f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

So do all of you who have bought the 'Islam is evil' line walk around scared every time you see a Muslim then?

banny sti

iTrader: (68)

There will be a lot of scared people at scooby shootout then, as Im attending along with some friends, might even bring a BBQ with us

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

LOL, glad you have warned us Banny

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

The Yanks love their consipracy theories,

JFK
Roswell
Marilyn Monroe
Moon Landings
9/11

etc etc, now we have a new one, nobody will ever know the full truth, I am tending to just ignore it, ignoring the theories and possibilities, ignoring the sickening jubilation from the American public, I doubt it will make any difference to terrorism, it was/is/may have been one bloke who may or may not have masterminded terror operations, there seems to be no shortage of people willing to blow stuff up in the name of their religion so I guess it will keep happening, I think even if all the troops pulled out and we sent them a Hamper it would still happen.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Where did I say you had? I was paraphrasing our beloved right wing media such as the Daily Mail whose line is nothing short of that!! Having said that you do seem a bit het up about our Muslim friends so I ask again... do you feel scared when you see one in the street?

Well not sure about that. Tony quite clearly said that Islam has an extremist problem and therefore we should not be surprised if people view Islam critically and suspiciously.... I take that to mean all of Islam not just the extremists especially as he went on to trot out the line that Islam (i.e. all of it) is anti West, anti Capitalist and has imperialist ambitions over the West therefore by implication I don't think he is saying Islam is good do you?

JTaylor

Mods - moderate.

Will

Just in case, I thought I'd get one more in

























before the lock

JTaylor

Nobody thinks you're an extremist, Banny. I'm being deadly serious, you have to snap out this.

JTaylor

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Serious question - what bit of this thread currently needs moderating?

Jamz3k

Clearly you've never been to Londonderry.

bigsinky

^^^^^^^^ hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha so true. póg má thone

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

No he's not quite right, there are some extremists who claim to be acting in the name of Islam which is subtley but importantly different!

mamoon2

None!

Debate in an open forum.... er, thats a good thing isn't it

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Well I am all for a bit of sensible moderation, but I can't see where this one needs it right now

JTaylor

Swearing, frustration creeping in, sophistry, straw, people getting sensitive. Of the dozens of threads that have been locked, these are usually the symptoms. A quick word from a mod to calm things down would remind people to behave so that the discussion can continue without getting personal. Hopefully this will do it.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Yeah, but apart from that

RA Dunk

Ditto, don't see what needs moderating TBH, what I do find strange is the person who has asked for it though considering he's stirred up more hornets nests on his time here than anybody else?

Whats with the whiter than white thing JT? feeling all PC correct and feeling like being a good little boy now after that other thread in Scoobynet policy perhaps?

bigsinky

i like that word. never managed to get it in a sentence though.

RA Dunk

Basically all of the things you normally cause in a thread, whats different with this one JT?

SJ_Skyline

DCI Gene Hunt

In before the lockety-lock

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

You make very tenuous links between individuals, countries and religions. Your logic would dictate that Christianity has massive extremist issues because so many previous terrorists have come from 'Christian' countries.

It seems to me reading this thread that people are not reading what is being written or are purposely putting a disingenuous slant on their interpretation of the same.

I would like to remind the people presently flooding the Mods forum with RTM posts that it is not a tool for complaining about a point of view you don't like, and that those complaining are (from reading this thread) at least as guilty of the actions they are complaining about.

I think some of the comments being made (conspiracy theory type) are in some cases laughable (that's my PERSONAL opinion) and would like to see some evidence to back these ideas up.

Oh, and can we NOT have this turn into another "Islam is responsible for the all the evil in the World" thread again? The point regarding NI was well made and extremely relevant. I genuinely feared for my life when visiting Belfast during the troubles - I'm an English Catholic.

If we could PLEASE restrict this IBL and his evil (plus CIA / US / legalities etc) it would be really appreciated.

Oh, and as to the whole shooting him when he was unarmed - what differentiates a society against the evil of an individual is due process. You have to ask yourself if due process was followed when executing him ('cos that's what it was)

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Sorry, but you're going way overboard here. Just because some terrorists come from a specific country does not make that whole country or the whole religion it allies itself to responsible.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Seconded

Have to say this has been niggling at me all along. I know I will get labelled a wishy washy lefty, but surely everyone (even OBL) has a right to a trial. The irony of him being executed like that and then US citizens dancing in the streets of Washington in celebration is probably lost on much of the USA.

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

Due process does not (necessarily) have to take place in the presence of the 'accused' and God knows the evidence has been publicly stacking up for some time. If you can credit the evidence then he is guilty of mass murder. Couple that with the 'clear and present danger' consideration as well... finding him and executing him was a logical process.

(devils advocate being firmly played here)

Leslie

The law of common justice TDW. What you call wild west justice is illegal particularly when it comes to killing a person out of hand in such a manner. The USA say he was not armed so was not shooting back and he did not use his wife as a human shield, she rushed forwards and got shot in the foot. None of his doing.

Do not think for a moment I am defending him personally but the rule of justice as is practised in the civilised world. As I said, if the coppers catch a known killer, he is not allowed to be killed on the spot, but he should have a fair trial and then take what is coming to him if found guilty. In the scenario as is now reported by the USA forces, that is exactly what should have been done. He was not threatening the lives of the soldiers at the time.

If we are to maintain our civilised world, then we must follow the law and carry out the laid down procedures. To kill people out of hand because we know they committed crimes is not acceptable, they should be allowed to defend themselves in court and accept the penalty if found guilty. Had he picked up an AK47 to shoot the soldiers then they would be entitled to shoot him in their own defence of course.

If he was indeed executed while defenceless than I say that was an incorrect assassination and the USA has put itself on the wrong foot by carrying it out.

Les

jonc

Logic doesn't come into this, who appointed the US force as judge, jury and executioner? This makes them no better than the terrorists they are fighting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...of-family.html

Leslie

Rude to say the very least...but it made me laugh!

Les

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

look at the brackets!! loooook aaaaatttt tttthhhhheeee brackets!!!!