CAGE Jihadi Supporters
Discussion
Dr Solomon said:
Sounds like a veiled attempt at a threat.. and you call me a looney.
I foretold this kind of response. I am too close to the truth when it comes to you. In fact, I'm 99.9% on the nail, certain of it. You walk like a duck, talk like a duck, sound like a duck, you are a duck. Incidentally, Israel as a location? Obviously never heard of reverse psychology.
Oh, and incidentally, they will. Your actions, not mine
Dr Solomon said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
Dr Solomon said:
Wind your neck in - if you care to read what I wrote, why not arrest him if he was doing something wrong?
Not my neck thats out, its some crank making excuses for a murdering lunatic. Your posts need flagging up. Anyway, bite me.
Any religion that advocates violence, for whatever reason, has no place in a civilised society.
Not all people who are 'approached' are on the radar because they have done something wrong. If they have done something wrong, why not arrest them? It could be because they attend the same school, place of work, place of worship or because they originate from the same or similar place - a multitude of reasons. Many are successful recruits and I'm sure, do our security services much good and are living quite nice lives. However, I am sure that some are perhaps blackmailed into 'helping' and others are perhaps tipped over the edge (into suicide or extreme acts like the chap in question).
I don't see where I have justified killing innocent people, in-fact, I have stated the exact opposite. I am also saying that perhaps his treatment by the security services was a contributor to some of his decisions and behaviour. Maybe some of you don't like that view but that's my relatively informed view.
I don't see where I have justified killing innocent people, in-fact, I have stated the exact opposite. I am also saying that perhaps his treatment by the security services was a contributor to some of his decisions and behaviour. Maybe some of you don't like that view but that's my relatively informed view.
Dr Solomon said:
Not all people who are 'approached' are on the radar because they have done something wrong. If they have done something wrong, why not arrest them? It could be because they attend the same school, place of work, place of worship or because they originate from the same or similar place - a multitude of reasons. Many are successful recruits and I'm sure, do our security services much good and are living quite nice lives. However, I am sure that some are perhaps blackmailed into 'helping' and others are perhaps tipped over the edge (into suicide or extreme acts like the chap in question).
I don't see where I have justified killing innocent people, in-fact, I have stated the exact opposite. I am also saying that perhaps his treatment by the security services was a contributor to some of his decisions and behaviour. Maybe some of you don't like that view but that's my relatively informed view.
Taqiyya (essentially) As any fool knows they are monitired because they may well adjoin to a nut job outfit. As did JJ. They had him right all the way along. Bet he makes bigger excuses for his barbaric murders than you do. I don't see where I have justified killing innocent people, in-fact, I have stated the exact opposite. I am also saying that perhaps his treatment by the security services was a contributor to some of his decisions and behaviour. Maybe some of you don't like that view but that's my relatively informed view.
Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Sunday 1st March 18:25
Cheese Mechanic said:
Dr Solomon said:
Not all people who are 'approached' are on the radar because they have done something wrong. If they have done something wrong, why not arrest them? It could be because they attend the same school, place of work, place of worship or because they originate from the same or similar place - a multitude of reasons. Many are successful recruits and I'm sure, do our security services much good and are living quite nice lives. However, I am sure that some are perhaps blackmailed into 'helping' and others are perhaps tipped over the edge (into suicide or extreme acts like the chap in question).
I don't see where I have justified killing innocent people, in-fact, I have stated the exact opposite. I am also saying that perhaps his treatment by the security services was a contributor to some of his decisions and behaviour. Maybe some of you don't like that view but that's my relatively informed view.
Taqiyya (essentially) As any fool knows they are monitired because they may well adjoin to a nut job outfit. As did JJ. They had him right all the way along. Bet he makes bigger excuses for his barbaric murders than you do. I don't see where I have justified killing innocent people, in-fact, I have stated the exact opposite. I am also saying that perhaps his treatment by the security services was a contributor to some of his decisions and behaviour. Maybe some of you don't like that view but that's my relatively informed view.
Edited by Cheese Mechanic on Sunday 1st March 18:25
[quote]Taqiyya holds a central place in Twelver Shi'a Islam. This is sometimes explained by the minority position Shi'ites had under the political dominance of Sunni Muslims, requiring them to protect themselves through concealment and dissimulation.
Dr Solomon said:
Now I'm no expert but assuming this chap wasn't Shi'a, a Sunni wouldn't apply or even believe in a Shi'a concept.
Fascinating response. Took the bait, hook line and sinker.Your false ignorance is glareing (As any Muslim reader will know)Reverse psychology is totally lost on you. What part of London you from?
Cheese Mechanic said:
Dr Solomon said:
Now I'm no expert but assuming this chap wasn't Shi'a, a Sunni wouldn't apply or even believe in a Shi'a concept.
Fascinating response. Took the bait, hook line and sinker.Your false ignorance is glareing (As any Muslim reader will know)Reverse psychology is totally lost on you. What part of London you from?
Cheese Mechanic said:
Dr Solomon said:
Like I said.. and you call me a looney. 
Quite simply, because you are. Smilies and other frippery will not change that. Anyhow , this will have already been flagged. Best look up another sleeper account. Don4l, you show your self when you decide to assume whatever you like about LBC when he doesn't answer the question.
Something suggests you wouldn't have liked it if the response he gave was against punishing adultery.
Refusal to pander to your self-indulgent and irrelevant questions isn't validation of your own prejudiced opinion.
You, and those like you, are making PH a very tedious place right now.
Something suggests you wouldn't have liked it if the response he gave was against punishing adultery.
Refusal to pander to your self-indulgent and irrelevant questions isn't validation of your own prejudiced opinion.
You, and those like you, are making PH a very tedious place right now.
Dr Solomon said:
Looking at your posting history, I think you and your ilk are spawn of Alf Garnett (ironically he was Jewish).
Totally missed that as well, Johnny Speight's scriptwriting was an intentional spoof on racial bigotry, Mitchell merely portrayed it. Curiously enough, he made no excuses for hacking peoples heads off like you do.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Nonsense. You have completely misunderstood me.I would be absolutely chuffed if either of you would say that women who commit adultery should not be punished. In fact, I would be really pleased to hear from any Muslim who believes that women who commit adultery should not be physically punished.
The fact that you cannot condemn violence against women terrifies me.
It is also a bit scary that you cannot see that I have been very aware of Muslim sensibilities in the way that I phrased my question. I have avoided mentioning the actual punishment, and I will not mention it now.
Read my posts again, and you will see that I have been very careful to avoid causing unnecessary offence.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm having to read between the lines here, but if the "adultery" question is being ducked, it maybe either because:1. the poster just doesn't want to answer / can't be bothered
2. the poster doesn't feel able to answer due to :
a. their religion prohibiting them expressing a view that doesn't align with their religions views on the subject, even if they don't believe in it. In other words they do secretly disagree with 'punishing' women who commit adultery as its inhumane, but are reluctant to say so 'in public'.
b. their religion has convinced them 'punishing' women who commit adultery is OK, but they recognise this is not a viewpoint that would be generally tolerated in the UK/PH, so decline to confirm that view.
Anymore scenarios?
I wonder if some can come up with justifications or excuses for this.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-eas...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-eas...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff