EPTTerrorist Incident declared in London after Van & Knife At…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Amarok
Australia2003 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12363 Posts
On June 06 2017 20:09 Amarok wrote: There's no reason discussions have to be "Focus on context" vs "Focus on Islam". Completely false choice. It's logically impossible that a policy with a focus on islam doesn't damage our focus on context, given that one of the core goals we have in our focus on context is to fight the narrative that we are engaged in a culture war. | ||
|
Amarok
Australia2003 Posts
On June 06 2017 20:17 Nebuchad wrote: It's logically impossible that a policy with a focus on islam doesn't damage our focus on context, given that one of the core goals we have in our focus on context is to fight the narrative that we are engaged in a culture war. That's only possible if you frame the narrative to be that criticism of Islam is the same as declaring war on Islam. That is a line of thinking with a huge number of problems. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12363 Posts
On June 06 2017 20:35 Amarok wrote: That's only possible if you frame the narrative to be that criticism of Islam is the same as declaring war on Islam. That is a line of thinking with a huge number of problems. Well given that we're discussing sets of solutions, it's going to be a state that does the "criticism". When states "criticize" things, it tends to be a little more damaging than when you criticize things in your conversations with me. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On June 06 2017 20:06 Nebuchad wrote: I refer you to a_flayer's list of propositions What, the list where he suggests addressing funding to mosques and relations with an Islamic state, and addressing the education of Muslim youth? Nothing to do with Islam, though, obviously. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12363 Posts
On June 06 2017 20:54 bardtown wrote: What, the list where he suggests addressing funding to mosques and relations with an Islamic state, and addressing the education of Muslim youth? Nothing to do with Islam, though, obviously. It's a focus on radicalism, not a focus on islam. Its goal is to decrease the amount of radicalism within islam not the amount of islam. The amount of radicalism in a religion is dependent on context. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On June 06 2017 20:57 Nebuchad wrote: It's a focus on radicalism, not a focus on islam. Its goal is to decrease the amount of radicalism within islam not the amount of islam. The amount of radicalism in a religion is dependent on context. It's a focus on Islamism, yes. Glad we've cleared that up. Islamism is what separates a British kid with a messed up life who steps off a building from a terrorist who tries to massacre little girls. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12363 Posts
On June 06 2017 21:02 bardtown wrote: It's a focus on Islamism, yes. Glad we've cleared that up. Islamism is what separates a British kid with a messed up life who steps off a building from a terrorist who tries to massacre little girls. So I trust you're voting Corbyn given that he has some of that fight against radicalism in his platform? | ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On June 06 2017 21:13 Nebuchad wrote: So I trust you're voting Corbyn given that he has some of that fight against radicalism in his platform? Not sure if serious | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12363 Posts
You're not sure if I seriously think bardtown is going to vote Corbyn?^^ | ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On June 06 2017 21:17 Nebuchad wrote: You're not sure if I seriously think bardtown is going to vote Corbyn?^^ More the fact you think Corbyn will do anything against radicalism, but then again May hasn't done much either | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12363 Posts
On June 06 2017 21:19 Reaps wrote: More the fact you think Corbyn will do anything against radicalism, but then again May hasn't done much either His focus on Saudi Arabia's actions is a start and is not that different from some of what a_flayer wrote in his proposal. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
| ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On June 06 2017 21:23 Nebuchad wrote: His focus on Saudi Arabia is a start and is not that different from some of what a_flayer wrote in his proposal. If your concern is nation security, Corbyn is the very last person anyone should support, he has voted against 17 anti terrorist laws, u know those laws that have helped foil constant terror attacks since 7/7 his voted against all of them. This is a guy that has attended funerals of dead IRA members and have said the killing of Bin laden is a tradegy, rest of his policy's on terrorism are insane and well known. If people vote for him for the NHS, education and austerity, fair enough though. Judging by where you stand politically though it doesn't surprise me you would support someone like that https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBklbI8XoAEmWTu.jpg | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12363 Posts
On June 06 2017 21:30 Reaps wrote: If your concern is nation security, Corbyn is the very last person anyone should support, he has voted against 17 anti terrorist laws, u know those laws that have helped foil constant terror attacks since 7/7 his voted against all of them. This is a guy that has attended funerals of dead IRA members and have said the killing of Bin laden is a tradegy, rest of his policy's on terrorism are insane and well known. If people vote for him for the NHS, education and austerity, fair enough though. Judging by where you stand politically though it doesn't surprise me you would support someone like that That sounds all very plausible, the dude who wants to become prime minister of the UK is actually a fan of terrorism and wants more terrorism against the UK. It also makes sense politically cause the more terrorism there is, the more people tend to vote left, that's a well known fact. There's no way that if I looked into it, I would find a bunch of things amplified by his political opposition to make voting for him scary. But I mean given where I stand politically I probably want more terrorism as well, I guess. | ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12363 Posts
On June 06 2017 21:42 Reaps wrote: Exactly the kind of strawman snark post i expected from you going by your post history, obviously out of your depth when it comes to these discussion but feel free to carry on arguing against a made up position. All right, so it's a strawman to say that when people insist on Corbyn voting against anti-terrorist laws and being friends with Hezbollah and bin Laden, they're trying to paint him as pro-terrorist. So what is the real position that I'm strawmanning? | ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On June 06 2017 21:45 Nebuchad wrote: All right, so it's a strawman to say that when people insist on Corbyn voting against anti-terrorist laws and being friends with Hezbollah and bin Laden, they're trying to paint him as pro-terrorist. So what is the real position that I'm strawmanning? Maybe the fact i never said he was friends with Bin Laden or the fact that voting against anti terrorist laws doesn't really mean your a "fan" of terrorism and just means you could possibly prioritise other things as i just mentioned Not a single person has said he is pro terrorist, terrorist apologist though? Most definitely. Like i said, either read posts properly or stop with strawmen, you do this all the time, and we are way off topic now, this is going nowhere. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12363 Posts
On June 06 2017 21:50 Reaps wrote: Maybe the fact i never said he was friends with Bin Laden or the fact that voting against anti terrorist laws doesn't really mean your a "fan" of terrorism and just means you could possibly prioritise other things like his political agenda. Not a single person has said he is pro terrorist, terrorist apologist though? Most definitely. Like i said, either read posts properly or stop with strawmen, you do this all the time, and we are way off topic now, this is going nowhere. Voting against anti-terrorism laws does nothing to excuse terrorism. It's not something that you bring up when you're trying to paint him as a terrorist apologist. I don't think I'm strawmanning the general attack on Corbyn that you're relaying here, perhaps you don't agree with it exactly yourself but then you should be careful which points you bring up. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
Abbott, who will become home secretary if Labour wins the election, said in the 1984 interview that Ireland “is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.” So, yes, they actually did side with terrorists against the British state. But rather than look it up, you threaten to look it up assuming you will find that it is all right wing propaganda. | ||
| ||
