Another one that hurts

Sadly, it's never been proven to work has it? Over here we have the 'peace in our time' letter from Hitler to remind us that the bad guys don't feel the same way.

I'm a realist

I don't think it's as impossible as flying pigs, but it is a totally idealistic and vain hope. Wars between and inside tribes and nations have been occurring since there have been humans banging rocks together - and probably before. During the the second world war there were pacifists on both sides - they didn't fair well.Maybe if the majority on both sides were avowed pacifists there'd be a chance but even then, it probably wouldn't work - pacifists don't seem to make good leaders. When you get one - like we did in 1938 - they tend to make wrong assumptions about the other side. Islam claims to be the religion of peace; it's leaders don't seem to agree.We now have the strange situation of the leader of the opposition in our parliament refusing point blank to press the nuke button if he was required too, rendering our trillion dollar nuclear deterrent no deterrent at all if he got in power. This week he's saying that a shoot to kill policy against terrorists on the street, like Paris this weekend, would be wrong.It's not going down terribly well considering the circumstances. Many of us admire his courage in saying these things and sticking to his principles - and even admiring his principles. But in the meantime we need a credible response to those who would wipe us off the face of the earth if they could.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Thanks for the education.I think you take pacifism in politicians a bit too literally though. It's a common theme that the people and politicians - with notable exceptions such as Churchill, and for that matter Hitler - that came through WW1 saying never again. And as you say hoping. I agree that I shouldn't label him a pure pacifist, he was, after all a politician and therefore not a pure anything. But he undoubtably had his heart in the right place. Naively. How odd. I met the son of one today, he must have been mistaken, and for that matter so must have been the UK government who granted him a visa because his dad was a Taliban commander. That is a giant hoax of coarse, I'm surprised you fell for it, just because they have no pope does not mean they have no leaders.As for the nuclear arguments, I'm familiar with them all. But the point of raising them was not to get into the ins and outs of them, but to point out the problems when you actually get a real pacifist - and you must admit that he is a real pacifist - as a leader in government. Particularly in times of war. When security is at risk they quickly look rather stupid.

This is an oft repeated sham. Islam has leaders, it just isn't structured the way other institutions are. I'm prepared to bet my beautiful lawnmower againt a bag of peanuts that there are no atheist Taliban leaders. Well that is indeed a safer bet. Christianity had to suffer the enlightenment and is reformed, Islam is suffering it now, but you're preaching to the choir.

I understand that you prefer semantic argument over practical and pragmatic facts but to say that there is no such thing as an Islamic leader when you've just been shown a whole theocratic state full of them is pushing what little argument you had into the absurd. Again, another word game. The law of numbers requires the possible existence of a homosexual, atheistic, apostate Taliban leader. But I'm betting that he gets on his knees and points towards Mecca at the required times. If not it's doubtful that his theological guidance would carry much weight amongst his suicide foot soldiers on their religious mission to blow up the decadant and promiscuous, Western infidel.

Cobblers. I've demonstrated that you're just plain wrong - there are hundreds of Islamic leaders in an Islamic state, they can be named and their religious and political positions and job descriptions can be described. You have fallen for the propaganda that you say matters. Of course it's a word game. It's also a silly and pedantic argument. You can not produce an atheist Taliban leader and you know that the chances of there actually being one is slight to non-existant. You accept that even if there was one, he'd disguise his non-belief and look exactly like all other Muslim terrorist making the entire nonsensical argument moot. [Moot - the matter has been deprived of practical significance or rendered purely academic.]If you have any point in pursuing this losing argument, it can only be as apologetica for a religious system built on some very dangerous ideas.

Yes really. As you are unable to dispute that Islamic states have Islamic leaders - as demonstrated by the FACT that Iran has a whole political and religous infrastructure composed of Islamic leaders - that part of the game is therefore over. Having also been unable to produce an atheist Taliban leader - and just how bloody absurd was that argument? - you now switch to Islam is the religion of peace. So it was all an attempt to excuse the hideous actions of ISIS - that being the Islamic STATE of Iraq and Syria.Well the actions in Paris last week and more importantly the actions of a STATE suggest that reality is otherwise. So now the apologetics and excuses shift. Are you seriously proposing that ISIS is composed purely of psychopaths? That is, psychopaths that proclaim a belief in God and band together in that way that psychopaths do, being notoriously joiners and caring deeply about common causes. Sheesh. Have a think over the evidence instead of about what excuses you can find.And why we're at it, what the fuck are you trying to say and why?

And yet There's nothing more to be said on the leadership nonsense.On the peace nonsense.it's pretty damn clear that those currently creating caliphates and beheading anyone who disagrees with them do not have peace as their primary objective. They claim to be pursuing a holy jihad against the infidel and anyone else that gets in the way. Instead of making up denialist stories involving imaginary atheistic Taliban non-leaders and hoards of psychopaths acting in union on behalf of God, you might start taking them at their word - they want the entire world to be Muslim and they will carry on murdering to achieve it.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

It's clear that you've painted yourself into a very small corner over several issues here that are either flat out wrong or are of no consequence, so I'll make no further comment on the atheistic, pychopathic, Taliban non-Islamic leaders that seem to preoccupy you.Moving on. This is getting alarming. You are now equating our actions - the actions of democratic societies following international law whose purpose is - to choose just one example - 'liberty, equality, fraternity' , with ISIS, a state with the avowed intention of massacring anyone that prevents them converting the world to their exact way of thinking and living. We do not want to kill our enemies but we do need to to stop them killing us. I think it highly likely. Just as no doubt both Sunni and Shia Muslims do, when they pause from boughts of kicking holy shit out of each other. ISIS also claims to be doing the will of Allah in order to build a single Islamic world, by force.Now you have to decide which side has the better motivations and which is most likely to achieve the greater good for the most people.

So out of all that you cherry pick this and fake agreement. How disingenous can you get?Do I agree that a non-leading, Islamic leader will tell his suicide troops that their deaths are for the furtherance of peace on earth? You bet. Do I think that that is the non-leader's motivations or that of the State sponsoring and promoting it. No. As was apparent in the next sentence. I note that whilst happy to wittle away endlessly at irrelevant and incidental issues, you remain mute on the real matter

No you didn't, you avoided it because it causes a problem for you.Throughout this entire thread you've equivocated on issues, attempting to distance Islam from those that are acting in its name - 'Islam has no leaders'.You attempt to equate the West's actions with those of ISIS, claiming that each side is fighting for peace and you brush away obvious facts demonstrating that one side has objectives that deny this utterly.You say that ISIS has atheists disguised as Muslims filling its ranks alongside psychopaths in an attempt to avoid the issue that the core problem has nothing to do with either.And you ignore - as stupid and pointless - any discussion about whether the ideas such. 'Equality, freedom and fraternity' are more likely to be for the greater good of the peace and wellbeing of the world than ISIS's ideas of a global religious caliphate where extreme Islam is the only option available.Your entire contribution here has been a veiled attempt to equate ISIS's vile actions and motivations with our own actions in defending ourselves against them.Like I said way back, you're just an closet apologist for ISIS.

Percy - I understand the points you make and also understood what Modulous was saying at the time.But it's a big 'so what?'Whether there are some atheists (extremely doubtful) and psychopaths (definately) in the Taliban or other extremist groups is irrelevant. It's also irrelevant - and obvious - that hardly anyone thinks that they are evil.It's the underlying theme that I'm objecting too. This 'there are no Islamic leaders' nonsense is not just a small technical or semantic point - it a statement used to assert that Islam is not the problem. It, and the other nonsenses, are said so as to deny or ameliorate the core motive of ISIS - holy jihad - which originate in the core beliefs of Islam - an unreformed and dangerous belief system.He also attempts to equate our actions with theirs, our motivations with theirs and avoids taking any position that might show our values as 'better' than theirs. It's a kind of appeasement: minimising of an extreme position. He's saying we're all the same, just people, they're no better and no worse than us. Well the evidence of Paris says otherwise.

I know what you're arguing - as I said, it's obvious. You're trying to say that we're all the same, we have the same weaknesses and same values, the same hopes and dreams et etc etc. The terribly moderate, tolerant extreme tree hugging blindness that allows all sorts of abhorrences to grow undisturbed for fear of being labelled racist. I seem to remember similar arguments being presented by you over the asian child abuse scandals and FGM, you just could bring yourself to accept that institutions looked the other way and were too frightened of racial accusations to protect their citizens from harmful practices.These issues need to be confronted for what they are - bad and destructive behaviours that will destroy our societies if we tolerate them. This is one of the most patronising few sentences I've seen written on these boards and the competition is intense. You assume I need introducing to these concepts, that I'm not thoroughly aware of the stupidity of demonizing whole races? You think you have said anything that hasn't been said many times here and elswhere and that you have the perfect and unique insight? What hubris.We've gone beyond your simplistic 'we are the world' arguments and beginning to recognise that some ways of organising societies are better than others, that some ideas are bad and that some religious ideologies and cultural practices must be outlawed if we're to advance our socities further and get along together. It's not that Muslims are bad - they are just like everyone else, but that some Islamic dogma is bad and needs to be reformed. What we're seeing now is those bad Islamic ideas being exposed. We need to do more to encourage Muslims to change how their religion deals with modern society and adapt to it rather than look the other way and tolerate things that repell us. It took a couple of centuries for Christianity to reform into a more-or-less harmless belief system. We need to move faster with Islam.It starts by standing up for our values and being intolerant of behaviours and activities that oppose them - no matter where they originate.

Right, so we're finally in violent agreement. Let's stop the apologetics and contortions then.I listened to a good programme on the Paris murders this week, a bumper sticker summary was Muslims need to become 'French Muslims, not Muslims in France.'We've done a rubbish job requiring intergration and adoption of our values and challenging those dogmas and cultural practices that are in defiance of them.