublin Muslim convert who was saying there are around 150 jihadis in Ireland and it's only a matter of time before they strike somewhere there.
In the hypothetical, I wonder what the reaction of you would be then if the victims were Irish and not English?
A saw a poster the other day that made the point that in countries where Muslims are few there is little trouble, when they get a bit more numbers behind them it's 'Special consideration must be given to Islam' and in Muslim majority countries there 'Are NO minority rights'. I suspect that is not 100% but not far wrong either.
As for bleating on that Islam is a peaceful religion Larry, well that's not entirely accurate. I am an Atheist but have a look at the numbers in this article about Muslims having a barney with the God Squads worldwide.
I read recently that when the Borough Market attackers killed the Austrailian girl they shouted "this is for the life you chose to lead" before cutting her throat. No mention of western foreign policy. I am not saying that western foreign policy isn't a factor but it is not the prime motivator in my opinion. Most of the home grown jihadis are criminal lowlifes who have been radicalised and become pious. An excellent article in the Guardian last week cited a report that said very few jihadis were pious from childhood. The author said that rather than blaming the radiclisation of Islam we should blame the islamisation of radicalism.
As for Larry, I think he is to be pitied rather than vilified. He thinks he's all that, being controversial etc but you can see his character through his comments and the level of personal abuse and trolling he likes to dish out. Best to ignore the sad sack.
“People can slate me or unfriend me all they like but there will be no Union Jack going on my FB in empathy with Manchester.”
'You still maintain a slap it up them attitude to those murdered in Tunisia for no reason other than they were holiday makers'.
Now you are in bed with Walsh. Pathetic.
The Union Jack will not be going on my Facebook after any terror event as the French flag didn't after Charlie Hebdo. We might as well wave them over the dead in Syria and gloat as do that. That shit is brain dead sheep nonsense. As for 'holiday makers' Why did they not go to Skegness or Benidorn and swager about telling people they wont give in to terrorism? Maybe those who don't want to give in to terrorism should charter a few flights to Iraq or the Pakistan tribal areas this year and shout their superior mouths off there? As for hating the English... wise up. Are you suggesting we should feel the same about the BNP or UKIP as we do for Moris Dancers or Kelly Brook? Do you feel the same about all Irish people? You must see everyone as uniform. Maybe you have been reading too much Marx or something superdooper PC again.
Absolutely correct, once I realised Walsh was a fuktard asshole I never even read his comments in full. Generally skip past them now. He's a retard. As for the craic there's never any grudge. But I'm not wasting my time with pea brain. He isn't even funny. Although how he managed to get himself 15 years in jail for a coffee jar was side splitting funny. What a numpty. Then he couldn't even do his whack. Christ help those recieving his cry baby letters at Stormont.
I just lobbed the 'peaceful' religion bit in there to antagonise the mental deformity Walsh. In a previous thread some time ago I was slated for suggesting when Ireland gets its taste of Islamic terror it will be the Irish governments fault because of rendition and USA assistance out of Shannon. It wont be because we are a nation of drunkards and money mad wasters. I wont feel those on the recieving end are any more deserving than those in Manchester but I wont be tripping over myself playing along with the MSM here either and letting the government off the hook.
Now you are in bed with Walsh. Pathetic.ReplyDelete
Big hat no cattle never cuts the mustard Larry. You should know that by now. There are few more experienced than ourselves when dealing with the blowhard.
It was never about the flag going on Facebook. You were told that at the time and evaded dealing with it.
Those people who the theocrats murdered and of whom you said slap it up them, who among them were strutting around saying they would not give into terrorism?
There is nothing new in my comments about your hate filled rants. I have told you about it before. It takes a particular sort of hatred to proclaim that they can work up no sympathy for the innocent victims of murder.
What flights were the children of Manchester chartering and towards whom you displayed little difference in terms of attitude? You even tried to blame the MSM at one point for mentioning the fact that children were targeted; suggested that Sandy Hook and Dunblane were genuine attacks on children in a way that Manchester was not but evaded it once it was pointed out to you that adults were also included in those attacks.
As DaithiD points out Christy was quoting you verbatim. You evaded that as well.
I The Union Jack will not be going on my Facebook after any terror event as the French flag didn't after Charlie Hebdo. We might as well wave them over the dead in Syria and gloat as do that. That shit is brain dead sheep nonsense. As for 'holiday makers' Why did they not go to Skegness or Benidorn and swager about telling people they wont give in to terrorism? Maybe those who don't want to give in to terrorism should charter a few flights to Iraq or the Pakistan tribal areas this year and shout their superior mouths off there?
I don’t feel the same about all Irish people or Chinese people. But I feel the same in respect of each one of them that they there is no theocratic fascist right to kill them. The BNP and their children have as much right not to be killed by the fascists as the Morris Dancers or Kelly Brook, whoever she is. Or do you think different?
I won’t be gleefully proclaiming “slap it up them.”
People don’t need to read Marx to spot the hate filled.
I think the fire in Kensington was an awful heartbreaking event. My thoughts and prayers are with all those unfortunate people involved and affected by it. No foreign policy mass murder connection to that.
Maybe as an expert in dodgy apartment construction you could give us your thoughts on what went wrong?
Obviously regarding Tunisia you don't watch the news, most of the survivors were saying 'we wont give in to terrorism'. Selective viewing Mackers? Just like Walsh, the only man ever railroaded on dodgy evidence in the history of norn iron and who laid waste to an entire Brazilian rain forest writing letters to 'prove' it. Should make a movie on that one, how to get 15 years in jail for a cup of coffee staring Mr Bean.
You lads ignore foreign policy and wave the fleg. I chose not to.
Now you are in bed with Walsh. Pathetic.
Big hat no cattle never cuts the mustard Larry. You should know that by now. There are few more experienced than ourselves when dealing with the blowhard.
It was never about the flag going on Facebook. It was an aunt sally because none of us speaking out against the fascism in Manchester were talking about Union Jacks. You were told that at the time and evaded dealing with it.
Those people who the theocrats murdered and of whom you said slap it up them, who among them were strutting around saying they would not give into terrorism? Was Lorna Carty, the Irish nurse, doing that? Or was she exempt from the “slap it up them” comment? But on what grounds? That she was Irish and you only meant it about the English?
There is nothing new in my comments about your hate filled discourse. I have told you about it before on a number of occasions, whether it is directed against gays, women or the victims of theocrats. Hatred does seem to be the common theme. And it takes a particular sort of hatred to proclaim that they can work up no sympathy for the innocent victims of murder.
Perhaps you don’t hate them at all but really love them and just have a problem expressing yourself. I just doubt that many will think that plausible.
What flights were the children of Manchester chartering and towards whom you displayed little difference in terms of attitude? You even tried to blame the MSM at one point for mentioning the fact that children were targeted; suggested that Sandy Hook and Dunblane were genuine attacks on children in a way that Manchester was not but evaded it once it was pointed out to you that adults were also included in those attacks.
As DaithiD points out Christy was quoting you verbatim. You evaded that as well.
I don’t feel the same about all Irish people or English people. But I feel the same in respect of each one of them that they there is no theocratic fascist right to kill them. The BNP and their children have as much right not to be killed by the fascists as the Morris Dancers or Kelly Brook, whoever she is. Much as I feel about the victims of Bloody Sunday and Kingsmill. Each had the same right not to be slaughtered. Or do you think different?
Whatever differentiation I draw among them, it doesn’t prompt me to gleefully proclaim “slap it up them” when the fascists murder them.
People don’t need to read Marx to spot the hate filled. Hatred was never much good at the art of camouflage: it enjoys the knowledge that the targets of hate are aware they are being hated. But if that is what floats your boat, then vent it all you want. But don't duck the challenge and portray yourself as this lonely voice against the MSM when it is put up to you.
Christy Walsh was quoting me directly was he that I condone mass child rape, beheadings and Islamic jihad? WOW the Quill really has taken a nose dive into the gutter in its attempt to be a gullible MSM bandwagon blog and UK foreign policy sucker-upper??? lolReplyDelete
My best friend here is English and like myself while disgusted at Manchester he too lays blame at the door of the foreign office. As for those in Tunisia, I don't go to Mindanao when in the Philippines, I don't feel superior arrogant nor entitled enough. I HATE UK/USA global criminality and their cynical media. I give you that. I pitty their pathetic facilitators and hangers on masquerading as something else.
yer developing a bad stutter there, what were you told about hanging out with Bobby Storey!!
"I read recently that when the Borough Market attackers killed the Austrailian girl they shouted "this is for the life you chose to lead" before cutting her throat. No mention of western foreign policy. I am not saying that western foreign policy isn't a factor but it is not the prime motivator in my opinion."ReplyDelete
Don't believe all you read. There are strong suspicions Choudray,Abu Qatata and Abu Hamza(so called hate preachers)were or are working for Brit intelligence. In fact, after Hamza went through a drawn out affair and well publicised battle not to get extradited to the US he claimed, in a New York court that he worked for mi6. Qatata with the help of the media whipped up so much public outrage of the EU human rights laws due to the alleged claim that the Brit govt couldn't deport him back to Tunisia as their hands were tied by EU red tape. I.e Qatata claimed his life was in danger if he was deported........after another drawn out affair he was eventually deported and tried for various terror acts. However his fears of ill treatment by Tunisia were misguided as they acquitted him.
We also have another so called hate preacher on social media going by the name Hamza Siddiq who is dutifully whipping up outrage by doing what the others above did I.e condemn the west blah blah. Some would know him by his Christian name-Andrew Calladine. Yes this clown is a Christian born and bred in scotland, grew a beard and now claims to be a Moslem. I would put money on it he's a Brit agent and is simply pushing the intel agenda.
These so called hate preachers are preaching their hate and the Brit state apparently can't touch them? And yet we in Ireland have witnessed 'threats to the state' being swiftly jailed and detained indefinitely for 'inciting' or whatever? Go figure. The Brits don't want these hate preachers people apprehended as they benefit the Brit state agenda. The people who fall for the Brit state narrative that molems hate us and our way of life are the same people who believe that McGurks bar was an o.g by the IRA or that the shankill butchers were just a bundle of psychos. Or that Bloody Sunday and ballymurphy were carried out simply by rogue or mistaken soldiers. All wasn't all what it seemed in Ireland and you can be sure all is not what it seems with ISIS attacks in Europe in the present day.
We often heard commentators claim there was a war for the "hearts and minds" in n.ireland; same thing is taking place in Britain. And the state is winning, hands down,the "hearts and minds" of British folk. So much so that the Brit state, rather than pull back from interfering in foreign countries(that the public were demanding before and after Iraq), their winning of hearts and minds allows them to continue their foreign policy.........I.e the public have been suitably softened and bent to agree with Brit foreign policy. Job done. Divide and conquer. It's ironic that Irish people can't see through this game despite being on the receiving end of it themselves?
The inability to self-regulate behaviour or passion is an unfortunate affliction ... does it arise from a lack of maturity and stunted development?ReplyDelete
I have no sympathy with UK government and its foreign policy. Attacks will continue as a result of it. I never said manchester victims were either deserving of what happened or that they wouldn't give into terrorism. Making the connection of cause and effect does not make me an ISIS supporter it simply proves I am not a UK governemt gymp.ReplyDelete
Hate is an awful thing to level at someone for a different viewpoint. BUT sure i will always love YOU Mackers, we are twins after all.
Never heard of Kelly Brook... really? You need to get yer head out of LGBT mags for ten minutes.
it is heartening to see that you think the fire victims deserve your thoughts and prayers. More so or less so than the equally innocent victims in Manchester?
Having self-taught fire safety knowledge (with the concomitant risks that go with self teaching) in my view what went wrong in Kensington is simple: non fire retardant plastic cladding on the outside and insufficient fire stopping on the inside. Caused by a combination of greed and authorities probably permitting self regulation.
Christy cited you verbatim in a number of respects. You evaded him.
People make the accusation all the time that the Quill has gone down into the gutter when it allows you to contribute hatred. But we are okay with that criticism. It is important to facilitate different views and that often includes hatred. So we allow you to have your say while trying to encourage you to dilute your hatred. We have failed thus far but that is no reason to prevent you. The fact that you fail to answer the questions put to you by Christy is instructive.
What lads ignore foreign policy? None that I see on this blog. Some play it down. Nobody ignores it.
But tell us what Lorna Carty did that merits a slap it up her? She couldn't have been running around a beach saying she would not give into terrorism because she was already dead.
The fascist attack was not on people who were running around beaches saying they would not give into terrorism as the running around beaches took place after the attack. You didn't criticise them for that at the time, just took a perverse pleasure in the fatalities inflicted on them.
MSM has offered an unconditional apology to Arlene Foster and her husband. It had been widely reported that they had purchased hundreds of acres of land to plant trees to supply wood for pellets for the 'cash for ash scheme'. It has now come to light the trees were in fact to provide writing paper for ' I can't do a fucking minute' - FREE THE BELFAST 1 - Chritsy Walsh's endless letters to Stormont.ReplyDelete
Don't go to conflict zones on yer ollydayz....simples init? What's to debate? Because i say foreign policy is responsible i am advocating mass child rape? Quite a jump. Not worth debating.ReplyDelete
Was there any difference to your mind between the fire in Kensington and the attack in Manchester? If so, what exactly? It seems to me you lads are desperate to see no difference. Although you seem to quickly identify causes for the fire but refuse to do likewise re Manchester. Confused.ieReplyDelete
Your credibility is in tatters.
You accuse AM of being in league with me in some way? AM has openly stated that he does not agree with me entirely and defended you against some of my comments. Further, you are attacking his well known ability to form his own views even in the face of being horrendously vilified by is own former comrades because he told them that he thought they were/are wrong.
You now find some level of respect for the Diplock system and it's abuses. Unbelievable.
You are the first person ever to accuse me of being unable to do my 'whack'. An allegation that not 1 member of the IRA or INLA who ever shared a cell with me would agree with. They might have their complaints about me but not that. My prison charge sheets and numerous spells in solitary confinement are now badges of honour. From my arrest to the present I have refused to be criminalised and even my enemies would not dispute that.
You now attempt to claim that your comments were really intended in jest and I simply missed the joke. Not one of those children, or adults, had been buried when you cracked whatever provocative comments you thought were funny. That is inconceivable. I can't in any way get my head around that at all. You are simply trying to defend the indefensible.
it might be good advice not to go to conflict zones. What was the conflict in Tunisia at the time?
You are not advocating mass child rape. But you were not cited verbatim on that. Address the issues you were cited verbatim on.
How does Lorna Carty deserve what she got as implied by slap it up the victims?
It cannot be that hard to answer.
Correction: not because you say foreign policy is responsible but because when I asked what level of atrocity by ISIS would you disagree with, you avoided answering. So are you know saying your sympathy for ISIS stops at rape? or, are you only trying to save face because you now know that you do not look that good in others eyes? Perhaps we will never know the truth about you on that at this stage.
was there a difference between the attack in Manchester and the fire in London?
A huge difference.
One was mass murder by a fascist.
The other was mass manslaughter by criminal negligence.
There is no confusion on my part about the causes of Manchester. Just your own confusion when reading reasoned responses to the points you make. A theocratic fascist set out to murder children and their parents. His theocratic fascism was undoubtedly moulded by Foreign Policy decisions. I don't think Christy or DaithiD are right in their emphasis and think you are right. But that does not justify the gleeful expressions in response to people being butchered.
Theocratic fascist? Did you know him? As I staed before when in Philippines I don't go to Mindanao. N. Africa is in EU instgated chaos and Tunisia supplies more Islamic terrorists to ISIS than anywhere else. Lorna Carty was very VERY silly indeed. That is not my responsibility. Anyone shouting we wont give in to terrorism in a Muslim country in a region their government has deliberately ruined deserves all they get. Lorna was just stupid or desperate for a very cheap holiday.ReplyDelete
"People make the accusation all the time that the Quill has gone down into the gutter when it allows you to contribute hatred. But we are okay with that criticism. It is important to facilitate different views and that often includes hatred. So we allow you to have your say while trying to encourage you to dilute your hatred. We have failed thus far but that is no reason to prevent you. The fact that you fail to answer the questions put to you by Christy is instructive."
I understand that you don't like censorship but surely some form of modification on your part would help this forum. What Larry said of Christy above is reprehensible and while Christy doesn't need you to defend him from such vitiolic personal abuse I think this site suffers from it. Do you think allowing hatred, often written in the heat of the moment, encourages or hinders people from commenting? So many threads are ruined from bile dished out from the usual suspects.
I didn't have to know him. I don't know Theresa May but she is a Tory.
The Manchester perp was with ISIS - a theocratic fascist organisation.
Did you not know that?
So survivors of the Tunisia massacre proclaim after it that they won't give into terrorism deserve all they get? Does that include being murdered? For what? Saying they won't give into terrorism is hardly the most horrible or crimes.
So, somebody deserves being killed because they were either stupid or desperate for a cheap holiday? Lorna Carty can have it slapped up her for that?
Like I said I don't go to Mindanao or Rangers pubs wearing my Celtic shirt. Why don't you do both and tell me how you got on. If you are going to be fik as phuk, yep ye deserve ALL you get and MORE. Your PC utopia doesn't reign supreme thankfully and most people have the good sense not to live by such fantasy notions unlike in Walsh's own head his musings are king.ReplyDelete
There you are!! lol
Theocratic terrorists are fine fighting for UK/USA against foreign governments, why not OK in Manchester? No surprise to see a UDR hun calling for censorship lol Orange fascists theocratic fascists, whatever next? Good to see Peter slither out of the undergrowth like a born leader lolReplyDelete
if it were not for this type of exchange Larry's perspective would not be exposed for the serious deficiencies that it contains. I think that is important. It might not help Larry if he is unwilling to learn from the experience but it certainly helps others. It is not Christy or DaithiD who has been damaged by the exchange. They have emerged from it quite well. I have taken a pretty detached view of it all, putting it to people when they say something that doesn't add up.
Name calling is best left to the side. But when Larry resorts to personal abuse, it is not Christy who people are judging but Larry himself. If Larry was calling Christy a rapist or accusing him of strangling cats then we would call time. Christy is more than able for that type of abuse. Abuse always exposes the abuser.
Once we start policing people, the site loses much of its edge.
I don't think people are out off, certainly not the old hands. I can see circumstances in which they would be put off. We will deal with that when it occurs.
OK to accuse Larry of being a scum bag isis mass child rape and murder supporter though? hmmm good luck with the impartiality angle. I am unwilling to budge from my position/view that Manchester was the UK governments fault. Harp on all you like ALL OF YOU.ReplyDelete
why is it not ok for theocratic fascists to be fighting in Manchester? Much the same as they should not be fighting anywhere.
Child murder might be good reason that should have leapt out at you.
Are you saying that people deserve murdered for being stupid?
Up until now the PC practitioner has been none other than yourself.
it is not okay to label you a scumbag or a supporter of child rape.
That has already been addressed.
It is not alright for either of you to be calling each other names. But you are adults and if that is how you choose to behave ...
Just out of interest if a young man with a suntan walked onto a school bus in Tel Aviv and killed 22 school children and Larry said the young man who was forced into carrying out attack was a victim of Israels policy towards Palestine, whould there have much off an out cry against Larry?ReplyDelete
It would be basically two young men of the same religion, same all over suntand and both exposed to 'a theocratic fascist organisation. Killing 22 inncoent kids?'
I had to search LC's name to see she was a victim in Tunisia. Its an awful turn to take in a debate, but the biggest danger we all face isnt the theocratic fascists. Its those that intrude on our everyday lives because they think they know better, censorship is one form of this. Ive heard it said that at least robber baron politicians could have their desire for 'things' potentially sated, but those that interfere for our own 'good' will never stop tormenting us under the guise of helping us.ReplyDelete
the hue and cry against Larry is less because of his foreign policy comments which in my view he is spot on about.
let us take Larry out of the discussion for the sake of clarity. A school bus is attacked in Tel Aviv and 22 innocent kids killed. If I observe that the root cause is Israeli policy, most people will not give it a second glance. If I express contempt for the children and sympathy for the bomber then I can expect to be asked to clarify why I said it and to outline my thinking in relation to it.
Unless we are absolutely racist we will balk from the thinking that because children are Jewish that it is alright to exterminate them but not alright to exterminate children because they are British or Irish.
We can't have it every which way. If we hold to a position that children and non combatants should not be the target for killing, then it applies across the board. Context does not mitigate infanticide.
the question of not allowing Larry to have his say has never come up on our part. Peter has expressed the view that he should be muzzled but we don't do it. His views might be offensive but people learn as much if not more from offensive views. And we apply the general principle of no right not to be offended.
AM, I didnt doubt you, but its worth stating the obvious everytime censorship is mentioned because otherwise we have the now daily horrors of whats going on in US campuses awaiting us.Racially segregrated safe spaces and microagression crimes that allow the savage treatment of another because we couldnt bear to be offended (worse still, seeking offence on behalf of another). The perfect way to deal with bad ideas is as Christy has done here : sincere rebuttal.ReplyDelete
After all the points made back and forward and deliberate misrepresenting all I am left wondering about anyone at this stage is... Christy Walsh saidReplyDelete
'You have pretty much captured the essence of the whole topic including where I began to get bad tempered. I don't mean to sound patronizing but I wish I had your flare as a wordsmith it is enviable'.
I'm wondering does Christy spit or swallow.....
If Larry dishes out personal insults he can hardly whinge if he doesn't like the response -he understands the concept of 'cause and effect'. I was being sarcastic by referring to him as Jihadi Larry and would concede that might be going too far but describing him as a scumbag is the opinion that I have formed off him given his callous views about the deliberate intention to kill children.
He has cast his caustic name calling at others and in particular he also focused on Peter and Daithi. So I must ask you if scumbag is unacceptable what unflattering descriptive terms are acceptable? I thought hostile and lurid attack on a person's gender/sexual orientation to be off the scale. And referring to someone being a slithering reptile is on a par with scumbag.
Larry has accused me of supporting Brit foreign policy and MSM those accusations are not contained in an empty vacuum -what he means by them is that I support foreign policy of carpet bombing; bombing attacks that are indiscriminate. Larry has no problem dishing it out but he cannot take it when he is challenged on it.
There is a very important distinction between Larry and I: I do not support Brit foreign policy, whereas, he is sympathetic to ISIS deliberately targeting children. So it is fair point to explore how far his sympathy for ISIS goes, so perhaps he does not support ISIS raping children as sex slaves but he doesn't mind seeing ISIS murdering children as legitimate targets? I actually do not understand why he might think one tactic is wrong but the other is OK.
Larry has never explained the difference so perhaps Anthony if you would consider this if you think know him so well, and if you can, explain to me the distinction which I have in trying to understand how Larry separates between ISIS sexual slavery, or, the mass murder of children? If Larry accepts one but not the other I genuinely cannot grasp what judgment value he applies that legitimatizes one form of ISIS atrocity over the other? I think my questioning Larry on ISIS rape/murder distinction is a fair probing question and not simply an attempt at hurting his delicate feelings because he cant handle being called out on it.
Exactly why I was reluctant to debate with Walsh. Right back to square one. I do not support the murder of children, child rape, the burning of people in cages or anything else he took upon himself to assert that I do. There is no reasoning with him. Dunderhead. I felt and continue to feel sorry for young people whose heads are being fried sufficiently to become a suicide bomber in response to UK foreign policy. Unlike Cherie Blair who I believe commented after a few hours in Gazza that she could understand why someone would become a suicide bomber, only for the MSM and Jewish lobby to force her to retract the sentiment shortly after, I do not retract my comment. I pitty those resorting to suicide bombing. Driven by circumstances, brain washing of one sort or another to commit murder. I do not beleive the Manchester victims deserved their fate. On the other hand if some twat like Walsh went wondering around Mindanao and got beheaded they would have only themselves to blame. As for the bombers, there were plenty of people here locally who have lived through a scenario where they felt sufficiently driven by rage and hatred to commit murder, a scenario on one side where ATAT was the battle cry. Was this not the case? Difficult to rehabilitate the dead. But Walsh isn't interested in survivors he wants to KILL THEM ALL. Recon he missed his calling, the UDA was his team back in the day.
I contend if the UK continues its long established policy of attacking other nations for their interests people will continue to find a way to retaliate. I don't blame them for that. The RC communities in the north vomitted up the provos in response to Orange fascism. What complexion Muslim or other nations resistance/retaliation takes is of little interest to me. But my point is it will continue to emerge from conflict zones and I have little empathy for the UK government and MSM who promote those needless conflicts for profit. The blame for these new attacks in the UK rests firmly with the government.
I really do believe Walsh has a personality disorder, accusing others of what he begins, name calling and misrepresentation, and then continues on with it himself. DUNDERHEAD indeed.
If you lot Walsh yerself Daithi D and UDR Peter are all still in the ladies together having a wee confab, maybe you will get a collective reply to that sorted pronto, thats good girls now ... do it for daddy! Especially you Christy Walsh... your a pro!
I thought scumbag was worse than Jihad Larry - one is banter; the other abuse.
We allow the back and forth up until the point where I get fed up moderating it and no longer look at what comes thru.
Scumbag nor slithering reptile are terms that should feature in a serious intellectual discussion. It produces heat and no light. But Big Boys Rules. If you all want to take the debate in that direction for whatever reason, we will let it go until fatigue finally kills it off.
Larry cannot complain about the personal abuse given that he was at it as well. But the readers can complain if they so choose. Each time people resort to personal abuse, the site is demeaned and debased. It might prove funny to those who like a bun fight but probably not to those who want to understand the issues. We try to draw readers on the basis of the sharpness of the insights the site provides not the sharpness of the insults.
Larry's position makes little sense. His one good point was compromised by the evasions and name calling. Had you managed to refrain from name calling and dealt with his points forensically you would have emerged much further in front than you have. While I disagreed with your emphasis on Islam rather than foreign policy, you nevertheless presented your case much more logically and persuasively than Larry.
You have been very clear that you do not support the foreign policy of the West. Larry has been pulled all over the place and whether he supports the killing of children by ISIS or not (I don't feel he does but just makes a dog's dinner of his reasoning) he has left himself vulnerable to the charge that he does. It was an issue he should have removed all ambiguity from at the start.
You are entitled to explore how far his presumed sympathy for ISIS goes but that is different from stating outright that he supports rape and torture. There is nothing in his comments that allow for that interpretation. In trying to ascertain how far DaithiD is willing to go in supporting the Catholic Church it does not allow me to say he supports the cover up of child abuse. I can ask him if he does. I can't reasonably infer he does.
I don't know him that well but am used to his presence on the site and chat with him off it: I know you better. As his position has been so contradictory it is not possible to say definitively what his views are. He goes to bat at silly point where he is going to get hit with every ball and I think he lashes out when he takes a hit and so the hole gets bigger and bigger. Then it goes into automatic pilot.
It is fair to quiz him on rape/murder distinction but it is not fair to state he supports rape.
In my view he has a hatred of Western foreign policy more than a love of ISIS. That hatred leaves him unable or unwilling to differentiate between governments and citizens. Therefore we find him crisscrossing the terrain making all sorts of errors as he goes. He gets challenged and then has to evade because there is defence he can make that will not invite further probing. That he expresses sympathy or understanding with the ISIS killers, concerns me less than the fact that he shows contempt towards the innocent victims of ISIS whose crime was to be holidaying. Even with society at its worst and the use of capital punishment more frequent, I never recall holidaying as something that led to Death Row.
Doesn't matter to us whether you hurt his feelings or not, or he yours. It goes with the turf and people are going to feel their noses out of joint when their position, argument or character is under siege.
I wasn't advocating silencing anybody. I was implying that you act as a moderator and possibly wait until the poster has cooled down before asking if they want to go ahead with the post. Jihadi Larry among others are ruining threads and your blog is the worse for it.
Allah hu Akbar!!!ReplyDelete
I don't intend to micromanage the comments to that extent.
People do drag the quality of the site down with the nature of their comments.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. That's YOU. Why are you not out in Iraq or Afghanistan shocing and aweing the natives?
Thanks for clarifying that and I regret having expressed myself in that way. I was thinking afterwards about Peter's view and can see where he is coming from because I have noticed in other threads that he has been immediately attacked for his former membership of the Crown forces even when he makes fair comment. It must be very frustrating for him and I respect his and SteveR's comments even if I might not agree with them. So I would not like to see him give up on contributing because I dragged the quality down.
I actually do get a sense that Larry views the mass rape of children in the Middle East by ISIS as being more wrong than their mass murder of children in Manchester. But I dont' know how he figures it's okay for ISIS to murder children but not rape them?
I have actually agreed with Larry to a point on foreign policy cause and effect but he rejects the idea of removing children as legitimate targets. I do not accept anyone who deliberately kills children is ever a victim whether they kill them for political or religious fanaticism. We will never agree on that.
your exchange with Larry has to be seen in the round. It ended up a bad tempered spat. Larry ruined his own case through evasiveness and insults; you had s serious advantage in terms of presentation but you lost a lot of that ground through name calling.
At one level the site can be dragged down by what some commenters may do. What happens in one thread is however not going to do much harm. It is when it becomes a pattern. Unfortunately for Larry has over time established a pattern of behaviour which does drag matters down.
On another level it is only Larry dragged down and the site benefits from allowing him to so because it shows a real weakness in the logic of his position. This is why I think we should never censor the likes of Nick Griffin. Without his participation on a BBC televised debate a few years ago, his argument would not have been damaged as it ended up being.
At the same time another downside is that the right argument (as I see it re foreign policy) is Larry's and I would have hoped that it would have triumphed. Unfortunately, Larry squandered the chance to do so.
In the discussions with Larry, Pete has proven more than capable. I doubt either he or Steve R will be dissuaded.
The site can of course ban abusive comments or move them over to Bates @ Wilkes. We are open to all views on it. We would not in that situation be booting a comment out on the grounds of its ideational content but because of personal abuse.
If Larry does consider it ok to murder children but not rape them, he might well do so on the grounds of many before him that killing is justified in conflict and that no civilian is protected from it, but that rape is not an act of war. The IRA thought it ok to kill Protestant non-combatants during the 74-76 period, but it would not have justified raping them. The point I make is that while killing people is a worse act than raping them, rape has a certain character that no allowance is made for in war (at least the theory of it).
But as he has suggested nothing which would lend itself to a view that he supports rape of children, the whole thing is speculative.
Cynical deliberate misrepresentation from you both. The Quill and your crocodile tears from ex jailbird terrorists here is just funny. Continue with your proxy GB government propaganda.ReplyDelete
Both rape and deliberate targeting of civilians are war crimes and in more serious cases both can amount to genocide. Rape is now recognised as a form of genocide when used as a part of a policy or tactic for ethnic cleansing or religious conversion.
I disagree that Larry was right about foreign policy. He would have been right if ISIS had targeted something military, or certain economic, infrastructural or governmental targets. There is no justification or mitigating circumstances that allows for deliberate targeting of civilians as was done in Manchester. So to use the IRA as an example then yes they at times did commit war crimes but not every time a civilian was killed.
If the overall objective of an attack was focused on a legitimate target then it is not a war crime even if a lot of civilians are also killed as a result. That is the international rules, it is that legal technicality that the US rely on to avoid culpability as war criminals for say a drone strike that takes out 1 Islamist and 30 civilians. But that does not absolve them of moral culpability which does not inhibit them from doing the same thing time and again.
Larry really goes wrong on foreign policy when he goes on about the tragedy of what must be going on in the poor mind of a fanatical killer which he holds up to be a victim and his innocent victims were legitimate targets. Larry cares not a bit that the poor ISIS fanatical victim's mind was missing things like having a conscience, human decency or humanity. ISIS bear a close resemblance to the walking dead where only a head shot will work.
So I am not inclined to agree with your view that Larry had a valid point but for his behaviour. His bad behaviour allowed him to avoid explaining why he thinks children are legitimate targets and how far his sympathy for ISIS atrocities goes? From what you, Peter and Daithi say about him suggests he uses bad behaviour regularly to avoid being challenged or criticised.
Reports on RTE, if true, suggest that large numbers of evil mind's have been snuffed out or in the interests of equality and fairness for Larry's sake then that would be 331 poor victims with troubled minds... Larry god bless the poor dears it must be hard on you.ReplyDelete
"Senior commanders of the military groups of the so-called IS military council, 30 mid-ranking field commanders and up to 300 militants who provided security for them were eliminated," it said.
"According to information which is being checked through various channels, the leader of ISIL Ibrahim Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi was also present at the meeting and was eliminated by the strike," it said.
I think his point is very valid in respect of foreign policy. Western foreign policy relentlessly feeds into ISIS. Were it not for the West fuelling the growth of groups like ISIS, Manchester attacks would be less a feature.
Frankie made a valid point yesterday - when a Palestinian suicide bomber walks into a crowded disco and kills the children there, we have no bother saying it was a result of Israeli policy. That does not mean we do not find it a totally wrongful action, just that we don't blame it primarily on some religious belief. Because there is no mitigating factors does not in any way impact on motivation. I might kick your dog because you annoyed. I can plausibly claim that your action motivated me. You can rightly claim that my response was wholly wrong regardless of what motivated me. The justice of a cause does not convey in unmediated fashion to the means used to redress it.
The points about rape being war crimes or genocide are not really germane here because that is not the point being discussed. I guess we are all aware of the war crime aspect to rape.
What is being discussed is that I feel somebody can support an attack on civilians but not rape. And therefore it is not proper to extrapolate that because they support killing children they automatically support rape.
All we have is your view that Larry supports rape of children because ISIS do it. I find that a very erroneous view to take.
Larry has, in my view, however clumsily, sought to explain what causes people to engage in this type of behaviour. I did not read him as saying he agreed with the action of killing kids (even though he made his case poorly) but sympathised with the mindset of the bomber, wondering what it was that creates such a mindset. Again, his presentation leaves a lot to be desired because the "slap it up them" expression, leads people like you to think that he thinks they are legitimate targets. I think he has expressed a contempt for the victims, but this is not saying he regards them as legitimate targets as much as it says he is wholly indifferent to their fate.
Yes, he does resort to insults and name calling when challenged But who other than himself takes the hit when he does that? The weakness of his case is so transparent that people instantly see why he resorts to abuse. Despite his best efforts he has singularly failed to provoke me into being abusive. I simply deal with his arguments and address what I feel is his hatred. I don't waste time calling him a cunt, a scumbag, a low life, an also, devil worshipper, or all the other things people call each other on these sites.
I'll guarantee you this: more people will pay attention to what I say about his arguments than will pay heed to him about mine for the very reason that I don't resort to abuse. So, even if he has the better point, he tends to lose the argument over the way he conducts himself. More than once I have observed there goes Larry snatching defeat from the jaws of victory: but he is hardly alone in making that mistake.
This is a debate that got out of hand and got very nasty. I just don't think Larry was in it on his own. Much was said to him that reinforced the spiral he fell into. I felt a lot of it was out of order, either way.
It would be much better for all concerned if the language was more temperate. The Quill doesn't intend losing any of its contributors, Larry or anyone else. At the same time we are not going to handle people with kid gloves or walk around them on eggshells. They will be called out by somebody and more than anything else we value the calling out.
I have probably said as much as I need to on this and I gave it far too much time when I had other things to do. But that is my fault. Still, it was a worthwhile exercise.
The Pensive Quill has gone from self proclaimed censor offender to a platform for deliberate or unwitting UK governemt propagandists. I see ISIL members, armed financed and trained by UK the military were kiled in friendly fire today. No lose.ReplyDelete
Apologies to Cristy Walsh and his British Army mates, it seems it was the Russians who did the strike on ISIS in Syria. Silly me, the Brits invested to much in ISIS to be killing them now. The USA and Saudi isolated Qatar calling it a sponsor of terrorism, now they have sold them $12 billion worth of weapons and are on naval exercises with them. The entire thing is a deliberate profitable mess. When more of those little ISIS crows come home to the UK to roost, and they will, I shall shed no crocodile fake tears as the MSM and people like Walsh deflect blame from the UK government. No butchers apron or stars and stripes on my Facebook profile picture.ReplyDelete
Just like to say the weekend beginneth the noo and that was an interesting thread for the most part. No grudges just testy here and there. Also if the rumours about Christy Walsh taking over from George Clooney in the Nespresso coffee adverts is true I hope he doesn't forget his mates here on the Quill. Enjoy the wekend, dissos, Brits and MSM propagandists alike.ReplyDelete
...I see ISIL members, armed financed and trained by UK the military were kiled in friendly fire today...ReplyDelete
Larry, my condolences at your loss.
شكرا لك أيها الطيب (shukraan lak 'ayuha altayib)
ماسيحدث سيحدث (masyhdth sayahduth)
It is a pity Daithi that this thread descended into an MSM style personal attack on myself rather than focusing more on Government culpability for Manchester and indeed the London attacks. The blog is in danger of looking extremely tame by comparison to social media postings. Unfortunately two big egos got together and crying crocodile tears proceeded to spend unecessary time soaking each others geintalia with those tears instead of facing up to reality. Christy Walsh may be well meaning but a fool/tool never the less of the MSM focusing on ISIS. Attempting to label me as some sort of global Liam Adams was pathetic as was Mackers complicity by joining in with the slur. Anger at government does not equate with 'hate' of the English. Far from it. The MSM apply a cover for government and as Lilly Allen points out, they attempt to micro-manage people's grief. I believe in the same way the MSM applied a 'kettling' type policy regarding Manchester shielding the government and deflecting anger and rage towards ISIS who the government incidentally arm, train, finance and direct. It could be argued those in Manchester and London were killed by firendly fire. It is sad to say, love the Quill as I do, at the present time Lilly Allen has more balls than this blog just now. Mackers google Lilly Allen and Kelly Brook too while yer at it.
Alla hu Akbar!!