UK ISIS/IS Fighters

bompington

Ai_1 wrote:

bompington wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

I actually think people generally get along better and behave better towards each other when they don't have religion to fall back on as an excuse, a recovery plan or a simple assumption that everything will be okay in the end.

Any evidence for this?

Weak, experiential evidence only, nothing rigorous. Thus my use of the word "think" at the start of the sentence. If I thought I could support it as a proven fact I would have mentioned it, don't you think?
However, this does not make it untrue. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Only the evidence that, when society is actually ordered and run on atheist principles, you get the Cultural Revolution and Stalin's purges. When it is run on actual Christian principles (as opposed to just being run by people calling themselves Christians) you get the abolition of slavery.

ai_1

bompington wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

bompington wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

I actually think people generally get along better and behave better towards each other when they don't have religion to fall back on as an excuse, a recovery plan or a simple assumption that everything will be okay in the end.

Any evidence for this?

Weak, experiential evidence only, nothing rigorous. Thus my use of the word "think" at the start of the sentence. If I thought I could support it as a proven fact I would have mentioned it, don't you think?
However, this does not make it untrue. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Only the evidence that, when society is actually ordered and run on atheist principles, you get the Cultural Revolution and Stalin's purges. When it is run on actual Christian principles (as opposed to just being run by people calling themselves Christians) you get the abolition of slavery.

Ha! - That's a massive distortion and I suspect you know it.
You are talking about totalitarian regimes that included the banning of religion and thus concluding that atheism = totalitarian. That is not a valid argument as you very well know.

bompington

Ok then, please demonstrate the historical effects of non-totalitarian atheism then.

ai_1

bompington wrote:

Ok then, please demonstrate the historical effects of non-totalitarian atheism then.

No

You can do so yourself if it happens but I very much doubt it will be in our lifetime.
Religious suppression has been a tactic of communist totalitarian regimes. That's a completely different thing to a population that have legitimately and individually chosen to dispose with religion. As should be very obvious, it's impossible to enforce atheism or any religious belief, at least in any meaningful way. You can force people to say they believe X, Y or Z, you can even try and brainwash them into "believing" it but I do not and will never endorse that sort of behaviour (unlike many churches have done for millenia )

You are either intentionally confusing the discussion or you're completely missing the point. I'm unsure which.

finchy

bompington wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

bompington wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

I actually think people generally get along better and behave better towards each other when they don't have religion to fall back on as an excuse, a recovery plan or a simple assumption that everything will be okay in the end.

Any evidence for this?

Weak, experiential evidence only, nothing rigorous. Thus my use of the word "think" at the start of the sentence. If I thought I could support it as a proven fact I would have mentioned it, don't you think?
However, this does not make it untrue. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Only the evidence that, when society is actually ordered and run on atheist principles, you get the Cultural Revolution and Stalin's purges. When it is run on actual Christian principles (as opposed to just being run by people calling themselves Christians) you get the abolition of slavery.

The Cultural Revolution and Stalinism were the product of societies which were emerging from devastating world wars, grinding poverty, power struggles and revolutions. Atheism means you don't believe in god(s). There is absolutely nothing in that particular belief system that says you have to oppress anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I'm an atheist. I'm also a secularist. I believe that people have the right to follow whichever belief system they choose, as long as it doesn't harm others.

finchy

bompington wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Jesus also said that he had not come to repeal the old laws but to confirm them

Yes, he did, and you can find examples of him explicitly breaking those laws within a chapter or two of the bit where he said it. So, either he went around contradicting himself - and he, and those who wrote down what he said, were too stupid to realise it (the patronising modernist assumption, because hey, we're all so much smarter these days aren't we?) or he didn't mean exactly what you, for the sake of your argument, want him to mean.

So what did he mean then? Could it not also be the case that his disciples simply weren't aware of all the laws in the Old Testament, rather than them just being stupid? It's a long book, a lot to remember and even the people who were literate of the age wouldn't have had quite as much time to memorise lengthy religious texts as a modern day scholar would.

bompington wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

If you're a decent person, you'll linger on the bits about love and forgiveness. If you aren't, you'll just remember the nasty bits.

But then, to paraphrase a well-known rabbi from a couple of thousand years ago, "what exactly do you mean by decent?"
It fascinates (and worries) me that so many atheists like to use a moral framework entirely inherited from religion to criticise religion - when, if you take atheist thinking to its logical conclusion, the concept of morality has no meaning: it is only a social construct, which means it is elastic and relative.

Do you really, honestly think that ideas expressed in religions are exclusive to religions?

mr_goo

The number of home grown ISIS/Jihadists seems to be on the increase. Cannot help but notice that the number of incidents of them being stopped at airports/ports or in Turkey seems to be very much on an upward curve over the last couple of weeks.
As for the son of the Rochdale councillor and his entourage. Why the hell are the UK authorities having them extradited back here. And another half dozen stopped at Dover on Friday.
If the repatriation of these undesirables continues then the security services/authorities/prison service are going to be over run. And it will cost millions and millions to process them, incarcerate and monitor. Utter madness. Let them all go, no matter how much the liberals want them back and think they can be rehabilitated.

ballysmate

Sajid Javid - I like the cut of his jib. It appears he is not afraid to speak out and given his background', he may be taken more seriously.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... bused.html

mr_goo

Ballysmate wrote:

Sajid Javid - I like the cut of his jib. It appears he is not afraid to speak out and given his background', he may be taken more seriously.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... bused.html

Interesting but obvious article. What I am getting tired of is the insistence of using the term 'Asian' as the target community. This to me is putting Chinese, Japanese, Philipino and other far eastern communities into the same group. The media and all of us should say it like it is.... Pakistani or Pakistani origin muslims.

finchy

Mr Goo wrote:

Why the hell are the UK authorities having them extradited back here.

They're British citizens.

The options are:

1) Let them go to Syria/Iraq to slaughter innocent people.
2) Let another country have them (we can't do that. The other country would just stick them on the first plane back to Blighty and you can't really blame them).
3) Bring them back and deal with them here (preferably by introducing them to a courtroom).

rick_chasey

UK has international responsibility for its own citizens.

CYCLESPORT1

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation.
Shoot them !

mr_goo

johnfinch wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Why the hell are the UK authorities having them extradited back here.

They're British citizens.

The options are:

1) Let them go to Syria/Iraq to slaughter innocent people.
2) Let another country have them (we can't do that. The other country would just stick them on the first plane back to Blighty and you can't really blame them).
3) Bring them back and deal with them here (preferably by introducing them to a courtroom).

Answers
1. Let them go to Syria/Iraq, and hopefully they will get slaughtered.
2. Let another country have them. If they are sent on a plane back to Blighty, refuse entry and make them sit on the plane for its return journey to country of origin.
3. Introduce them to a court room!! Whats the point. Our pi55y justice system will give them a most lenient sentence. Imprison them, where there are already 12,000 muslims, including 100 hate preachers. Not exactly the best place for them to be 'deradicalised' (if that really is whats happened to them). After a couple of years after faking good behaviour and feigning a social responsibility to the UK, they will be back roaming the streets of the country or back on the first plane to Istanbul.

Leave them out in the Middle East. At least there is a realistic chance they will get to paradise (fingers crossed)

finchy

1) It's completely unacceptable to turn a blind eye to British citizens going to another country to murder innocents. If we are happy to do it to others, why should we expect any other country to cooperate with us in the future?

2) Can't do that. They're British citizens, we can't just force another country to accept them any more than another country can force us to accept their terrorists.

3) There's an election coming up. If you aren't happy with the justice system, harangue any canvassers you get coming to the door.

rick_chasey

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation.
Shoot them !

Keep up.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/36

mr_goo

johnfinch wrote:

1) It's completely unacceptable to turn a blind eye to British citizens going to another country to murder innocents. If we are happy to do it to others, why should we expect any other country to cooperate with us in the future?

2) Can't do that. They're British citizens, we can't just force another country to accept them any more than another country can force us to accept their terrorists.

3) There's an election coming up. If you aren't happy with the justice system, harangue any canvassers you get coming to the door.

1. If we are happy to do it to others? Que?
2. We have plenty of other countries terrorists/suspects. We spent years and millions trying to get rid of some of the bu66ers. They come here claiming asylum and hide in our justice and immigration system. One damned good reason to leave the EU.
3. Cannot wait for the politico canvassers to knock. Saw some Tory bods in next village yesterday, so they are out and about.

In all this business of young so called British Jihadis going on a Club ISIS holiday to Syria/Iraq. It does highlight one main fact. Turkey must never ever be allowed to join the EU. Their borders are like a sieve and any terrorist would end up swanning around Western Europe, most likely UK.

finchy

1) If we are happy to watch as British nationals go to other countries to murder innocent men, women and children in the most awful ways, why should we expect any other country to cooperate with us?

2) Terrorism suspects are fighting extradition processes made by their home countries. That's not the same as what you are suggesting, which is to allow British jihadi wannabes to go and carry out atrocities elsewhere.

3) Have fun with that.

mr_goo

Very shocked to see that Brian Cranston (Walter White), had been moonlighting as Saddam Hussein's deputy and lately been involved with IS. Now meeting his maker.

CYCLESPORT1

Victory for Ukip: BBC backs down and gives Farage his own TV show after debate fix row
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... stion-Time

crispybug2

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

Victory for Ukip: BBC backs down and gives Farage his own TV show after debate fix row
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... stion-Time

Arch cowardice by the BBC.

chris_bass

Hopefully he'll be given enough rope to hang himself with.

Who chooses how this audience is made up?

CYCLESPORT1

True fact>
Muslims have massacred over 590 million non-Muslims since 622AD

rick_chasey

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

True fact>
Muslims have massacred over 590 million non-Muslims since 622AD

Idiotic statement.

ai_1

Rick Chasey wrote:

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

True fact>
Muslims have massacred over 590 million non-Muslims since 622AD

Idiotic statement.

+1

CYCLESPORT1

Islamic Terrorism: Why There Is None in Japan
http://chersonandmolschky.com/2015/04/1 ... ism-japan/

mr_goo

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

Islamic Terrorism: Why There Is None in Japan
http://chersonandmolschky.com/2015/04/1 ... ism-japan/

Sounds like a great country. And I love sushi too.

CYCLESPORT1

http://madworldnews.com/muslims-killing-dogs/

ai_1

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

http://madworldnews.com/muslims-killing-dogs/

That's hardly on topic is it?
Care to at least add your own comments as to why you're posting it?

Pituophis

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

http://madworldnews.com/muslims-killing-dogs/

To be fair, I side with the Iranians when it comes to dogs.

mr_goo

Ai_1 wrote:

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

http://madworldnews.com/muslims-killing-dogs/

That's hardly on topic is it?
Care to at least add your own comments as to why you're posting it?

I think the point of posting this link is to highlight yet another insane and barbarous act committed in the name of that comic called the Koran. And that with 3.5million in the UK subscribing to its medieval teachings, it goes to prove that followers of this cult will never be able to fully assimilate into a Western Democratic and Humane Culture.