What is that? Atheism makes you fat? I find that offensive on behalf of fat people.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Paris
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
What is that? Atheism makes you fat? I find that offensive on behalf of fat people.
Actually they are 1000's of British nationals' freedom fighter, THAT's the scary thing.
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
1000s of British nationals may have supported Breivik. There is extremism in many formats. But I agree, not as pronounced or as real as the current form of ISIS extremism. It is frightening.
The root cause for alot of this extremism comes down to a catastrophic foreign policy that has put us at risk. I would suggest we wouldn't have this much of a problem if we didn't dabble in illegal wars.
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
Ssssh, we brushed Breivik under the carpet. And it's the past so you're not allowed to mention him.
Last edited:
There weren't 1000s of British nationals who supported Breivik. What nonsense. Breivik was a paranoid lunatic, he was a loner, he wasn't an idealist or part of an organised, well funded and we'll supported movement. He wasn't a religious extremist, he was just a nut job.
The issue is that many Islamist extremists are not nut jobs. They are ordinary people with nothing wrong with them that believe in an ideology through teaching and exposure and peer pressure. It's an ideology that is based on a main-stream religion and they are devoted to following it and it draws 1000s of recruits to its cause every week.
Oh and as someone who specialised in public international law while doing my degree I'd be interested to hear which wars we have dabbled in that are illegal and on what basis they are illegal.
I do find it humorous the amount of people that say certain military actions were illegal then when you ask them to explain why, it's like errrrrrr because they said so on TV?
Wasn't the second gulf war illegal? (Question by the way)
What I want to see / read is a two-sided debate between Muslims on what the Koran instructs Muslims to do in response to blasphemy, apostasy, not believing in Allah etc. I read some people quoting the Koran to show that it never encourages violence and killing, and others quoting the Koran to show that it does. Surely with Islam Extremism being such a salient topic, and with us being in the age of information and communication, this shouldn't be hard to find and put to bed?!
Any recommendations for reading?
I'd then like to see a comparison between the Koran and the Bible and/or Torah in the above respect.
Any recommendations for reading?
I'd then like to see a comparison between the Koran and the Bible and/or Torah in the above respect.
Well in my opinion, no.
Firstly, international law is a law of acknowledged norms and agreements. There is no legislature, judiciary or enforcement. It is not a normal legal system and in fact there are debates in legal circles as to whether it represents law at all.
You have treaties, where states agree formally to adopt certain behaviours with one another, you then have norms of practice that have often been adopted over time when states interact with each other.
Currently the UN dominates international law, because of the number of nations signed up to its membership.
There is considered to be a general prohibition on the use of force, except by a resolution of the security council. This is rare, because of the right of veto of 5 states who often have differing interests (for example the nation's that vetoed a new resolution on Iraq all had investments in the Iraqi oil industry). The other exception to the prohibition is self defence, both collectively or individually to a threat or the use of force.
The basis on which many informed commentators claim the invasion of Iraq to be illegal (by informed commentators I mean those that have at least a basic understanding of the UN and international treaty. Very few if any international lawyers have argued it was illegal) is that the US and coalition partners sought a NEW security council resolution authorising use of force against Iraq. This was vetoed by security council members with a power of absolute veto.
However, this move was essentially a PR stunt and actually a PR disaster (in that it gave cause for some to question the legality of the invasion). A new resolution was not necessary however.
Resolution 678 passed in 1990 authorised the use of force against Iraq and was never revoked.
Following the forced withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait a condition of ceasefire was that Iraq allowed access to UN weapons inspectors. This had not been complied with leading up to the 2003 invasion and in early 2003 the security council passed resolution 1441 which acknowledged Iraq's breach of numerous UN resolutions and referred to the still valid resolution 678 as authorising the use of force against Iraq to ensure peace and security in the region. Therefore resolution 1441 arguably authorises use of force based on the breaches of the numerous resolutions by Iraq.
There is another more complex argument regarding the invasion of Iraq being self defence based on the threat of the use of force (Saddam's previous invasion of Kuwait, subsequent denial of access to weapons inspectors and attempts to develop armed forces and deploy them in the region heightened by links to Sept 11th) but I wrote a 10000 word dissertation on the legality of the Iraq war and I'm not doing it again
Killer part for me was UN weapons inspector Hans Blix report into compliance with resolution 1441:
Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[7][8][9] On 27 January 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent—one of the most toxic ever developed.[7] etc etc
Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[7][8][9] On 27 January 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace." Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent—one of the most toxic ever developed.[7] etc etc
Oh by the way, I don't actually think the Iraq war was a good idea. It wasn't planned properly. Or at least post-invasion it was a total cluster ****.
I think toppling the Saddam regime was a valid aim, but to have no real viable plan to follow this up with has essentially left rival factions, sects and clans to fight over the power vacuum and led indirectly to the emergence of IS.
We also withdrew far too early under political pressure back home in the west. They did the invasion, we should have seen it through.
The invasion wasn't illegal IMO. It had legitimate aims. Funny that many Muslims see the Iraq invasion as a crusader attack against Islam. Saddam killed and suppressed 1000s of Muslims and destabilized the entire region.
I think toppling the Saddam regime was a valid aim, but to have no real viable plan to follow this up with has essentially left rival factions, sects and clans to fight over the power vacuum and led indirectly to the emergence of IS.
We also withdrew far too early under political pressure back home in the west. They did the invasion, we should have seen it through.
The invasion wasn't illegal IMO. It had legitimate aims. Funny that many Muslims see the Iraq invasion as a crusader attack against Islam. Saddam killed and suppressed 1000s of Muslims and destabilized the entire region.
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
There needs to be more of this debate had in public access media forums. If only to settle understandable fears and/or discuss the modernisation of Islamic doctrine. Once again though, it is down to the individual on how they want to process and act upon the information given to them, which is not exclusive to Islam but all religions.
The reason I'm doing this because you have a habit of moving the goal posts mid debate, and at present I can only spend so much time on your education
There you go again. I'll try and put this as simply as possible but you'll have to forgive me if I quickly tire of you being unwilling/unable to learn:
Going back to O Level or GCSE English, do you remember the PEA mnemonic? It stands for Point, Example, Analysis. What is does is put some weight behind your argument and gives it substance - it's what separates us from the shouty tramps at bus stops. I'll put one into action to give you a little guide:
POINT:
I think you regularly make assertions that you cannot back up with facts
EXAMPLE:
ANALYSIS:
Usually, these kind of baseless assertions are used to alter the tone of a topic without having to offer any real input to the debate - to lean the discussion towards one's point of view without validating such an opinion. There can be a number of reasons behind such behaviour - often it's just down to a simple lack of knowledge or understanding of the point in hand. Another common cause is the inability to properly apply logic and reasoning - an affliction common in the religious (see ref[1]). A more modern explanation for this behaviour is the recent advent of what is commonly referred to as 'trolling' (see ref[2]).
References:
[1] http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
See? It's really, really easy and it makes for a far better discussion.
Superted
Jonathan Woodgate
Sorry if I'm going to derail this thread a bit but I'm interested in the hypocrisy of the Je Suis Charlie campaign.
The fact is that depicting Mohammed is considered an insult to Muslims, no? Is it similar to say a depiction of an erect penis? Or a flange?
Similarly would it be "satire" to show a cartoon of say Rolf Harris having his way with a minor?
Of course not. Should such a thing happen then there would be outrage.
So I don't agree with the notion that newspapers/magazines should be allowed to depict Mohammed. Muslims clearly find it an insult in the way we would find a depiction of paedos an insult.
Why poke the bear? For "satire"? Give me a break. That's just an excuse for bullies. Satire needn't be cruel or insulting.
(Note - I'm not excusing the gunmen at all, but let's not get too carried away in the Je Suis Charlie movement. We have censorship, we have decency laws and they are needed.)
The fact is that depicting Mohammed is considered an insult to Muslims, no? Is it similar to say a depiction of an erect penis? Or a flange?
Similarly would it be "satire" to show a cartoon of say Rolf Harris having his way with a minor?
Of course not. Should such a thing happen then there would be outrage.
So I don't agree with the notion that newspapers/magazines should be allowed to depict Mohammed. Muslims clearly find it an insult in the way we would find a depiction of paedos an insult.
Why poke the bear? For "satire"? Give me a break. That's just an excuse for bullies. Satire needn't be cruel or insulting.
(Note - I'm not excusing the gunmen at all, but let's not get too carried away in the Je Suis Charlie movement. We have censorship, we have decency laws and they are needed.)
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
I have been very vocal on Islam and its need to clean up its own religion and I stand by that, killing in the name of isn't helping their religion as much as its hurting others.
However I agree with this statement, I saw one French based Muslim, elderly guy who to quote said "I have Jewish friends, we have coffee or beers together" etc etc and he was right, he said "there is no right to offend other for the sake of it or for your own humour and pleasure, it's not like you are offending your own kind and laughing at yourself, your purposely and unnecessarily poking a stick at those you feel are there to be poked"
That's not how free speech works.
Godtards don't have the right to say "That offends me therefore you must stop". Otherwise I could declare myself a pastafarian and stop people insulting our religious head wear by using it to strain food.
Then we'd be left straining pasta with our bare hands. OUR BARE HANDS!! Imagine the scalding....
Superted
Jonathan Woodgate
Godtards do it all the time. Life of Brian? There was some piece of art with Jesus in a jar of **** that got them all bothered.
Christians & Catholics do tend to cop the most and possibly react the least but they still react.
Superted
Jonathan Woodgate
Actually aren't you defeating your own argument about free speech when you say "godtards don't have the right ..." Doesn't "free speech" give them that right?
By the way, you're a pretty intelligent and rational bloke. You don't actually believe free speech exists, right?