Anti-muslim rednecks...

[JimC]

One can agree that some western military actions have created tensions, and continue to inflame islamic opinion, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The US and others have not always been wise in picking governments to support, either. However, agreeing that we could and should alter military priorities doesn't mean there is no terrorist threat from islamic extremists, or that there is not an influential minority within islam that wants, if it possibly can, a world where islam rules.

Recent reports have found areas of London where Islamic religious "police" patrol the streets at night, and attack anybody who is drinking, or wearing short skirts etc, with the justification that "this is an islamic area, and our rules need to be followed". This needs opposing in no uncertain terms, but one doesn't have to be a racist, or opposed to the rights of moderate muslims to be critical of the fanatics.

[Clinton Huxley]

To paraphrase the Kaiser, "If Al Qaeda turned up en masse at Dover, I'd send the police to arrest them"

[Svartalf]

expand on it please Scrumple?

[Rum]

One can agree that some western military actions have created tensions, and continue to inflame islamic opinion, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The US and others have not always been wise in picking governments to support, either. However, agreeing that we could and should alter military priorities doesn't mean there is no terrorist threat from islamic extremists, or that there is not an influential minority within islam that wants, if it possibly can, a world where islam rules.

Recent reports have found areas of London where Islamic religious "police" patrol the streets at night, and attack anybody who is drinking, or wearing short skirts etc, with the justification that "this is an islamic area, and our rules need to be followed". This needs opposing in no uncertain terms, but one doesn't have to be a racist, or opposed to the rights of moderate muslims to be critical of the fanatics.

Absolutely. It comes to something when a rational and logical analysis of a threat is labelled as 'bigoted'. A nice weapon in the hands of potential enemies.

[Red Celt]

One can agree that some western military actions have created tensions, and continue to inflame islamic opinion, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The US and others have not always been wise in picking governments to support, either. However, agreeing that we could and should alter military priorities doesn't mean there is no terrorist threat from islamic extremists, or that there is not an influential minority within islam that wants, if it possibly can, a world where islam rules.

Recent reports have found areas of London where Islamic religious "police" patrol the streets at night, and attack anybody who is drinking, or wearing short skirts etc, with the justification that "this is an islamic area, and our rules need to be followed". This needs opposing in no uncertain terms, but one doesn't have to be a racist, or opposed to the rights of moderate muslims to be critical of the fanatics.

Absolutely. It comes to something when a rational and logical analysis of a threat is labelled as 'bigoted'. A nice weapon in the hands of potential enemies.

Now explain your views on all of the Irish people who were in the UK when the IRA were targeting the mainland. Or do you have to have come within an hour of being the target before you form an opinion on a group of terrorists?

[pErvinalia]

trite one-liners. You've got nothing.

never has had nothing, just hope he "ignores" you...although that really doesn't mean anything. Just a troll...trolls don't get banned here.

It's a well known fact that certain islamic groups want to impose a caliphate over the west. But that's BESIDE THE POINT, for the third time. The point is as I have said already - fearing a terrorist attack is an irrational fear, and if we stopped oppressing/interfering/bombing muslims the terrorist problem would rapidly diminish. Why is this so hard for you to get?

edit; addressed to Gawdzilla.

You both forget that muslim extremists struck the first blows and are likely to take our stopping to hunt them as a sign of weakness and a cue to step up attacks.

Oh really? We forgot an opinion of yours? I think not. I think more than likely we think your opinion is bollocks.

[pErvinalia]

Religion is irrational. The 9/11 attackers came from wealthy families in Saudi Arabia. They were well educated and the attack was not in response to injustice but a attack by a deeply deceptive and nihilistic religion. The only answer is to confront. Any 'live and let live' golden rules we have developed are for dealing with rational opponents. Weakness such as rEvolutionist suggests would be viewed as 'submittance' by our foes and provoke further attacks not reduce them. The answer may be a balance of power or annihilation but if it be annihilation it is better them than us who are annihilated. I'm no fan of drone attacks and feel they lack the precision necessary to remove the people with the organisational qualities that they represent a threat. Small teams of assassins should infiltrate Islamic power structures and neutralize person by person the opponents who represent a threat. Who are high enough up the hierarchy they are worth taking out. In the West Islam might eventually require outlawing and Imams executed whilst intensive social-reprogramming of other Muslims is preferable to the option unless widespread hunger necessitates a final solution remedy? Everything should be gradual until war or plague provides cover for speedier action and some real social change? A small change here and a small change there. Pushing for Gay rights within Islam in the West might help separate the progressives from the more dangerous ''fundy'' types...and so reveal whether rEvolutionists scenario of the lion sleeping with the lamb is likely or not. What say you rEvolutionist? are you pro or anti Gay rights within Islam?

I'm pro gay rights in every society. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

And I think you and Svarty paint a simplistic picture of what I am saying. As is usual in these types of debates we get false dichotomies presented as strawmen. It's possible to still hunt known terrorists while being non-imperialistic and non-oppressive. The first step to any improvement of relations between the muslim world and the west would be to force israel to a peaceful and mutually acceptable solution with the palestinians. The next obvious step (and one that will help with their budget problems as well, I'd imagine) is to remove all the uneccessary military bases from the middle east. Mind your own fucking business. Get off the addiction to oil. etc etc...

[cronus]

The only way to stop Islam turning humanity into a blind ant hill is to directly and intelligently confront it. There is too much appeasement from some on the left who must have had orgasms at seeing the twin towers on fire. These are terrorist enablers and traitors to our common humanity and our survival as a species. They too must be hunted down. They too must be taken out of the picture. We are way behind time for the action necessary. We cannot deal with climate change whilst we are being distracted by fools and religious zealots. Major geo-engineering projects are at risk whilst terrorism of any description is seen as a option by any. The world needs to be rid of these agents of real chaos and false order.

[pErvinalia]

Wow. The paranoia is strong in you...

[cronus]

Wow. The paranoia is strong in you...

It is what keeps me alive. You are relying on goodwill I see?

[pErvinalia]

Huh?

[Svartalf]

trite one-liners. You've got nothing.

never has had nothing, just hope he "ignores" you...although that really doesn't mean anything. Just a troll...trolls don't get banned here.

It's a well known fact that certain islamic groups want to impose a caliphate over the west. But that's BESIDE THE POINT, for the third time. The point is as I have said already - fearing a terrorist attack is an irrational fear, and if we stopped oppressing/interfering/bombing muslims the terrorist problem would rapidly diminish. Why is this so hard for you to get?

edit; addressed to Gawdzilla.

You both forget that muslim extremists struck the first blows and are likely to take our stopping to hunt them as a sign of weakness and a cue to step up attacks.

Oh really? We forgot an opinion of yours? I think not. I think more than likely we think your opinion is bollocks.

Beisde it being fact rather than just my opinion, you're welcome to dwell in Lalaland.

[pErvinalia]

What "facts" are you talking about?

[Svartalf]

15 years of recent history... We were leaving the middle east relatively alone until 911/01 if you'll remember... heck, we had even declined ousting Saddam 10 years before.

[pErvinalia]

How many military bases where scaled down in that time? How many bombs were dropped on muslims in that time? How many security council resolutions against Israel did the US veto in that time? Sept 11 was just a continuation of confrontations that have been going back a while.

And by the way, Saddam was no friend of the terrorists (despite what Fox and Seth claim). He was relatively secularist.