John Wilkes Booth

i haven't actually advocated using violence.... i am advocating using words. we should use violence where necessary... for example to apprehend the thugs in question. i'm sure even you agree with that. beyond that i'm not advocating any type of violence so i don't know where you're getting that from.

Oriphiel

You really think that terrorists just woke up one day and were like "Even though our religion is against murder, let's go kill people who disagree with us"? Thousands of years of violence and a massive array of issues have created this problem, but you keep looking for one specific group of people to blame. The funny thing is, your mentality is the same mentality that the terrorists hold, as they constantly hold groups of people accountable for things that are beyond anyone's control, and they truly believe that violence will solve the problem. But guess what? Thousands of years have passed, and the violence hasn't solved anything. In fact, it has only made things worse. As soon as you realize that you're knocking down scarecrows, you'll realize that understanding and compromise are beautiful things that seem tiny and frivolous, but have proven time and again that they are the most powerful things on earth.

Oriphiel

I can't believe how much you're missing the point... I'll try to explain it as simply as possible, because this is just getting ridiculous. You have said time and again that the best solution in this situation is to retaliate against the terrorists. This is supporting the use of violence. You've also advocated the deportation and killing of people whose only similarity to the terrorists is in religion. So when I talk about violence, i'm not taking a dig at your personal level of violence. I'm talking about the mentality you support. And before you get all angry about me picking apart your argument, remember that I did predict this turn of events:

John Wilkes Booth

...is that what i said?

i think that there is a trend to reject certain modern liberal values in certain religions. it has been an ongoing conflict for some time now and it honestly isn't specific to islam. the same antipathy towards modern liberal values that islamists have is displayed in christian fundamentalists as well. it's not all just so and so's country got bombed so now they're angry. a lot of islamic terrorists are actually from wealthy backgrounds and highly educated. they believe firmly in their religious perspective and they believe that a caliphate under islam is both desirable and necessary. yes this mentality has been affected by imperialism. for example western imperialism marginalized the governments in a lot of these countries and empowered the mosques which helped fan the flames for this type of fundamentalism. but it isn't strictly about anger over imperialism... believe it or not there are a number of different world views out there and some of them don't gel all that well with modern liberalism. once again look into sayyid qutb.

he was disgusted by sexual liberation in his time spent in the US. this was one of the main things that spurred his antagonism towards western society and influenced him to write about tactics for establishing an islamic state in egypt even if that meant spilling innocent blood. he was one of the main influences for bin laden & co, who were similarly wealthy and well educated men, not impoverished kids living in gaza.

i'd love for you to be right tbh. but it has to happen first, then i'll concede your point. when i look at the world i just don't see it.

Unknown Soldier

Homegrown terrorists often operate differently to international terrorists, unless they are subservient to the international group.

They are taking the fight to our doorstep as we have taken it to theirs, quite logical really.

I call it using your noodle and keeping your yapper shut, and we all know that the freedom of the press/media had led to all kinds of things that really shouldn't be printed anyway, they have a tendency to upset all types of groups anyway.

You seem to have some great fear of being bossed about because you keep on bringing it up. The country where you live has one of the best freedom of expressions in the world, so I see no reason why the odd compromise shouldn't be made now and again.

If somebody was threatening to deport you to Iran to shack up with the bearded ones, then I could clearly understand your fears and concerns on this matter.

Startlingly obvious really, by the west not being in the Middle East and leaving them to sort out their own problems, issues and economics etc. If this were the case then self-censorship as you put it would be a minor issue anyway.

You seem to have the concept in your head of all or nothing against these terrorists, this is something that governments have often learnt long hard lessons from especially here in Europe.

__________________
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History

John Wilkes Booth

...with words.

....no.

at this point i have to assume you're being intentionally dense tbh

quote where i said this?

you're just making baseless accusations tbh. back up a single one and then i'll be impressed.

Oriphiel

It already did. The Civil Rights Movement. The leaders preached non-violence in the face of horrible treatment, and it worked. Also, remember when Ghandi convinced his fellow people to do away with violent retaliation, and to converse peacefully with the British? If they had ignored him and started using terrorism against the British in order to achieve liberation, nothing would have been solved and thousands would have perished. Time has told that understanding and respect will always solve more than blind retaliation.

Now, as agreed, you'll concede my point? And the argument is finally over?Great! Let's go get some waffles, i'm really hungry and I need a good breakfast... but, uh, I left my wallet in my other pants. Mind getting the bill, friend?

John Wilkes Booth

alright... my point is that it's not just an overseas boogeyman when it affects what you can or can't say and do in your own society.i'll take that as a yes @ self censorship then? we'll just have to disagree cause we won't see eye to eye tbh
how do you think we got this freedom though? it wasn't through compromise lol, that's sort of my point.

John Wilkes Booth

oh... i'm not arguing against non violence. i'm arguing against compromise in the face of thuggery and extortion.

edit - the ghandi / civil rights example is funny cause you can use it as an analogy here. what tactic did they use? passive defiance in the face of thuggery. when they were attacked with violence, they continued to use civil disobedience to get their point across. to me, saying we should compromise in the face of thuggery is akin to saying ghandi & co should have given up when they were attacked. i mean they should have known better right? what did they expect, provoking those racist white people like that? you would think they would have learned not to poke the polar bear.

sorry, can't do waffles. i'm on a pork-only diet out of principle.

Unknown Soldier

You got that freedom by getting rid of your nasty British oppressors who were telling you what to do on your own soil. This is hardly comparable to making the odd compromise with terrorists.

If fact we Brits could call you terrorists, but that's all in the past now and things move on.

btw you should stop debating with Oriphiel concerning historical matters, as she/he has clearly got you owned on that

__________________
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History