Bounce

Hospitality should be withdrawn permanently.

Hospitality is shown to guests. This man is British and therefore you can't send him anywhere. Have you not realised by now the minority of people who speak like him are nearly all British citizens. The ones who aren't have already been kicked out of the UK or banned from entering.

Come of it mate the west only intervenes for its own strategic interests. Usually in oil rich parts of the world or parts of the world rich in other mineral resources. There a whole host of conflicts in the world where the west couldn't care less about intervention. The biggest moral case for intervention would be in Palestine to stop Israel. Why is the west supporting Israel? Libya is a good example of how NATO intervened to get rid of Gadafi who was opposed by the west and in place of him you've got tribal militias fighting it out to destroy the country. The French have been intervening in the current Syrian conflict for quite a while. First they were backing the rebels and now they're conducting bombing raids over Syria. The same policy as other western nations who are involved. One of the attackers gave Syrian as the primary reason for his attack on France. If French involvement had done any good then fair enough but its helped Syria become an even bigger basket case. Need I mention Iraq as the disaster which was the Iraq war and consequences of it are clear for everyone to see. Western military involvement rarely helps the people of those regions. The west has an agenda routed in its colonial history.

Why would the mainstream media not give airtime to such people after all they have an agenda. Ever noticed the difference in words used when its a Muslim nut as compared to a Non Muslim nut. The words terror, chilling, barbaric are used constantly and Islamic, Islamist repeated over and over.

Situation will not improve until all sides realise what they are doing wrong. The only nations that are under threat from Islamist extremist groups are those involved militarily in the Muslim world. This includes some Muslim countries as well. This is why some very liberal countries in the world do not feel under any threat whatsoever. The reasons are political and the solution is political not religious.

Having a large Muslim population or a small one has nothing to do with an attack by extremists. If you want to kick British citizens out of the country on the basis of which faith they identify with then you have to embrace fascism first. I doubt Britain will be doing that anytime soon. Also the fascist policy wont work because extremists could quite easily claim not to be Muslim in order to remain in the country. Extremists coming into the country could claim to be whatever religion they liked or even atheist.

But killing Palestinian women and children bombing civilian flats, bombing UN shelters, bombing schools and hospitals running over American female protesters with bulldozers shooting British protesters in the head is all fine by you isn't it. In fact anything goes with you as long as its not Muslims doing it.

Oh and you have got a clue have you? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I’d rather trust the factual evidence presented by that cut and paste job than your opinions. By the way not all of it was a cut and paste job. However I did provide references to credible academic sources unlike you who claimed everyone agrees with you and all writers share your views on the subject. Your whole argument is based on the premise that events take place in total isolation from the political conditions which have previously been created in said countries. Iraq and Syria were one nation with the same language culture and religious history. After the demise and eventual defeat of the Ottoman Empire Britain and France divided the region up creating Iraq and Syria. The French mandate over Syria created the political conditions in which the Alawites were able to ascend to power. I have posted my evidence with references above. The same is true in Palestine where the British mandate over Palestine created the conditions in which Israel ascended to power. I agree that Britain left when things started to get ugly but the damage was done. Even to this day Britain stands behind Israel to the point where senior British Muslim politician Sayeda Warsi had to resign her post in the conservative party because the British government refused to condemn the massacre of Palestinian women and children by Israel. The CIA in Iraq overthrew the Iraqi government and placed the Bathists in power thus allowing Saddam to rise to power in later years. Again see above for details. There is no such thing as a Mujahideen separate from the Taliban. The Taliban has its roots firmly in the Mujahideen of the 1980s. The Taliban fighting the American lead NATO occupation in Afghanistan also see themselves as the Mujahideen. Within the Taliban there are more extreme and less extreme figures just as there were in the Muajhideen of the 1980s. Ahmed Shah Massoud was a Mujahideen commander in the 1980s but he wasn’t the whole of the Mujahideen just like Osama Bin Laden wasn’t either. Osama Bin Laden did have plenty of his own money but he was part of the Mujahideen supported and trained by the CIA. The CIA had close links with Bin Laden at the time of the soviet occupation. He was an American ally and the whole world knows it apart from you it seems. By your logic if you left your front door unlocked every day and put a sign outside saying 'door unlocked' you would not be responsible if the house was burgled. Your argument being that you started leaving the door open and putting the sign up on date y and your house got burgled on date x when you were not in the property. Ignoring the fact that you created the conditions in which your house got burgled on the first place.

Again a sweeping statement and generalisation. I doubt Muslims in the west feel angry towards the west in general otherwise why would they still be in the west? Most who are angry with western society have left for Syria. Even in Syria it’s not as black and white as one might imagine. Some in Syria have not gone there out of hatred for the west but to fight against the Asad regime. The vast majority of Muslims in the west are angry with western foreign policy and not western society in general. They're also angry at the way Muslims are portrayed in the western mainstream media and the suspicion and discrimination which follows as a result. Christians in the west who hate the Muslim world don’t need to join militant groups and carry out small scale attacks in Muslim countries. The Christian West is in a position of power militarily and therefore those Christian young men in Americas bible belt who wanted to avenge 9/11 signed up for the military. Same with Jewish young men in the west. You get Jewish Brits and Americans as well as French fighting in the Israeli military.

Bounce didn't seem to be leaning that way. Bounce was responding to sweeping statements about Islam and Muslims. It's completely relevant because far more Muslim civilians are being killed by western governments and the stooge dictators they put into power. This is the main reason why anti western sentiment has grown in the Muslim world and extremist groups have been able to gain a foot hold. Just as in the west the constant negative portrayal of Muslims and incidents of murders by extremist Muslims have caused anti Muslim sentiment and far right extremist groups have been able to grow in popularity. This attack took place in June 2013 and not many people knew about it just like the pregnant Muslim female doctor stabbed to death 18 times in a German courtroom while authorities looked on and then shot her husband who was trying to save her. The murder of one Muslim by far right extremists hardly even makes the news in Europe. On the other hand if its the murder of Lee Rigby by Muslim extremists the story is run for weeks as terrorism.

It seems that you are showing yourself up as such but typing in the way that you are. of course, it is all nonsense. Like all this, is nonsense : Not blame the west for everything but apportion blame where blame is due. This argument is used by right minded Muslims and Non Muslims alike in response to those who blame Islam and Muslims for everything. It's a fact that the conflicts in the Middle East and Muslim parts of Asia were caused by Western governments and the stooge dictators which they have propped up. The facts don't sit well with people like you who want to blame Islam for everything and therefore you start winging "blame the west for everything, blame the west for everything". No my friend it is you who is typing total garbage. For a start who is everyone? Would everyone according to you be Western European writers? What about Arab writers and their perspective? Whole books can be written by anyone and if you have not posted any book titles or authors here then I suggest you don't present the writing of books as evidence. The former French colonisers had a lot to do with it. So in your world view anyone who recognises Western Imperialism's role in shaping the present day Middle East is either Islamist or Communist You do realise you have now labelled a number of both eastern and western academics, historians as Islamists and Communists. Dr. Fildis is assistant professor in the Department of Political Sciences at Halic University in Istanbul. Arab nationalism, developed mainly by the Sunni Muslim community, was perceived as a threat by the French as well as by the Christians and the heterodox Muslim communities (Druzes, Ismailis and Alawites).2 Therefore, the French mandate administration cultivated a friendly relationship with the Druze, Alawites and some smaller communities. The mandate administration thus granted autonomy to Syria's two regionally compact minority groups, the Druze and the Alawites, and to the multicommunal regions of Alexandretta and the Jazirah.3 In 1922, the Jabal al-Druze region, located in an area of Druze concentration south of Damascus, was proclaimed a separate unit under French protection, with its own governor and elected congress. The mountain district behind Latakia, with its large Alawite population, became a special administrative regime under heavy French protection and was proclaimed a separate state. Later, in 1922, all but the Jabal al-Druze were united in a Syrian Federation that was dissolved at the end of 1924 and replaced by a Syrian state comprising the states of Aleppo and Damascus and a separate Sanjak of Alexandretta. The Alawite state was, however, excluded from this new arrangement. Except for a brief period, from 1936 to 1939, Alawite and Druze states were administratively separate from Syria until 1942. During much of the Mandate era, France's divide-and-rule strategy helped to define the extent of the nationalist movement and prevent it from infecting minority-inhabited areas. The French also cut the ties between the urban nationalist opposition and the peripheral regions. Due to this strategy, the Syrian nationalist movement encountered great difficulty in expanding its activities beyond Damascus, Aleppo, Hama and Homs. Arab nationalists did regard France as a friendly nation — as defined by the mandate, to help and guide them towards independence and statehood4 — but as a colonial, Christian, Western and anti-Muslim power that denied their national aspirations and threatened their religion, culture and language.5 The French administration consciously neglected to train an efficient and dedicated administrative elite and quietly aggravated relations between the Sunni Arab majority and minorities. The numerous divisions and re-divisions of Syria during the mandate6 obstructed the development of such an elite. When the last French troops withdrew in April 1946, one of the greatest obstacles to political integration after independence was regionalism. The French policy of divide and rule eroded the ties among Syria's religious and ethnic groups, forging factions within each group and against the others. The French balanced ethnic representation by placing separate ethnicities at the head of different institutional branches of government, allowing one ethnic or religious group to be strongly represented in an institution. As a consequence, the Sunni Arabs were dominant in politics, the officer corps, the gendarmerie and the police, but underrepresented in the military's rank and file. By contrast, the Circassians were overrepresented in the army, but poorly represented in parliament and the police. The Alawites were overrepresented among the soldiers, but poorly represented in politics, the officer corps, the gendarmerie and the police.7 The pattern set during the French mandate and carried over into the independence era was the Syrian nationalist leadership's rejection of Arab unity as its principal political goal. Nationalists faced an awkward contradiction between pan-Arab unity and local self-interest.8 Arab nationalism's highest ideal — the creation of a single independent political unit including all who shared the Arabic language and cultural heritage — was pitted against a tendency to focus on local ambitions and concerns. http://www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/roots-alawite-sunni-rivalry-syria Again you are the one typing garbage and your insults do not phase me one bit. If you think you can suppress the truth with insults then think again. November 2nd 1907 - The British government issued the Balfour Declaration (Arthur Balfour) promising the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine. James Arthur Balfour British Foreign Secretary wrote in reply to Lord Rothschild head of the Zionist Federation in Great Britain on November 2nd 1917. "His majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national homeland for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object". 1920 San Reno conference granted Britain a mandate over Palestine. 1947 Britain decided to leave Palestine and called for the UN to make recommendations. 1947 The UN adopted a plan calling for the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states with Jerusalem as international zone under UN jurisdiction. David Ben Gurion, Israels first prime minister, July 16 1948 "We must do everything to ensure they (the Palestinian refugees) never do return" David Ben Gurion 1948 "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal, we have taken their country. It is true, God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs." Ariel Sharon former Israeli PM 1956 "I don.t know something called international principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child born in this area" April 1976 "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation and the cutting of all social services to ride the Galilee of its Arab population" Israel Koenig, The Koenig Memorandum Manachem Begin Israeli prime minister (1977 - 1983) "The Palestinians are beasts walking on two legs" Ariel Sharon former Israeli Prime Minister 17th December 1982 "What you don't understand is the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it". Shlomo Lahat mayor of Tel Aviv October 1983 "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves" Moshe Dayan Israeli general in his diaries "Our policy was always to provoke the Arabs and get an appropriate response so we could attack and smash them". Again you are the one talking garbage by calling the facts garbage. Facts do not become garbage on your say so. Another very good example of a CIA-organized regime change was a coup in 1963 that employed political assassination, mass imprisonment, torture and murder. This was the military coup that first brought Saddam Hussein's beloved Ba'ath Party to power in Iraq. At the time, Richard Helms was Director for Plans at the CIA. That is the top CIA position responsible for covert actions, like organizing coups. Helms served in that capacity until 1966, when he was made Director. In the quotations collected below, the name of the leader who was assassinated is spelled variously as Qasim, Qassim and Kassem. But, however you spell his name, when he took power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958, he certainly got recognized in Washington. He carried out such anti-American and anti-corporatist policies as starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run, US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was Iraq's most popular leader. He had to go! In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service. The CIA then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass murder carried out by the CIA's close friends in Iraq. Iraq is once again a target of US regime change. Despite that, precious little is being said by the corporate media about how the CIA aided and abetted political assassination, regime change and mass murder, all in the name of putting Saddam's Ba'ath power into power for the first time in Iraq. Source: Andrew and Patrick Cockburn, excerpt from Out of the Ashes, The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, 2000. Cited by Tim Buckley <http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg01267.html> Was Osama Bin Laden part of this Mujahideen backed by the CIA or was he not? I want you to answer this one question before you start babbling on as if the Mujahideen and the Taliban were completely separate entities.

If you actually bothered to read the post this was in response to you would realise it was posted in response to accusations of Islam and Muslims being violent. It was not posted as justification for the Charlie Hebdo attack. ---------- Post added 11-01-2015 at 20:01 ---------- Actually France doesn't support Israel as much as some other western nations. If by right minded you mean right wing extremist minded then I agree with you. France has a long history of barbaric involvement in North Africa the Middle East and other parts of Africa. As a nation state it has killed far more Muslims than any Muslim has killed French people. In fact the very reason France has so many Muslims is because the French went to those Muslim countries first. ---------- Post added 11-01-2015 at 20:03 ---------- I do not but that seems to be the general consensus on this forum.

Why do you think ISIS and the Taliban have gotten to where they are today and how do you think they've managed to recruit as many people as they have? If western nations stopped bombing, invading, occupying and propping up puppet regimes in the Muslim world the extremist fringe would not be able to recruit people or get a foot hold. If Muslim nations came bombing and invading western nations disbanded the police and armies and put some stooge dictators in power what do you think would happen? The more extreme the situation the more extreme the nut jobs. The extremism in the west would be different because Islam came 600 years after Christianity. The extremists gaining a foot hold in the western world would be more of the far right persuasion. They already have gained a foot hold but things don't get out of control because the imperialist nations maintain law and order in their own countries while burning down other peoples. Muslims Protest Whats the difference between this and this? The second link of far right extremists is even worse than the picture of these Muslim extremists with the placards. However I don't see much criticism from people like you against the behavior of far right extremists. ---------- Post added 11-01-2015 at 01:38 ---------- On the contrary mate. For example in Pakistan which is considered a religiously conservative country most people hate the Taliban and they are regularly criticized in the countries mainstream media. The Pakistani government is constantly criticized on ARY news which is the countries most popular News channel. I urge you to watch it one day and see how the government is constantly under media attack. I'm not saying there aren't problems but people in western nations have a very stereotypical view of Muslim countries which does not match with the reality on the ground. The sensationalist media is largely to blame for this and its only when people actually go and spend time in those countries that they realise most Muslims are friendly and welcoming people. Some people in the west define Muslim countries by their incidents of extremism rather than by their societies.

What about the Muslim employee in the Jewish Supermarket saving lives or the Muslim police officer laying down his life to defend a publication which mocked his religion. Would you call them religious nutcases as well. What about the 141 Pakistani school children killed in a recent attack. What about all the other civilians killed in American lead bombing raids, western military occupations, drone strikes. What about all the Palestinian civilians killed by Israel which acts with impunity. ---------- Post added 11-01-2015 at 00:59 ---------- Some Muslims do and with good reason but that doesn't mean they hate all western people or every single thing about western culture. The Germans bombed Britain many decades ago and people have moved on. Western nations are bombing and occupying Muslim countries right up to the present day. Muslim nations are not bombing and occupying any western nations. The blind support for Israel is also a major reason why the west is mistrusted in the Middle East.

You might not but there are some others calling for the murder of Muslims in response to this attack. Muslims in Europe have been the victims of hate crime for many years now. Some of the attacks such as the one on Marwa El Sherbini a Muslim female doctor are quite sickening to say the least. Four months pregnant she was stabbed 18 times in a German courtroom in front of her 3 year old son. The authorities shot her husband while he was trying to defend her which makes this case all the more sickening. People who blame Islam and Muslims are fueling the fire of hate which gives rise to more extremism. Anders Breivick murdered mainly Non Muslims as part of his anti Islam agenda. The Non Muslims who blame Islam and Muslims forget about their own extremists. They only want to attach collective blame when its a Muslim doing something. They also ignore the bravery of those Muslims who died in the attacks such as the police officer Ahmed or the contribution of the Muslim employee in the Jewish Supermarket saving lives. Clearly you don't believe in God so that is not something which would offend you. Think of something which would offend you, something which you hold dear and then ask yourself how you would feel if it was constantly insulted. Does that justify what they did? No what they did was murder and as I've said before it was totally unjustified.

There you go again blaming Islam when western Imperialism is the real culprit. Britain and France divided up the region which is modern day Iraq and Syria with the Sykes Picot agreement. The French put the Alawite minority in power which has been oppressing the Sunnis leading to the rise of ISIS. The British created Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Americans brought Sunni dictator Saddam Hussain to power and backed him in the Iran Iraq war. The Shias and Kurds were marginalised during his reign, In 2003 they removed Saddam and installed a Shia dictator in his place. Ever since Sunnis have been marginalised leading to the rise ISIS. NATO bombing raids facilitated the removal of Gadafi from Libya leaving tribal militias in charge of the country. The CIA armed and backed the Taliban to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. The Taliban grew in power as a result and were able to take control of the country. America NATO went into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban stayed for 13 years killed many civilians and pushed the Taliban into neighbouring Pakistan destabilisng the entire country.

Yes all I read from you is Muslims this, Quran that, Islam the other and all sweeping statements with no evidence to support your claims. Not once have you mentioned the Muslim police officer Ahmed who died defending Charlie Hebdo even though they mocked his religion. Not once have you mentioned the Muslim Lassana Bathily who worked in the Jewish supermarket and shepherded customers to safety.

There's nothing offensive in those views so it strikes me as odd that you would find them offensive? Muslims will obviously be opposed to such cartoons which they find highly offensive. That doesn't mean Muslims are supportive of the murders which took place. Are you trying to suggest that Muslims who do not subscribe to mockery of their religion also support murder? The French clearly believe in their right to offend marginalised religious minorities such as Muslims but why then seek to deny freedom of expression to Muslims? The Muslim head covering is banned in French institutions along with other religious symbols. Can you imagine if this was a Muslim magazine in France called Saddam Hussain drawing offensive cartoons attacking the values of secularism the French hold dear? I'm sure the magazine would have been shut down by now and the staff detained for terrorism offences. Take the UK as an example. A Muslim group staged a protest because they took offence to soldiers returning home from Iraq being welcomed back as heroes in a large Muslim area. They chose to protest offensively and in retaliation the EDL started their own offensive protests across the country many of which resulted in violence. The Muslim group have since been banned but the EDL have not even though both groups are opposite sides of the same extremist coin. It seems to me that the right to offend is only defended to the extreme when it is the majority offending minority groups. In the past it was the Jews then the blacks and other non whites and now it's the Muslims. ---------- Post added 10-01-2015 at 21:12 ---------- That's true I get involved in topics where Islamophobic views are prevalent to challenge such views. I don't really need to get involved in every day chit chat on here as I can do that in my normal daily life. The reason is not in the Quran. If you think it is then go and get your snippets from anti Islam websites and paste them here. In the end you will have to disappear like you did from the Tommy Robinson thread because you will have no answer. Every discussion I've had with you on this forum has ended with you running away from the debate. I don't see any reason why this one will be different [/color] Those Muslim leaders have their roots in western colonialism stretching back over the last hundred years. Right, so you support the killing of far more innocent civilians in Muslim countries by our governments but oppose far less Non Muslim civilians being killed in Western countries and blame Islam for it? How does that work?

Ok by that logic you are personally responsible for the million + Muslim civilians who have been murdered by western nations and Israel in the past decade. ---------- Post added 10-01-2015 at 20:13 ---------- Who are you to draw the line? If you are in favor of free speech and freedom to offend then you can't draw the line at anything. It's even more odd because I haven't typed anything to you which is even mildly offensive. Had all Muslims in the world murdered Charlie Hebdo staff I would agree with you that Islam and Muslims are responsible. As it happens two individuals murdered staff at the magazine so the blame lies with them. If you want to blame other Muslims or Islam for these murders then by your logic you are also to blame for the murder of Muslim civilians in Iraq in the name of freedom and democracy. I take it you are a believer in freedom and democracy?

All I ever here from you is Muslims, Muslims, Muslims. No percentages of how many Muslims, no links to evidence, no nothing. When you are confronted by evidence you usually run away. I suspect the people calling for a Muslim burial did class him as Muslim otherwise why would they be calling for it? Also next time you make sweeping statements about Muslims post evidence.

Incitement to violence against all Muslims is not criticism of religion.

The reason being that the attackers had a specific target in mind which they decided to retaliate against for mocking their religion. The method of retaliation was totally unjustified. The Mosques in France which have been attacked so far in retaliation had nothing to do with the attack on Charlie Hebdo. If people want to blame or incite violence then the target should at least have some connection to the attack which has outraged them. This is why blaming Islam and Muslims for the attack and seeking to retaliate on this basis is even more unjustified. This does not just apply to Muslim Extremists as you've rightly pointed out this kind of dogmatic thinking exists to varying degrees in other political and religious doctrine. In the post 9/11 world your paragraph could just as easily be describing the governments of some western nations. Which Muslims would these be? Do you have any names or direct quotes? Any links to said Muslims?

I wasn't really talking about SF threads but the internet in general. Do you think it is a legitimate expression of feelings to call for the culling and extermination of all Muslims in Europe? It's incitement to violence in my book. Calling for western nations to nuke the entire Middle East is an expression of feelings is it? I wouldn't call these types of opinions misguided, misinformed or opinionated I would call them extremist.

I remember after 9/11 when the drums of war were beating in the White House American protesters held up placards saying "If you want to stop terrorism stop terrorising!" Sadly successive American regimes and successive regimes in some other Western and Muslim nations just don't get it. All they have achieved since 9/11 is to create a new generation of extremists who hate them even more than the Hamza generation.

This kind of intolerant thinking is exactly the same as the thinking of those who carried out this attack. Why not just blame the murderers? Why is it always a case of looking for something or someone else to blame in retaliation? There are an increasing number of comments being made online inciting violence towards Muslims and talking about nuking the Middle East and so on. Why do these idiots consider themselves any different to those who carried out the attack? They are exactly the same.