Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Islamic state

another ISIS apologist. fuck off.

and you dwyer, you're a fucking cunt of the first order. it's all OUR fault is it? it's OUR fault? WE did it? who is WE? you fucking wet-wipe globetrotting liberal twat. fanboy.

Don't hold back, you wiberal twat, say what you mean!!!
 
Are YOU Muslim, if not then why are you investing yourself emotionally in believing that there is a correct form of Islam?

Talk about not paying attention.

Amazing innit? I mean, I just have no idea how J Ed can have been participating in this conversation while remaining in such a condition of pristine innocence. It's quite an achievement in a way.
 
Degrade and diminish 'Islam'? From what otherwise purely accepted benchmark? I have my own criticisms of Quilliam, and individuals who work for Quilliam, but this is very dodgy ground. Are Quilliam bad because they are deviating from a more, objectively correct, form of Islam? If so, what about Alawite and Shia Muslims? If Quilliam are quislings then does that make ISIS the resistance forces?

I'm sorry. I usually ignore this guy. But this time I just have to say it: J Ed you are a FUCKING FOOL. Why don't you find out something--anything would do really--about Islam before you start sounding off about it in public? Would you presume to lecture people from a position of complete and utter ignorance on any other subject?
 
If I had another life I'd research my hunch that Protestantism was inspired by contact with Islam.

Of course it was, but not directly. Byzantine iconoclasm was directly inspired by Islam. After 1453, Byzantine scholars brought sophisticated theories of iconoclasm to the West.
 
by the way - the simple reason why there is such savagery in these individual acts (like chucking a gay bloke off a building, or watching a man burn, or killing children, etc) is because of one thing - religious mania. the political might motivate it somewhat, but the religious mania will really up the game in the mindless savagery stakes. drop books not bombs on these people and it might temper their extremism, their grotesque cruelty.

Unfortunately religion and politics are both belief systems. Religion doesn't turn "normal" people into ravening beasts any more than politics does.
Those who participate in ISIS do so from choice.They may claim religion as their primary motivation, but their primary motivation is actually power - the power over whether someone lives or dies. Everything else is window dressing.
As for "savagery", measured against what? Dwyer might be a tool, but he's right about the actions of "the west" in the Middle East giving licence to the likes of ISIS.
 
Unfortunately religion and politics are both belief systems. Religion doesn't turn "normal" people into ravening beasts any more than politics does.
Those who participate in ISIS do so from choice.They may claim religion as their primary motivation, but their primary motivation is actually power - the power over whether someone lives or dies. Everything else is window dressing.
As for "savagery", measured against what? Dwyer might be a tool, but he's right about the actions of "the west" in the Middle East giving licence to the likes of ISIS.
Yep; "S" for state.
 
Dwyer might be a tool, but he's right about the actions of "the west" in the Middle East giving licence to the likes of ISIS.

I'd happily (indeed joyfully) cop to the first point, if only people could grasp the second. But it seems they simply cannot. I'm not entirely sure why, for nothing could be much more obvious to a rational mind. Perhaps it is a testament to the media's ability to induce cognitive dissonance?
 
But then again the Cathars were based in the south of France, part of a Mediterranean world which also had close relationships to the Muslim communities not so far away.

Close but violently hostile relations. I've never seen any evidence, or even any assertion, that the Cathars were influenced by Islam. It's not impossible, but it's very improbable.

And their heresy was Manichean, unlike Luther's.

But Islam is not Manichean. Do you have any serious theories about this, or is this just speculation?
 
if China, say, had imperial land grabs in the UK, and stole much needed resources, and took the best bits for themselves and left the British with nothing...if China carried out air strikes on perceived British enemies, say, and many civilians would be killed...


....never, ever would i grab one of them, especially a mere pilot, and put him in a cage and watch him slowly burn to death.

no matter how desperate, i would not train disabled children to walk into Chinese strong holds and blow themselves up.

it is the responsibility of everyone to not excuse these cretins.

can you imagine the joy these fuckers feel when they see some hand wringing liberal justifying this shit? if there was any doubt in their mind about acting like a monster, that would certainly help to get rid of it.

Emotive claptrap.
Believers don't seek, need or want justification from outside sources, only from their fellow-travellers. They wouldn't care one way or another about your "hand wringing liberal".

As for training kids to do dirty deeds, that's been part of the practice of asymmetric warfare for 3 millennia and more. It's foul, but it's one of the realities of war.
 
I'm fucked if I'm going to watch the beheading vids, but from what I've been reading ISIS have taken it to the next level by revelling in the obscenity of their crimes.

It's obscene, yes, but it's also an age-old tactic deployed to shock and demoralise "the enemy", and it's usually quite effective against "naive" opponents.

Did the previous Jihadist groups try to stick to the old recruiting sergeant's trick of portraying war as noble, or were they dealers in obscenity as well? (genuine question)

IMO it's always been a bit of both with regard to any alienated insurgent group, not just Jihadi groups.
 
Some (unconfirmed) reports that the mother of Moath al-Kasasbeh has collapsed and died. That poor woman, her pain must have been immeasurable.
 
I'd happily (indeed joyfully) cop to the first point, if only people could grasp the second. But it seems they simply cannot. I'm not entirely sure why, for nothing could be much more obvious to a rational mind. Perhaps it is a testament to the media's ability to induce cognitive dissonance?
given the difficulty you've had differentiating between land and air forces i think it's safe to say you're not in a position to say what's obvious to a rational mind.
 
there was no islamophobick intent or insult intended.

HAHAHAHAHAHA...HAHAH...HA...ha haha... heh...heh...

Phew, just managed to stop laughing. Thanks Pickman's. In fact we'll have it one more time:

there was no islamophobick intent or insult intended.

HAHAHAHA. This from the man who boasts about publicly burning the Prophet in effigy.

Right Pickman's? You did that, didn't you? You burned an effigy of Mohammed in a London park. And now you expect us to believe that you didn't intend any Islamophobic insult! You know what I say to that? I say this:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Twat.
 
Close but violently hostile relations. I've never seen any evidence, or even any assertion, that the Cathars were influenced by Islam. It's not impossible, but it's very improbable.



But Islam is not Manichean. Do you have any serious theories about this, or is this just speculation?

That's my whole point, you shit for brains fuck-knuckle - that the case of the Cathars, who were in relatively close proximity to the Muslim world, but who did not develop their religious heresy in ways analagous to Islam (but who were instead Manicheans, a religious worldview anathema to both Christianity and Islam), would seem to contradict laptop's hypothesis (which is by no means outrageous, I think) that analogies between Luther's version of Christianity might be related to the proximity of central Europe to those parts of the continent under Ottoman rule at that time.

You shit for brains fuck-knuckle.
 
HAHAHAHAHAHA...HAHAH...HA...ha haha... heh...heh...

Phew, just managed to stop laughing. Thanks Pickman's. In fact we'll have it one more time:



HAHAHAHA. This from the man who boasts about publicly burning the Prophet in effigy.

Right Pickman's? You did that, didn't you? You burned an effigy of Mohammed in a London park. And now you expect us to believe that you didn't intend any Islamophobic insult! You know what I say to that? I say this:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Twat.
can you link to this boast?
 
There were (and are) large Christian minorities throughout the Islamic world who didn't develop protestant ideas.
 
That's my whole point, you shit for brains fuck-knuckle - that the case of the Cathars, who were in relatively close proximity to the Muslim world, but who did not develop their religious heresy in ways analagous to Islam (but who were instead Manicheans, a religious worldview anathema to both Christianity and Islam), would seem to contradict laptop's hypothesis (which is by no means outrageous, I think) that analogies between Luther's version of Christianity might be related to the proximity of central Europe to those parts of the continent under Ottoman rule at that time.

The similarities between Protestantism and Islam are too obvious to be accidental, true.

But it would have been impossible for that influence to spread through France (as you suggest) or through Bohemia (as he suggests), because Christian/Muslim relations in those areas were invariably hostile.

I've already pointed out the true source of the influence: Byzantine emigres after 1453. You might have thanked me actually.
 
I didn't say it that that influence would spread through France, I was talking specifically about the southern French world which looks south to the Mediterranean, and is part of a Mediterrean culture interaction sphere that dates back to antiquity (if not earlier).

(FFS, there's a harbour in Marseilles that has been in continuous use since the ancient Greeks and Phoencians).
 
Back
Top Bottom