CAGE Jihadi Supporters

[DeanR32]

Wrongly Toxic

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It will only raise suspicions amongst paranoid mouth-breathers.

You don't know me, Don4l doesn't know me, knowing what I think about 'punishing adultery' is of no benefit to this thread and you have no reason to suspect what I think about that subject. If you reach your own conclusion without an answer either way then that is a problem you have, not I.

Don4l was on a witch-hunt and LBC did not want to play a part in silly games.

[///ajd]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I can see people not bothering to answer, but it really it should not be too hard to condemn the principle of 'punishing' adultery in the manner alluded to, should it?

As the thread was about CAGE apologetic rhetoric for JJ's antics, it does have some relevance.

[anonymous-user]

don4l said:

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.

With all due respect, I don't believe you.

[fido]

FFS - why is the BBC News citing information from CAGE? It's no wonder some people call it the 'Burqa Broadcasting Corporation'!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31689651

[Lost soul]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Over the last 1000 years how many has Great Britain (England) spent at war with France or Spain or Germany

[Justayellowbadge]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It's always fish with you and your sort, isn't it?

Plenty of other aquatic lifeforms have financial values placed upon them once they enter the market, but no-one talks about them.

Crustaceans have been traded extensively for millennia, but no-one mentions the price of crab.

Always the usual suspects with their 'price of fish' rhetoric.

I don't see anyone rushing in to say that seaweed should be publically accepting responsibility for the fiduciary accuracy of their accounts, but one 'well that's totally irrelevant' remark and everyone jumps on the bandwagon demanding stocktaking duties from the fish.

[jogon]

jogon said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Same goes for Asim Qureshi the chap was privately educated at Whitgift school and currently lives in a £500k house in Surrey but still seems to love a bit of jihad by supporting as many as possible in their quest and giving speeches in London calling for war on the west.

If one was to set up a organisation to assist potential Anders Breiviks would they receive support and funding from Joseph Rowntree Foundation or Amnesty International?

[Digga]

Lost soul said:

Over the last 1000 years how many has Great Britain (England) spent at war with France or Spain or Germany

FWIW, "death to the French!" is still an acceptable toast in Yorkshire.

[longblackcoat]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Firstly, it was a phone-in, so hardly representative of society. And the most extreme voices on any side of an argument tend to be the ones that get broadcast.

To your main point, however; why do some Muslims seek to blame society? Because they feel society's telling tham that Islam is incompatible with Western values, that Muslims are bad people, that many of them secretly support terrorists and that they're all breeding like bunnies to take over Britain. I imagine that if you were referred to in such negative terms, you'd push back a bit.

That doesn't make them right, of course. Some sections of society are vilifying them, but there's a whole load more that are not. As ever, people listen to what they want to.

At the same time, Britain doesn't help itself. Going into various conflicts in the Middle East without considering what sort of backlash might occur was foolhardy, and the general anti-Muslim tone in the media won't persuade any potentially extremists that peace and integration is the answer.

But in the Emwazi case, it's in no way the fault of society. He's well-educated, from a good background and has seen a generally tolerant society in the UK, one that he chooses to reject. He's a criminal, same as any other, and with nothing to support his actions other than a blind belief in an extremist form of a religion, i.e. zero justification.

I'm not sure why the media is so obsessed with Emwazi (who is probably loving all the coverage), but the reality is that we should be concerned not with one indivdual but with the many who feel rejected or stigmatised.

[Cheese Mechanic]

longblackcoat said:

At the same time, Britain doesn't help itself. Going into various conflicts in the Middle East without considering what sort of backlash might occur was foolhardy, and the general anti-Muslim tone in the media won't persuade any potentially extremists that peace and integration is the answer.

Alarming comment. Since when does a vocal religous minority dictate UK foreign policy? Repeatedly, it has to be said that the negative attitude toward Islam is entirely because of the actions of all too many of its followers. Simple as that.

As to UK foreign policy , it will never be all things to all men , I was alarmed at Gulf War 2 as example, but thats what governments are for, to govern and hopefully make the right decisions. Getting it right more than they do would be good, but nobody is infallible.

[longblackcoat]

Cheese Mechanic said:

longblackcoat said:

At the same time, Britain doesn't help itself. Going into various conflicts in the Middle East without considering what sort of backlash might occur was foolhardy, and the general anti-Muslim tone in the media won't persuade any potentially extremists that peace and integration is the answer.

Alarming comment. Since when does a vocal religous minority dictate UK foreign policy? Repeatedly, it has to be said that the negative attitude toward Islam is entirely because of the actions of all too many of its followers. Simple as that.

As to UK foreign policy , it will never be all things to all men , I was alarmed at Gulf War 2 as example, but thats what governments are for, to govern and hopefully make the right decisions. Getting it right more than they do would be good, but nobody is infallible.

You seem determined to take exception to what I say.

Where have I said that a religious minority should determine foreign policy? What I have said is that there's cause and effect - support an action and understand that thwere may well be consequences, in this case a hardening of resolve amongst some extremists. Any sensible strategist would consider this, and formulate a strategy to deal with it.

It doesn't appear that the authorities (and I blame Blair et al for this) thought hard enough before they blindly went along with Bush.

[Cheese Mechanic]

longblackcoat said:

Where have I said that a religious minority should determine foreign policy?

Whilst you have not literally said as such , you are implying that. UK foreign policy should be instigated at the benefit of the country as a whole, and not be diverted from that because some nutters are going to use it as an excuse to murder people in the name of some crackpot religous belief.

The biggest killers of Muslims are other Muslims. Irrespective of the claims exhibited by many of them of blaming the west for everything.

[TTwiggy]

Cheese Mechanic said:

longblackcoat said:

Where have I said that a religious minority should determine foreign policy?

Whilst you have not literally said as such , you are implying that.

PH - where lambasting people for what you think they said matters.

[longblackcoat]

Cheese Mechanic said:

longblackcoat said:

Where have I said that a religious minority should determine foreign policy?

Whilst you have not literally said as such , you are implying that.

I'm implying nothing of the sort. If you want to make stuff up, that's fine.

[anonymous-user]

TTwiggy said:

PH - where lambasting people for what you think they said matters.

[smegmore]

Digga said:

FWIW, "death to the French!" is still an acceptable toast in Yorkshire.

In my house as well.

[rich1231]

Anyone see the interview with CAGE head guy and Andrew Neil last night?

[griffin dai]

rich1231 said:

Anyone see the interview with CAGE head guy and Andrew Neil last night?

Not yet but going off the DM article I'll be fking bouncing when I see it.

Things can't go on like this.....

[jmorgan]

Tis on BBC replay thingy, google cage and andrew neil. Cannot say it adds any more and the fellow is playing it cagey and avoiding the noose (I have already seen enough to make my mind up). Would like to see some more aggressive questioning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02lcq7p