Thread: UK Muslim leaders demand that Cameron call the Islamic State the “Un-Islamic State”

Originally Posted by Koojo

That it's OK for IS to wage war against non believers because others wage war for other reasons?

That is precisely his point.

Originally Posted by Koojo

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by ENT

But tell me, who else goes around waging war in the name of a supposed god?

Does it matter if a war is for a supposed god? Or for an ideology? A piece of land in a far off place? Oil? Money? Historical grievances? Geo-politics? A sense of superiority? Showing who is top dog? What's the difference?

The difference is that ragheads are currently waging wars upon each other and anyone else they like (at their convenience) in the name of and to support a belief in a mythical (totally imaginary) god that they want everyone else to believe in on pain of death.

There's no proof of the existence of their god, there's no such god, except in their own twisted minds, and some people, like you support their right to shove their twisted beliefs down the world's collective throat as if it was all a great friendly love-in.

Money is real, land is real, politics and ideologies along with religions are all bullshit invented in to suit the purposes of megalomaniacs and psychopaths.

Where the hell's your head at?

Lalaland?

Read my post again about the other thousands of people killed by non-muslims and for reasons not related to religion. Yet you focus on Muslims and Islam. So you don't believe in god or God. Great. Fine with me. You won't find me arguing against you. Go tell Tony Blair, G Bush and the millions of other believers of "bullshit" religions.

What's your point?
In a nutshell.
That it's OK for IS to wage war against non believers because others wage war for other reasons?

No, FFS. If you haven't worked it out by now, there's no point in me repeating it for the third time.

^ Umm you do not need to repeat it. You are a groveling apologist who is perfectly OK with hooded and cloaked women who are in bondage.

It's not what he meant, guys . . . and you know it.

If you think that leaders really believe in Allah/God/Jah and are waging war/oppressing liberty/ruling nation states for the sake of religion then you're even dumber than I figured.

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

It's not what he meant, guys . . . and you know it.

Getting drawn in to an argument with ENT, Koojo and Bsnub.. an exercise in futility.

Originally Posted by Koojo

What's your point?
In a nutshell.

That...

Originally Posted by Neo

If you think that leaders really believe in Allah/God/Jah and are waging war/oppressing liberty/ruling nation states for the sake of religion then you're even dumber than I figured.

Generally speaking you would be correct, but in the case of IS that is exactly the case.
It is their intent to establish an Islamic (that's a religion.) state, or Caliphate I believe they call it
Based on their interpretation of ISLAM
It seems some people don't want to believe their really are bad people in the world.
These are the people who in 1938 would have been saying Hitler wasn't a bad sort and calling anyone who criticised the Nazis a bigot.

And who is funding them..?
Who really stands to gain from their territorial conquests?

Originally Posted by Neo

And who is funding them..?
Who really stands to gain from their territorial conquests?

IS? Probably easily self funded by now.
The oil and other facilities they captured didn't just stop working.
That aside from all the banks they have taken.

Turkey has a common border with Iraq and Syria.

Visits to Ankara by both US Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel last week failed to persuade Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to step up as a "core" member of a US-led "broad coalition of partners” against the Islamic State (IS), which US President Barack Obama announced on Sept. 10.

While US officials said that Turkey has, finally, begun to crack down on foreign fighters entering Syria, the circumspect response by Erdogan to separate appeals by both Kerry and Hagel can only be characterized as a setback for the rollout of US President Barack Obama’s regional strategy against IS.

The Wall Street Journal on Sept. 13 characterized Turkey as a “non-ally" and cited former US Ambassador to Turkey Francis Ricciardone as saying last week that Turkey "frankly worked” with Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda-linked group.
The spin from Ankara is that Turkish reluctance to be out front is because of an understandable concern about its diplomats held hostage by IS in Mosul, a sign of the blowback from Turkey’s ambiguous approach to foreign fighters in Syria that this column has warned about since January.

And it is more than that. Cengiz Candar writes: “Turkey's stance in the joint struggle against IS is indeed low-profile, but perhaps this is an understatement. If the recent discourse of its decision-makers is scrutinized closely, one may reach the conclusion that the ruling Islamist government of Turkey is more distanced from its NATO allies than from IS.”

Turkey abstains on US coalition against Islamic State - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East

Originally Posted by Necron99

The oil and other facilities they captured didn't just stop working.

They do, actually . . . there's more to earning money than just sitting on an oilfield - who do you think operates those things?

I believe the Saudis among others are funding them.

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

Originally Posted by Necron99

The oil and other facilities they captured didn't just stop working.

They do, actually . . . there's more to earning money than just sitting on an oilfield - who do you think operates those things?

You think when they capture a facility they just shoot everyone and leave it??

Abu Dhabi: Turkey is the key player in resolving the issue of cross-border smuggling of oil by the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (Isil) as the sale continues in black markets, Middle East experts have said.
The militant group which controls a huge swathe of territory in Syria and Iraq has unleashed terror by killing hundreds of people including two American journalists and a British aid worker in recent times. The group is able to generate more than $2 million (Dh7.34 million) per day by selling oil to middle men and brokers based in Southern Turkey, Syria and Kurdistan.
America has stepped up pressure by launching air strikes and bringing in a large coalition of partners including a number of Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE to control the growing threat.
Lina Khatib, director of the Carnegie Middle East Centre, the global think tank based in Beirut said that the key player in the selling of oil on the black market by Isil is Turkey, through which oil was being smuggled with facilitation by Iraqi middlemen.


Oil smuggling continues as Turkey emerges as a key player | GulfNews.com

Turkey is the key player in resolving the issue

Yeah that's one way of putting it.

It's all about a bunch of ragheads beating up on another bunch of ragheads in order to beat up on non-ragheads who won't convert to Islam.

Let the show go on,....they'll inbreed and beat up on themselves and in the end there'll be none left except a few loony ones who escaped.

All we have to do is stop them from getting too close to us (non-ragheads) and watch the show.

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by ENT

But tell me, who else goes around waging war in the name of a supposed god?

Oh come on! Since the beginning of time virtually every side in every conflict has claimed to have god or righteousness or whatever on their side. It's SOP.

What political leader would get up and say, "We are going to war! God doesn't want us to and has assured us of a sound thrashing but I reckon he's just kidding so line up and get marching!"

Get off it!

Who in this day and age goes off and starts a war because of some sort of perceived infringement or insult to their religion other than Muslims in the name of Islam and their god?

Have Xtians (other than for a few screwball African or other 3rd world cults masquerading as such) declared war on other religions lately?

Have Buddhists declared war on Hindus lately or vice versa?

Oh, yes, Burmese Buddhist monks attacked Rohingya/Muslims in Burma last year, but nope, there hasn't been a religious war waged by anyone except by mad ragheads in the recent past.

Well, let's see. The Jews recently slaughtered a few thousand Muslims in Gaza (in the name of their particularly nasty supernatural being who they claim promised them ALL of the land between the sea and Jordan, not just the little bit the UN thinks they should have). A prime example of ethnic cleansing based on religion.
The Singhalese Buddhists did a good job of knocking off tens of thousands of the predominantly Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka. The Muslim Rohingas are copping it in Burma as the locals are egged on by Buddhist monks. The Muslims Uigars are copping it from the Chinese (whose secular god is communism).
Wars aren't fought over religion anyway. Religion is one of the excuses and motivations (along with the disease of nationalism) for getting young men to do the bidding of old men seeking land and power.

Originally Posted by Necron99

You think when they capture a facility they just shoot everyone and leave it??

Where did I mention that? A bit less hyperbole in your arguments would make more sense.

Here's a return question . . . ISIL is approaching where you work . . . you have two choices:
a) Leave
b) Stay

What would you do?

I'm not saying there's no oil selling, but considering the pressure placed upon the buyers it won't be there long

Originally Posted by Codesh

Who in this day and age goes off and starts a war because of some sort of perceived infringement or insult to their religion other than Muslims in the name of Islam and their god?

Have Xtians (other than for a few screwball African or other 3rd world cults masquerading as such) declared war on other religions lately?

Have Buddhists declared war on Hindus lately or vice versa?

Oh, yes, Burmese Buddhist monks attacked Rohingya/Muslims in Burma last year, but nope, there hasn't been a religious war waged by anyone except by mad ragheads in the recent past.

Well, let's see. The Jews recently slaughtered a few thousand Muslims in Gaza (in the name of their particularly nasty supernatural being who they claim promised them ALL of the land between the sea and Jordan, not just the little bit the UN thinks they should have). A prime example of ethnic cleansing based on religion.
The Singhalese Buddhists did a good job of knocking off tens of thousands of the predominantly Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka. The Muslim Rohingas are copping it in Burma as the locals are egged on by Buddhist monks. The Muslims Uigars are copping it from the Chinese (whose secular god is communism).
Wars aren't fought over religion anyway. Religion is one of the excuses and motivations (along with the disease of nationalism) for getting young men to do the bidding of old men seeking land and power.[/QUOTE]

I asked who STARTS such wars!!
As if the ragheads hadn't asked for it, and the Tamil Tigers were a bunch of innocents.

The statement referred to starting wars in the name of or because of a religious reason, not politics, land, money greed for power etc.

In the Muslim case, anyone not converting to Islam is deemed a justifiable candidate for execution, so waging war in that cause appears to be part and parcel of their twisted pre-medieval belief system.

Originally Posted by ENT

In the Muslim case, anyone not converting to Islam is deemed a justifiable candidate for execution

I've lived in a majority-Muslim country for close to five years . . . and am still alive and breathing . . . and not a Muslim.

I must be very, very lucky

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

Originally Posted by ENT

In the Muslim case, anyone not converting to Islam is deemed a justifiable candidate for execution

I've lived in a majority-Muslim country for close to five years . . . and am still alive and breathing . . . and not a Muslim.

I must be very, very lucky

Or ENT is a rabid bigot who hasn't got a clue. Mmm. Let me ponder for a second.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

Originally Posted by ENT

In the Muslim case, anyone not converting to Islam is deemed a justifiable candidate for execution

I've lived in a majority-Muslim country for close to five years . . . and am still alive and breathing . . . and not a Muslim.

I must be very, very lucky

Or ENT is a rabid bigot who hasn't got a clue. Mmm. Let me ponder for a second.

A rabid bigot or simply thick, perhaps - giving the guy the benefit of the doubt?

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

Originally Posted by ENT

In the Muslim case, anyone not converting to Islam is deemed a justifiable candidate for execution

I've lived in a majority-Muslim country for close to five years . . . and am still alive and breathing . . . and not a Muslim.

I must be very, very lucky

Yes.

You don't live in Syria, or .....

Then again, some snakes don't bite.