Off Topic Paris (again)

You liked this outrageous post about a generic religion, you gave support to his horrendous bigotry and hate:

This is what I said:

You supported him and he thrives on that. I was not surprised at him or Bengals Tiger, but, to a degree, I was at you.

 

It appears to be the only way, and I'm all for it if it has even the slightest of positive effects in reducing the slaughter of innocent human beings.

RIP to all the latest victims of the scumbag terrorists, and condolences to families, friends and all of the normal thinking members of the human race.

 

He didn't mention a religion. I think he was referring to people who hated the West. I think I've made it clear because I have also liked many posts when people point out that a lot of muslims are kind people.
You seem to be making up reasons to attack me and you seem to be struggling to find anything that I've said that you can produce that sensible people would disagree with.

 

Who has said that, you say there is more than one, but name me one or two? Why is it you never back up anything you say, do it now?

 

I pointed out something (#293) that you seem to be now trying to deny and you are now ignoring it.

 

I would dispute some of that. Is it simply revenge, I very much doubt that, although I would agree it is one factor. I think the politics and hated are far more involved than that. IS are killing far more people of all persuasions, including Muslims, in the Far East, we Europeans are a very small element of their violence and aggression, but we get headlines and that is what they seek; they feast on infamy.

A death in the east may be acceptable to you, but I can assure you it is not acceptable to me.

You finally mentioned psychopaths, I think that is a valid point, they don't just thrive on revenge, they simply use it, along with other things, as a means to their ends.

 

Manford's rant is what many are thinking I would wager right now.



In Bruce you trust...again.

 

Then you read and understand what I have written with no element of understanding, let me help you:

“Live our lives, follow our beliefs, maintain our laws and work to convince others of where we believe they are wrong.”

This suggests an ongoing objective. It doesn't detail what the method(s) should be. It isn't limiting anyone to just discussing it as you have falsely claimed elsewhere. It certainly does not, in any way, suggest or say that "if they don't agree with us we should let them carry on with these disgusting acts", that is just another lie of yours.

Just to help you further, working to convince others of where we believe they are wrong can include national and international indignation and condemnation, structured and progressive diplomacy, sanctions and prohibitions, security and movement restrictions, military intervention. Somewhere in there your inane repetition of the need for further surveillance might be appropriate.

 

Not attacking you, Peter, I have simply responded to you throughout. I don't need to make up reasons for finding fault in your argument, you supply them in abundance.

 

You are struggling to keep your story straight.
I said something very similar to the above: "I've always been of the view that the west needs to be the policeman of the world. They should try to educate countries when they step over any certain lines which need to be discussed and decided. Responses should range from talking to the leaders of countries, through to sanctions and finally invasion. I would think that prolonged sanctions would be sufficient if all other countries complied with the sanctions requests. If they didn't comply they should suffer similar sanctions.
The alternative would be to tell these countries we don't like what they are doing and them ignoring us.”
Your response was: “Bloody hell, Peter; rarely have I read a more condescending and totally arrogant post than that - and you're an intelligent man. Scary.”
What distinguishes my solution from yours?

 

We should all be very grateful for the seas that surround our country! I know we've had a few bombings but nothing like Paris has endured! We stopped hitler and hopefully we'll stop these cowards? That's how I describe them! Cowards without the balls to stand up in a uniform and fight!

 

I'd rather not. It's got to be a breach on human rights. Everyone would be able to find out exactly where we are, what were doing at any given time. Privacy would be non existent.

 

You say that but you seem incapable of giving an example of fault in my argument.

 

Everyone? Not just GCHQ, MI5 and MI6?

 

Given that Islamic State is not a country negates your argument, admirable as you may think it is.

 

Can you give us a clue what you are referring to?

 

Bloody hell, Peter! There is a massive difference between working to convince others and being the Policemen of the World.

You made it a west vs east matter, which is bordering on the insane. It is not about us being policemen, it is about us helping to educate and assist their policemen; work with the elements who need help, support them, don't overwhelm them. Any sanctions should be the withdrawal of something we are entitled to withdraw, that might be diplomatic relations, trade - in and out, the sharing of sporting competitions, etc. Military intervention (when appropriate) should be a united, international strike at the core issue, the IS leadership and culture, not an invasion of a sovereign territory as that is war - is that what you are advocating, Peter, WAR?

 

It's not a television game show peter. I was responding to some of the inane but no doubt sincerely felt opinions that you have.

 

I have given many. I think the quiet posting says it all. you should throw the shovel away.

 

So you are saying that military intervention should never include an invasion of a sovereign territory? The Allies should never have invaded Iraq? They should have stopped as soon as they had removed Iraqi military from Kuwait. There should have been no invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11?
There should have been no invasion of Germany in the first world war or second world war? No invasion of Iwo Jima or Okinawa in the second world war?
I disagree with you completely.