Re: IS and the Western response : Sun Oct 05, 2014 2:08 pm  

Starbug wrote:

The brutal murders of western hostages ,while obscene are of relatively small consequence when compared to the attrocities carried out against the local populations of Syria and Iraq ,it is those that should drive the civilised worlds quest to rid us of this evil

Spot on

Re: IS and the Western response : Sun Oct 05, 2014 3:16 pm  

Starbug wrote:

The brutal murders of western hostages ,while obscene are of relatively small consequence when compared to the attrocities carried out against the local populations of Syria and Iraq ,it is those that should drive the civilised worlds quest to rid us of this evil

Unfortunately IS know that a couple of thousand wogs or ragheads meeting a grisly end will not even register on the radar of most of the western population.

That's precisely why they upped their game.

The western press are now giving IS what they have craved - the oxygen of publicity. It's a high-risk strategy that has got a great many of the Islamic world against them. The responsive upping of the "allies" game has also ensured that IS can play the "Crusade against Islam" to great efect and attract even more "true believers" to their cause

Re: IS and the Western response : Sun Oct 05, 2014 3:36 pm  

Dally wrote:

Those things have no relevance to British society. The IS thing does as British citizens are apparently acting murderously for IS and intent on attacking British citizens.

but why should other British Muslims who have no connection to these IS recruits other than practising the same major world religion (along with over a billion other humans) be associated with them?

Re: IS and the Western response : Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:18 pm  

the cal train wrote:

but why should other British Muslims who have no connection to these IS recruits other than practising the same major world religion (along with over a billion other humans) be associated with them?

Because they are British citizens. Why the apparent reticence until now to unreservedly condemn IS when as you say they have no association with them?

Re: IS and the Western response : Sun Oct 05, 2014 10:11 pm  

Dally wrote:

Because they are British citizens. Why the apparent reticence until now to unreservedly condemn IS when as you say they have no association with them?

Has the RFL condemned IS yet?

British Muslims condemned IS months ago.

Re: IS and the Western response : Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:10 pm  

Him wrote:

British Muslims condemned IS months ago.

What. All of them?

Re: IS and the Western response : Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:04 am  

Rooster Booster wrote:

What. All of them?

The major organisations and leaders did.

Re: IS and the Western response : Mon Oct 06, 2014 6:42 am  

Rooster Booster wrote:

What. All of them?

Yes, every single one of them. Likewise every Jew, Protestant, Catholic, Wesleyan, Hindu and Buddhist did too. A couple of Jains were "Don't knows"

Re: IS and the Western response : Mon Oct 06, 2014 6:51 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Yes, every single one of them. Likewise every Jew, Protestant, Catholic, Wesleyan, Hindu and Buddhist did too. A couple of Jains were "Don't knows"

it's those darned procrastinators we need to get one board, get them, we have a majority.

Re: IS and the Western response : Mon Oct 06, 2014 10:41 pm  

So, the answer was no. Not all of them.

Ta.