Possible second attack..
Originally Posted by JTaylor
Just for the record, Joz, I think this has everything to do with religion, but that's a bit like blaming politics for the tens of millions murdered at the hands of National Socialism and Communism during the 20th Century. I think we have to be more specific. The religion here is Islam and more accurately Sunni Islam. To break that down further the perpetrators were almost certainly Salafist and within that branch we are dealing with Jihadi Salafists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_jihadism
I'm a little disappointed you didn't engage your brain on this one, Joz.
Here's me discussing it 7 years ago:
https://www.scoobynet.com/863727-swe...ml#post9763961
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_jihadism
I'm a little disappointed you didn't engage your brain on this one, Joz.
Here's me discussing it 7 years ago:
https://www.scoobynet.com/863727-swe...ml#post9763961
lol I wasn't (necessarily) agreeing or disagreeing...
I was ONLY pointing out to Peedee that you'd already posted, that's all* (as I guessed who Peedee was referring to).
That's it. No 'agenda', here.
You know me JT, I don't (usually) do online 'arguments'.

* But I understand how my post 'looked'
Last edited by joz8968; Jun 4, 2017 at 11:22 AM.
Just for the record, Joz, I think this has everything to do with religion, but that's a bit like blaming politics for the tens of millions murdered at the hands of National Socialism and Communism during the 20th Century. I think we have to be more specific. The religion here is Islam and more accurately Sunni Islam. To break that down further the perpetrators were almost certainly Salafist and within that branch we are dealing with Jihadi Salafists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_jihadism
I'm a little disappointed you didn't engage your brain on this one, Joz.
Here's me discussing it 7 years ago:
https://www.scoobynet.com/863727-swe...ml#post9763961
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_jihadism
I'm a little disappointed you didn't engage your brain on this one, Joz.
Here's me discussing it 7 years ago:
https://www.scoobynet.com/863727-swe...ml#post9763961
While Corbyn seems to be saying that Britain's foreign policy is the reason the United Kingdom is being targeted by Islamists, this view seems to be at odds with what the Islamists themselves have said. The Islamic State's propaganda magazine, Dabiq, explained perfectly clearly: "The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam, and there is the problem THEY HATE US AND WON'T CHANGE NO MATTER HOW MUCH TALKING PRAYING AND HAND WRINGING YOU ALL DO
Last edited by madscoob; Jun 4, 2017 at 11:21 AM.
lol I wasn't (necessarily) agreeing or disagreeing...
I was ONLY pointing out to Peedee that you'd already posted, that's all (as I guessed who Peedee was referring to)*
That's it. No 'agenda', here.
You know me JT, I don't do online 'arguments'.
* But I understand how my post 'looked'
I was ONLY pointing out to Peedee that you'd already posted, that's all (as I guessed who Peedee was referring to)*
That's it. No 'agenda', here.
You know me JT, I don't do online 'arguments'.

* But I understand how my post 'looked'
everything to do with religeon spot on cause of all evil in one way or another try reading this then ,
While Corbyn seems to be saying that Britain's foreign policy is the reason the United Kingdom is being targeted by Islamists, this view seems to be at odds with what the Islamists themselves have said. The Islamic State's propaganda magazine, Dabiq, explained perfectly clearly: "The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam, and there is the problem THEY HATE US AND WON'T CHANGE NO MATTER HOW MUCH TALKING PRAYING AND HAND WRINGING YOU ALL DO
While Corbyn seems to be saying that Britain's foreign policy is the reason the United Kingdom is being targeted by Islamists, this view seems to be at odds with what the Islamists themselves have said. The Islamic State's propaganda magazine, Dabiq, explained perfectly clearly: "The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam, and there is the problem THEY HATE US AND WON'T CHANGE NO MATTER HOW MUCH TALKING PRAYING AND HAND WRINGING YOU ALL DO
There is no such thing as the "EU Human Rights Convention". There is, however, the European Convention on Human Rights, which is nothing to do with the EU, and was originally proposed by that well-known liberal lefty Winston Churchill. The signatories of the convention are members of the Council of Europe, which the UK joined decades before joining the Common Market. Our leaving the EU will not affect our membership of the Council Of Europe.
There is no such thing as the "EU Human Rights Convention". There is, however, the European Convention on Human Rights, which is nothing to do with the EU, and was originally proposed by that well-known liberal lefty Winston Churchill. The signatories of the convention are members of the Council of Europe, which the UK joined decades before joining the Common Market. Our leaving the EU will not affect our membership of the Council Of Europe.
Last edited by Petem95; Jun 4, 2017 at 12:27 PM.
So you'd consider giving a load of enemy combatants to the enemy or intern 1000s of Muslims for thoughtcrime. This is your solution?
oops sorry did i forget the mention bombing the hell out of the stronghold after dropping them off, violence is the only thing these things understand, trying to reabilitate then just isn't going to work, bit like pedophiles 96% of them have been proven to be incapable of changing thier ways
oops sorry did i forget the mention bombing the hell out of the stronghold after dropping them off, violence is the only thing these things understand, trying to reabilitate then just isn't going to work, bit like pedophiles 96% of them have been proven to be incapable of changing thier ways
Pete, you can be such a dick sometimes.
So far on this thread you've barely mentioned Islamic terrorism, extremism etc. But instead used this as an excuse to flog your old hobby horse about liberals. I find this fairly shameful.
I suggest you switch off Fox News (which you've starting parroting), and go out into the real world.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 38,078
Likes: 310
From: The hell where youth and laughter go
Mental asylums specifically for Jihadists.
To condone random and indiscriminate killing of individuals via suicidal acts should tick enough boxes to satisfy that these people are mentally unwell. To certify them insane is the least we can do. We already have fairly good policies in place for incarcerating mentally unwell people if they are considered a risk.
It's a policy that liberals would find hard to argue against (although they are the champions of arguing against any political policy); You cannot have someone with insane beliefs being allowed full freedom on the principal of free speech/thought. Those principals can only ever be valid for people of sound mind.
Last edited by ALi-B; Jun 4, 2017 at 01:22 PM.
Mental asylums specifically for Jihadists.
To condone random and indiscriminate killing of individuals via suicidal acts should tick enough boxes to satisfy that these people are mentally unwell. To certify them insane is the least we can do. We already have fairly good policies in place for incarcerating mentally unwell people if they are considered a risk.
It's a policy that liberals would find hard to argue against (although they are the champions of arguing against any political policy); You cannot have someone with insane beliefs being allowed full freedom on the principal of free speech/thought. Those principals can only ever be valid for people of sound mind.
To condone random and indiscriminate killing of individuals via suicidal acts should tick enough boxes to satisfy that these people are mentally unwell. To certify them insane is the least we can do. We already have fairly good policies in place for incarcerating mentally unwell people if they are considered a risk.
It's a policy that liberals would find hard to argue against (although they are the champions of arguing against any political policy); You cannot have someone with insane beliefs being allowed full freedom on the principal of free speech/thought. Those principals can only ever be valid for people of sound mind.
Mental asylums specifically for Jihadists.
To condone random and indiscriminate killing of individuals via suicidal acts should tick enough boxes to satisfy that these people are mentally unwell. To certify them insane is the least we can do. We already have fairly good policies in place for incarcerating mentally unwell people if they are considered a risk.
It's a policy that liberals would find hard to argue against (although they are the champions of arguing against any political policy); You cannot have someone with insane beliefs being allowed full freedom on the principal of free speech/thought. Those principals can only ever be valid for people of sound mind.
To condone random and indiscriminate killing of individuals via suicidal acts should tick enough boxes to satisfy that these people are mentally unwell. To certify them insane is the least we can do. We already have fairly good policies in place for incarcerating mentally unwell people if they are considered a risk.
It's a policy that liberals would find hard to argue against (although they are the champions of arguing against any political policy); You cannot have someone with insane beliefs being allowed full freedom on the principal of free speech/thought. Those principals can only ever be valid for people of sound mind.
Last edited by Peedee; Jun 4, 2017 at 01:46 PM.
Mental asylums specifically for Jihadists.
To condone random and indiscriminate killing of individuals via suicidal acts should tick enough boxes to satisfy that these people are mentally unwell. To certify them insane is the least we can do. We already have fairly good policies in place for incarcerating mentally unwell people if they are considered a risk.
It's a policy that liberals would find hard to argue against (although they are the champions of arguing against any political policy); You cannot have someone with insane beliefs being allowed full freedom on the principal of free speech/thought. Those principals can only ever be valid for people of sound mind.
To condone random and indiscriminate killing of individuals via suicidal acts should tick enough boxes to satisfy that these people are mentally unwell. To certify them insane is the least we can do. We already have fairly good policies in place for incarcerating mentally unwell people if they are considered a risk.
It's a policy that liberals would find hard to argue against (although they are the champions of arguing against any political policy); You cannot have someone with insane beliefs being allowed full freedom on the principal of free speech/thought. Those principals can only ever be valid for people of sound mind.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 38,078
Likes: 310
From: The hell where youth and laughter go
Insanity, legally speaking is defined as someone with an inability to comprehend right from wrong.
Rational thought would say killing random people indiscriminately in the name of a "God" can never be justified as right no matter how you try and argue it. It's up there with Hitler's genocide. Was Hitler sane? People have argued that for years, but tell me this, what rational person could justify killing indiscriminately and as being the "right" (sane) thing to do?
Rational thought would say killing random people indiscriminately in the name of a "God" can never be justified as right no matter how you try and argue it. It's up there with Hitler's genocide. Was Hitler sane? People have argued that for years, but tell me this, what rational person could justify killing indiscriminately and as being the "right" (sane) thing to do?
Last edited by ALi-B; Jun 4, 2017 at 02:01 PM.
Insanity, legally speaking is defined as someone with an inability to comprehend right from wrong.
Rational thought would say killing random people indiscriminately in the name of a "God" can ever be justified as right no matter how you try and argue it. It's up there with Hitler's genocide. Was Hitler sane?
Rational thought would say killing random people indiscriminately in the name of a "God" can ever be justified as right no matter how you try and argue it. It's up there with Hitler's genocide. Was Hitler sane?
Had to suppress a wry smile when Mrs. May placed the blame for these attacks on "Islamist extremists". She can't say Salafists of course, because that indicts Saudi Arabia to whom she sells billions of pounds worth of arms. Look up Wahhabism and you'll find it and Salafism are synonymous and are being spread across the globe by the House of Saud's petrodollars. Next time you fill up your Scoob, remember you're funding terrorism. Welcome to the merry-go-round.
London terror attack: Donald Trump’s aides ‘discussing UK trip to show solidarity’
Trump just gets weaker with every passing week
What has the second amendment anything to do with us
Trump just gets weaker with every passing week
What has the second amendment anything to do with us
Last edited by dpb; Jun 4, 2017 at 06:19 PM.






