ballaughbiker Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Quote You being a dumbass is not me being duplicitous. Yer right. Sorry. In fact I think it qualifies for a bunch of paswt's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, quilp said: Whatever you say... Actually, in this case, it's whatever you say. There's only only one reason you don' t like that general description..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 9 minutes ago, Neil Down said: Just a thought, when I did my stint in N Ireland, whenever we captured/shot at/killed a member of the IRA not once did we refer to them as catholics. They were terrorists. So why is it okay to lump this murderous scummy gang together and label them muslims? Is it because they considered themselves 'true' muslims and followed the same islamic scriptures written in the qu'ran and a-hadith, the reading of which is obligatory in islam? The IRA invoked Article 51, the same act of war Thatcher used to invade re-take the Falklands. The right to defend sovereignty, an'that. To the IRA, this validated their 'cause'. The same people Corbyn readily allied himself to. So not a religious war in the same sense of islamic jihad, and comparing the two conflicts is wrong in many ways. But it provides as a nice distraction for moral-equivalency everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 43 minutes ago, P.K. said: Petty name calling? Since when? Oh hang on. So if I deride "xenophobic thick as pigshit Daily Wail reading Little Englanders" , [which I most assuredly do...] Lol, you said it Corp. I'm NAAFI in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 23 minutes ago, quilp said: Is it because they considered themselves 'true' muslims and followed the same islamic scriptures written in the qu'ran and a-hadith, the reading of which is obligatory in islam? The IRA invoked Article 51, the same act of war Thatcher used to invade re-take the Falklands. The right to defend sovereignty, an'that. To the IRA, this validated their 'cause'. The same people Corbyn readily allied himself to. So not a religious war in the same sense of islamic jihad, and comparing the two conflicts is wrong in many ways. But it provides as a nice distraction for moral-equivalency everywhere. Not at all. Had they invoked any articles then they would have had to battle wearing uniforms which they clearly did not. They weren't defending sovereignty, they were protecting their "turf" dealing drugs, selling arms and many, many more criminal activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 5 minutes ago, quilp said: The IRA invoked Article 51, the same act of war Thatcher used to invade re-take the Falklands. When the PIRA carried out purely sectarian murder, and they very often did over many years (despite their own rule book), they typically did so under flags of convenience. Some other often previously unknown group would claim responsibility. But it was the same people and the same weapons. Other times sectarian murder would be justified by some flimsy convoluted pretext for which they had their own lexicon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 The Irish conflict was never really Catholic vs Protestant - it was British Invader vs Oppressed Irishman. The same as the Sunni vs Shia schism is not really about the 4th Iman, but rather wealthy oppressor vs oppressed. But the latest terrorist attrocities by IS seem at least to be all about them trying to inflict their view of Islam on the rest of the world by killing those who don't follow. So for me at least, the comparison of IRA and IS is invalid. The IRA were political terrorists (or alternatively, by another view, freedom fighters) whereas IS are religious terrorists. Therefore labelling them as Muslims is valid, even though it doesn't tell the whole story. Finally, I'm not sure I believe IS are involved in these recent events. I suspect IS would take credit if my cat got run over if they thought it was important enough. These latest attacks could well be lone psychopaths, whose minds have been poisoned by equally mad mullahs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 6 minutes ago, wrighty said: IS seem at least to be all about them trying to inflict their view of Islam on the rest of the world by killing those who don't follow. So for me at least, the comparison of IRA and IS is invalid. Violent Republicans demanded to speak for all of Ireland, for all those in the north and even for all Republicans in very much the same way as Islamic extremists demand that they speak for all Muslims. In this respect the comparison is not invalid. Violent Republicanism hijacked the legitimate civil rights movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 1 minute ago, pongo said: Violent Republicans demanded to speak for all of Ireland, for all those in the north and even for all Republicans in very much the same way as Islamic extremists demand that they speak for all Muslims. In this respect the comparison is not invalid. Violent Republicanism hijacked the legitimate civil rights movement. Yes - the first example is geographical, the second is theological. But the point was that Irish terrorists were not referred to as Catholics, whereas IS terrorists are referred to as Muslims. Which in my view is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Whilst is may be a correct description wrighty, IS or any other violent faction are clearly speaking for a tiny minority of muslims which gives validity to pongo's last post. I can see why they would want to think they were speaking for the majority but unless another description is used, the genuine cause or group involved will never be precised. This lack of precision is obviously a considerable detriment to all peaceful Muslims. I have noticed that the term islamist is gaining favour to differentiate between those who seem to be intent on establishing a theocracy by violence and those who just want to live in their country in peace. The Quilliam foundation seem to support this term too. One contrived 'IRA' parallel that does seem ludicrous is Corbyn's apparent idea that we somehow talk to them nicely (like the Irish terrorists) to resolve differences. I haven't made my mind up yet if he really believes that or it is just part of his nice, calm and reasonable persona/act with which he seems to be beguiling so many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 25 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said: Whilst is may be a correct description wrighty, IS or any other violent faction are clearly speaking for a tiny minority of muslims which gives validity to pongo's last post. I can see why they would want to think they were speaking for the majority but unless another description is used, the genuine cause or group involved will never be precised. This lack of precision is obviously a considerable detriment to all peaceful Muslims. I have noticed that the term islamist is gaining favour to differentiate between those who seem to be intent on establishing a theocracy by violence and those who just want to live in their country in peace. The Quilliam foundation seem to support this term too. One contrived 'IRA' parallel that does seem ludicrous is Corbyn's apparent idea that we somehow talk to them nicely (like the Irish terrorists) to resolve differences. I haven't made my mind up yet if he really believes that or it is just part of his nice, calm and reasonable persona/act with which he seems to be beguiling so many. If it's a "war" that neither side can either win or withdraw from then it can only be resolved by dialogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 So you think we ought to talk nicely to people who think they have their god's validation to kill you unless you accept their religion and way of life ? OK... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 8 hours ago, wrighty said: The Irish conflict was never really Catholic vs Protestant - it was British Invader vs Oppressed Irishman. No it wasn't. It was turned that way by the IRA hoping to get a united Ireland = fail. Lots and lots of pointless deaths for nothing. I hope the likes of Martin McGuinness rot in hell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 looks like the cta played a part in this, one of the losers failed to get a visa for the uk, got one for ireland and 3 months later they are free to travel to the uk, this has been going on for years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 10 hours ago, quilp said: He does not resort to petty name-calling, unadulterated virtue-signalling and cringing self-congratulation. Are you kidding? That is all his posts are. Calling anything he doesn't like "liberal lefty" and telling everyone he is the only one who can see how its all going to go and everyone else is blind. If his posts got anymore smug, they would crash the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.