US journalist beheaded by ISIS...

[anonymous-user]

vescaegg said:

You just did the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears, going 'la la la, and running away.

If you want to talk about the difference between Santa and God on a thread about IS then be my guest, I won't be drawn into it, more fool you.

[vescaegg]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That's fair enough. But just to clarify - there is no difference.

[irocfan]

WinstonWolf said:

VK, you believe in Father Christmas and every time someone points out that this belief is behind all the violence you start shouting your mouth off in a very un-Christian way.

Could it be that everyone who espouses religion is secretly a bit embarrassed about it hence the defensiveness?

not at all - I'm happy to say I'm a Christian (albeit not a very good one), however I don't believe in shoving my beliefs down your throat and I appreciate the same courtesy

[WinstonWolf]

irocfan said:

WinstonWolf said:

VK, you believe in Father Christmas and every time someone points out that this belief is behind all the violence you start shouting your mouth off in a very un-Christian way.

Could it be that everyone who espouses religion is secretly a bit embarrassed about it hence the defensiveness?

not at all - I'm happy to say I'm a Christian (albeit not a very good one), however I don't believe in shoving my beliefs down your throat and I appreciate the same courtesy

Mine isn't a belief, it's a question that I think people who believe in religion should consider. Why is one true and one not?

[jmorgan]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Time will tell. An interesting read or two has come out of the last spat in Iraq and how intelligence was gathered. Whilst it is evolving, the intelligence gathering and counter to that, I expect that more will be known as time will go on. People talk all the time, people will brag or/and people will become disaffected.

My biggest concern is that if/when he is identified and he is brought to the UK, the "ooman rights innit" get involved and we have a farce.

[KareemK]

Jimbeaux said:

Sure you did; not literally but in essence you did just that.

I'll send you links to the difference between talking in the singular and in the plural later

Jimbeaux said:

Saying that once Muslims outnumber non-Muslims, they could use Democracy to vote in a Caliphate of sorts.

Well of course they can, are you saying they can't.

Oh, and it's separation.

Edited by KareemK on Saturday 23 August 10:47

[Jimbeaux]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Oh not on here, I know better than that.....on a live human.

[groucho]

What I found interesting is that on the TV5 monde news this morning there was not one mention of Iraq and IS, but they showed two people being executed on the streets of Gaza by firing squad.

[BMRuss]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I don't think he does no, but thank you for understanding the point I was trying to make which he totally overlooked and took very personally.

[Jimbeaux]

KareemK said:

Jimbeaux said:

Sure you did; not literally but in essence you did just that.

I'll send you links to the difference between talking in the singular and in the plural later

Jimbeaux said:

Saying that once Muslims outnumber non-Muslims, they could use Democracy to vote in a Caliphate of sorts.

Well of course they can, are you saying they can't.

Oh, and it's separation.

Edited by KareemK on Saturday 23 August 10:47

So you get the point about avoiding being a grammar policeman on a rolling blog? We all, you too, will make mistakes. So skip that crap. Now, had you included my entire post, it would indicate that the irony would be that they would use Democracy to get rid of Democracy. In other words, they would haul the UK back to the dark ages.

[KTF]

Jimbeaux said:

technogogo said:

s1962a said:

Interesting post. One point I would like to make, and think about it. Look at the dialogue and the way PH posters speak on these threads. You get the people with the view of religion is bad, and then those that talk about religion as they believe in. Which of those people has the most extreme view? I would argue that the PH posters who favour religion seem far more balanced and rational than those that do not. It's almost like you have to shout down religion to make your voice heard that you hate religion.

I think two things, firstly as someone who was culturally Christian, primary school etc... but religiously ambivalent through my teens to my thirties, then put a lot of thought (and research) into it as I reached my forties and ended up strongly atheist... when you remove all religious tint from your thinking you are left with a strong sense that you cannot believe any of it. I was frankly staggered at the end of my conversion. I had a sense of peace, almost blissful like arriving after a long journey. But it really is like the Emperor really is naked and still appearing on the six o'clock news with his tackle out! You just reach a state (well i did) when you are aghast at how any organised religion could still exist. And every time someone is cured of Ebola by a huge medical team of nurses, doctors, scientists and then, at the very steps of the hospital thanks god and not them. Jeez that is annoying. The very week the pope's nephews family was wiped out in a car crash. And nobody seems to see the insanity in this? Anyway, there is that.

Secondly, we still aren't used to hearing criticism of religion. It is the only protected characteristic (enshrined in law albeit trumped by the others in recent legal tests) that you can change. So it remains having special status in terms of critique. I always say Criticise the Idea, Not the People. But sometimes people take offence because it suits them. Or gives them victim status. Or power to change the debate. Or just throw a smoke bomb.

On a side, The doctor did thank the medical team that saved him, just before thanking God. His belief in God is what brought him to Africa to practice medicine there in the first place, to help. Try not to be annoyed, it'll be OK.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 22 August 18:37

True, but as a doctor he should know that 'miracles' should not be in their vernacular, nor should there be any reference to things that have not yet been proven to exist.

[Jimbeaux]

KTF said:

Jimbeaux said:

technogogo said:

s1962a said:

Interesting post. One point I would like to make, and think about it. Look at the dialogue and the way PH posters speak on these threads. You get the people with the view of religion is bad, and then those that talk about religion as they believe in. Which of those people has the most extreme view? I would argue that the PH posters who favour religion seem far more balanced and rational than those that do not. It's almost like you have to shout down religion to make your voice heard that you hate religion.

I think two things, firstly as someone who was culturally Christian, primary school etc... but religiously ambivalent through my teens to my thirties, then put a lot of thought (and research) into it as I reached my forties and ended up strongly atheist... when you remove all religious tint from your thinking you are left with a strong sense that you cannot believe any of it. I was frankly staggered at the end of my conversion. I had a sense of peace, almost blissful like arriving after a long journey. But it really is like the Emperor really is naked and still appearing on the six o'clock news with his tackle out! You just reach a state (well i did) when you are aghast at how any organised religion could still exist. And every time someone is cured of Ebola by a huge medical team of nurses, doctors, scientists and then, at the very steps of the hospital thanks god and not them. Jeez that is annoying. The very week the pope's nephews family was wiped out in a car crash. And nobody seems to see the insanity in this? Anyway, there is that.

Secondly, we still aren't used to hearing criticism of religion. It is the only protected characteristic (enshrined in law albeit trumped by the others in recent legal tests) that you can change. So it remains having special status in terms of critique. I always say Criticise the Idea, Not the People. But sometimes people take offence because it suits them. Or gives them victim status. Or power to change the debate. Or just throw a smoke bomb.

On a side, The doctor did thank the medical team that saved him, just before thanking God. His belief in God is what brought him to Africa to practice medicine there in the first place, to help. Try not to be annoyed, it'll be OK.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 22 August 18:37

True, but as a doctor he should know that 'miracles' should not be in their vernacular, nor should there be any reference to things that have not yet been proven to exist.

Why not, what does it hurt? If it inspires him to employ his medical training in even more dedicated manner, what is the harm? Things not yet proven to exist require what is known as faith.

[Jimbeaux]

Now, to actually get back to the thread topic:

Cabinet officials (Pentagon, etc) are publicly pushing back against the White House. That is a tell tale sign of a dysfunctional administration. The Pentagon is saying that the current air strikes are a tactic, what they need is an overall strategy. Obama seems to be giving in to some of this pressure and may allow an expansion of action but he still needs to lay out a strategy for the military to plan around.
What is likely to happen is that air strikes into Syria will begin to hit key support sites of ISIS. Intel indicate that they have mastered maneuver warfare but are unconventional in that they do not have command nodes. They use runners, etc. this makes it harder to disable them. This possible expansion will require perhaps another carrier strike group.

Intel further indicates that ISIS is working with the Latin drug cartels to breech our southern border (this has long been suspected). It is now believed that a thousand or more of these freaks hold western passports. If the report of the number of Muslims from the UK alone fighting for ISIS are accurate, how many family members does each of them have back in the UK who may be sympathetic? This is about to get bigger quickly IMO.

[Countdown]

Jimbeaux said:

it would indicate that the irony would be that they would use Democracy to get rid of Democracy. In other words, they would haul the UK back to the dark ages.

I think you'll find that part of the reason why the "Dark Ages" were the "Dark ages" was because they didn't have democracy.

[Jimbeaux]

Countdown said:

Jimbeaux said:

it would indicate that the irony would be that they would use Democracy to get rid of Democracy. In other words, they would haul the UK back to the dark ages.

I think you'll find that part of the reason why the "Dark Ages" were the "Dark ages" was because they didn't have democracy.

That is my point. K speaks of a majority Muslim population one day voting in a caliphate, in essence, voting out Democracy, thus moving in a dark age direction.

[Countdown]

Jimbeaux said:

That is my point. K speaks of a majority Muslim population one day voting in a caliphate, in essence, voting out Democracy, thus moving in a dark age direction.

I think the point isn't voting in a caliphate or sharia law or whatever. The point is either you have a democracy or you don't. So if the democracy says its ok to shoot grouse on 12th August it's fine. Just because you or I might not approve means nothing. Similarly if the population decides to elect a dictatorship it has the right to do so.

That's how democracies work. If you don't like it, leave.

[groucho]

Countdown said:

I think the point isn't voting in a caliphate or sharia law or whatever. The point is either you have a democracy or you don't. So if the democracy says its ok to shoot grouse on 12th August it's fine. Just because you or I might not approve means nothing. Similarly if the population decides to elect a dictatorship it has the right to do so.

That's how democracies work. If you don't like it, leave.

...and then ends the democracy. That is his point.

[WinstonWolf]

Did I miss a bunfight?

[Countdown]

groucho said:

Countdown said:

I think the point isn't voting in a caliphate or sharia law or whatever. The point is either you have a democracy or you don't. So if the democracy says its ok to shoot grouse on 12th August it's fine. Just because you or I might not approve means nothing. Similarly if the population decides to elect a dictatorship it has the right to do so.

That's how democracies work. If you don't like it, leave.

...and then ends the democracy. That is his point.

And, if that's the will of the people, is it a bad thing?

[JensenA]

Countdown said:

Jimbeaux said:

That is my point. K speaks of a majority Muslim population one day voting in a caliphate, in essence, voting out Democracy, thus moving in a dark age direction.

I think the point isn't voting in a caliphate or sharia law or whatever. The point is either you have a democracy or you don't. So if the democracy says its ok to shoot grouse on 12th August it's fine. Just because you or I might not approve means nothing. Similarly if the population decides to elect a dictatorship it has the right to do so.

That's how democracies work. If you don't like it, leave.

That isn't how democracies work. You can't elect a Dictatorship. A democratically elected government would be voted in, and then they would ban elections and become a Dictatorship. That's how Adolf Hitler came to power.

Saying 'if you don't like it, leave' is a ridiculous and short sighted statement. We have a history going back hundreds of years, we have fought for democracy, it may not be perfect, but it's a damn sight better than a dictatorship. If we had a dictatorship, this forum would not exist.