British soldier killed on street in London

Post Reply New Topic

Talking in such zero-sum rhetoric has got us into the problems we have in the first place. The actions of the extremists in regards to this particular point are neither here nor there in this instance, its a point of conducting a diplomatic etiquette that isn't going to attract such animosity in the first instance.


Of course the woolwich murderer chose completely the wrong method to make his point but it doesnt alter the fact that it stems from very real, and very genuine grievances.

In Ireland for example, there is no way the IRA would have grown to the size it did without the oxygen of persecution. The British state is and was the best recruiter that Al Quaeda and the IRA could have hoped to have.

Dear Thomas,

Big difference:

England invaded Ireland, sat there 300 years, abused the people, tried to destroy their language, culture, education, literacy, and bloodlines.
They tried to eradicate the entire culture, and deported thousands.

Notwithstanding what has gone on recently in the Mideast, the Muslims in England CHOOSE to be there, and more coming every day, out of choice.
How many Muslims are forbidden to read, recite, and obey their Quran in their own country?
How many mosques have been destroyed or taken over by the British government as was England's war upon the Irish Catholic Church?

The two examples are much, much different!

The IRA believed Ireland to be an occupied country, occupied by a hostile power who intended to stay forever. They wanted just what they said for decades;" Brits out!"

The contemporary British Muslim activists, however, simply want to turn England into an Islamic country, and have no intention of compromise, if I understand the situation correctly.


Sylkat

That doesn't stop the US from targeting such people in foreign countries and claiming them to be legitimate military targets.

The extremists would have a much narrower pool of recruits without these issues... that is what this is about. The thing is, the US and UK governments want extremists to be strong so they can deepen tyranny and the police state.

Do you really believe that? I mean purposely provoking extremists for the sake of establishing a police state?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I guess that answered my question.

That's so paranoid I don't know where to start on it.

Not just an Islamic country, but an Islamist state run on Sharia lines.

So that means a police state run on lines even more severe than that in Saudi Arabia (which, by the way, is the world's leading exporter of terrorism and the most austere, barbaric and vicious sect of Islam on the planet through its petrodollars): a total removal of free speech in any form, democracy, the secular rule of law, and basic human rights. In its place, we will have death to gays, the subjugation of women, death to all Jews, death for anyone speaking out or 'insulting' Islam, death to anyone that wants to leave Islam.

All good fun.

They want what their brethren across the world want. To make everywhere Islamic, no matter the wishes of the population. And they support doing that through conflict, violence and terror.

This is happening all over the world, not just in the UK.

Islam is at war with the kufr. It's as simple as that.

How anyone who is not a deranged mental patient can support any of this stuff is beyond me, but then the far-left in Europe is desperate, and deifies any enemy of the West that looks like overthrowing the capitalist order. Even if what it is goes against absolutely everything they are supposed to stand for - like totalitarian, deeply misogynist, homophobic, sectarian, bigoted and racist religious theocracy.

According to the Quran, we're all "legitimate military targets". Every civilian who pays taxes to keep the war effort going is a legitimate target. That means you too, sunshine. All of us are potential military targets for the Ummah.

Give us some ideas then.

Representatives of the Muslim Community™ have screamed for years and years after every single atrocity perpetuated by Islamic criminals about the potential for anti-Muslim backlash, but so far - despite extreme provocation - it has never come.

And you'd know about it, living in a place where there are how many Muslims? The far-left has a tendency to 'purify' Muslims in their own minds, to see them not as people with their own motivations, thoughts, beliefs, opinions and pains - but as somehow a monolthically noble, oppressed creed. It's bollocks.

If there was, the Muslim organisations like Faith Matters would be screaming from the rooftops about it. They have claimed that there is a massive rise in anti-Muslim attacks in the wake of this. They're being economical with the truth in its seriousness. Most of these 'attacks' are simple abuse that would happen regardless of who the perpetrator was. If a German terrorist attacked the UK, you'd get a lot of anti-German tweets. If it was a black person, similar. Sensible people rise above that and a lot of the simple racism and hatred spread around by all sides.

In the wake of a shocking slaying of a British soldier by two Islamic terrorist fanatics there have been some racist and sectarian Tweets and Facebook messages, a few mosques have suffered minor property damage and the EDL did kick off. No-one has been hurt yet. Just like no-one was hurt in the wake of the Boston bombings. The English people - anti-Islam people like me - still believe that the large majority of Muslims are horrified by what happened. We're utterly appalled by many extremists that claim that they speak for the Muslim Community™ who go on TV with their lies, excuses and justifications.

When a racist member of the EDL or a non-aligned racist terrorists start beheading Muslim civilians and then give the reason that they are "defending their country", I'll start to agree with you.

Or perhaps we should start offering the same line to Muslims that their community spokesmen are telling us:

"Well, that stabbing of a Muslim was absolutely terrible, and I condemn it. However, if your community insist on not letting up on the mass immigration, the cultural terrorism, the grooming of teenage girls and the constant demands for special treatment backed by the threat of violence, these attacks will continue, unfortunately."

Last edited by Tequila on 26 May 2013, 9:03 am, edited 2 times in total.

That does not seem to be a suitable response, if you can't bring the ret*d religion forwards then let us go down to their level. This is probable, if things do not change, more people are going to have to pick up weapons in the future.

The fundamental muslims are doing what most groups have done through history, they believe what they say is right and will pursue bring their views to the front. It is no a surprise that the koran is full of violent rhetoric as it was written by an exile fighting a war.

Extreme opinions do tend to provoke a similar reaction in others, as can be seen on this topic. A lot of people do not seem to be comfortable without an enemy to chase.

Sylkat, I'm afraid your history of the british empire is a bit skewed, 300 years ago the foundations of the empire were already in place in large parts of the world. Over time this included africa, including nigeria, and most of the middle east. Palestine, lebannon, syria and iraq were all under British control between the world wars, who took over from the ottoman. Saudi arabi was formed by a british ally and has been connected ever since. If there was not such a large amount of money changing hands due to the oil industry then the situation would be vastly different.

If anyone here wants to say that history does not matter then lets all put nationalistic and religious notions aside and start from scratch. No chance.

I do not agree with the war over resources in iraq started on the pretext of WMDs or the continuation of conflict in afghanistan. The trophy head has been put on the cabinet shelf. People are dieing on all sides, the financial cost is massive and opium production is on the increase. Time to walk away and concentrate on making the world a better place.

And before you start, no I am not a pacifist.

On the uniform topic, the french soldier was on duty when attacked.

British soldiers are recommended not to wear the uniforms when off duty. This was a response to when the IRA were active and used to target soldiers when they were off base and unarmed.

It seems that Lee Rigby was targeted in London because he was wearing a help for heroes shirt and carrying an army issue rucksack. He was returning to barracks after attending a recruitment drive so he was also, in theory, on duty AKA at work.

This is true. The best thing that could happen to us is if we found a way to cure our addiction to Gulf oil and making their remaining supplies not in demand.

Saudi Arabia is rich only because of the oil. If they didn't have the oil, they'd all be starving in the streets because they have no other major industries because of the clerical fascist straightjacket that country is in.

You can't fight terrorism if you're funding the terrorists at the same time.

Totally agree with these statements.

OFF TOPIC RANT.
The perpetuation of this industry is kept at pace by the established companies, with many more companies and their staff employed in exploration, equipment supply and extraction roles.
Additionally many industries have been created specifically to utilise the byproducts.
Lastly the old school companies, especially BP and Shell make determined efforts to buy out newly registered patents for alternative and renewable energy ideas which are then archived.
An additional concern is that building technology could be vastly improved to make all new builds at passive house standards. Time to move forward with architecture too, and stop the trend of faux georgian character houses constructed with sub standard design and materials featuring maximum mark up to the developer.



Isn't this exactly what is happening, to some it is a just another business oppourtunity. So it is not surprising that some people form the opinion that a degree of collusion is endemic to western government.

Last edited by neilson_wheels on 26 May 2013, 6:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dear Tequila,
You are 100% right, as usual.....we, the car-dependent nations are actually supporting these countries.

Dear neilson_wheels, as usual, I did not express myself well.

What I meant to say was that Ireland was invaded by her next-door neighbors, who moved in with no intention of leaving.
They set about turning Ireland into a suburb of England, language, faith, and all.
The IRA saw themselves as an actual army, capable of driving out invaders.
They were carrying out missions in England, as well as against English soldiers stationed in Ireland.
The IRA soldiers who went to England were not going there to live, or escape oppression, they were trying to free their country.

The Muslims living in England however, are there because either they were born there, or they have sought asylum, or they have sought a better life.
A percentage of them are using terrorist methods to try to make England an Islamic country.
It appears to me that though some condemn the violent acts of the few, they do believe that reorganizing England as Muslim is possible, feasible, and are very much in favor of this happening.

My point was that though the IRA and these Islamic terrorists both used terrorist tactics on English soil, one group was actually fighting a guerrilla war (in their viewpoint), and the other group is a LOT of people from a very different culture who have moved in and instead of conforming to their new home, have decided to bring all England into line with their ideas.


Sylkat

Most people in Northern Ireland did not want to be 'freed'. They were (and are) happy remaining in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland remains in the UK because a big majority of its people want it that way. That's why they'll never win. Violent republicanism is still a threat in Northern Ireland, and it still kills people though.

No, they were conducting a murderous terrorist war against the UK state, and people who they saw as supporting or colluding that state (Ulster's unionists).