ISIS

[David Johnson]

"And as you can see, David would rather bomb bomb bomb if it meant no criticism of Islam"

No, I agree with you that ISIS are a dangerous threat and need wiping out.

Like many, I did not think the Allies were justified in invading Iraq which resulted directly or indirectly in huge loss of life amongst Iraqi civilians and created a vacuum in Iraq which has partly been filled by the horror that is ISIS. On the other hand you were very much in favour of the disastrous invasion of Iraq, the catastrophic results from the bombing of Libya and the harm done by staying in Afghanistan for a period longer than the two world wars put together.

On the subject of "if it meant no criticism of Islam", this again is incorrect. I am sure that there are many who claim to be Muslims will criticise the Allies for this bombing of ISIS for a variety of reasons.

[Sam Slater]

As the forumites can see, David cannot understand my views at all, despite over 2 years of discussions on the topic.

There is a big difference in liberating a nation from the grip of a dictatorial regime that committed genocide on it's people for political reasons and ISIS who are attracting western Muslims to fight for them and where religion is at the centre of it's justification for killing.

And I was consistent. When Assad started murdering his own people at a faster rate than the casualties of the Iraq war, I wanted to intervene again.

As for this current war.....it is not a political regime as such. It has the backing of many Muslims just because they are Muslim. Of course, many Muslims condemn ISIS but that says more about them as good people rather than it being a 'good' religion. If it was all about the Iraq war then why haven't any non-Muslims gone to fight for ISIS? London hosted the largest anti-war demonstration in the world. 90% of those protesters were non-Muslims. You'd expect 90% of British recruits to ISIS to be non-Muslim then if it was all about western interference in the middle east. But what we find is all recruits are Muslim.....specifically 'sunni'.....which ISIS are. This means they're mostly sympathetic to ISIS's plans and intentions due to religion. Given this, I believe it is, as I explained to frankthring, a philosophical battle about ideas as much as a military one. I think my views are far more thought through than just 'wipe them out'. We are not fighting a political regime. People change their politics sometimes on a whim. Not so much with a religion.

Again, I am consistent. I said the Afghan war would take generations before their views on girls' rights to an education changes. Mainly due to a religious view of females which influenced culture for hundreds of years. Bombing alone.....even troops on the ground will not work unless we decide we are in it for the long haul and try and change the culture itself.

The only other way to stop the violence is to prop up yet another murderous, dictatorial regime like we've always done. It works for a while but it just delays the inevitable. Like I said regarding Saddam....he was going to die at some point and two sons would have fought over power. They were both psychopaths and weren't going to decide between them over tea and biscuits who was going to take daddy's place.

[David Johnson]

"As the forumites can see, David cannot understand my views at all"

No. I disagree with your views. There is a difference, Samuel.

"If it was all about the Iraq war then why haven't any non-Muslims gone to fight for ISIS? London hosted the largest anti-war demonstration in the world. 90% of those protesters were non-Muslims. You'd expect 90% of British recruits to ISIS to be non-Muslim then if it was all about western interference in the middle east."

Perhaps you need to read the above paragraph again and put it through a common sense filter prior to a rewrite.

The demonstrations against the Iraq war threat were primarily based on 1. The war being being perceived as illegal without a second UN resolution 2. people not being convinced about the weapons of mass destruction claim from Blair etc. 3. THe potential for unintended consequences as a result of deposing Saddam e.g. increasing terrorism as the UK security services believed and warned Blair about..

What the deomonstrations were not about was 1. non-Muslims wanting to join terrorist organisations 2. a desire for them to decapitate people.

The result of the invasion and subsequent total lack of any sensible plan post war led to a vacuum in which terrorist groups prospered as the UK security services predicted. This vacuum together with installing a pro Shia sectarian Maliki were the key factors in the rise of ISIS supported by many of the Iraqi Sunnis who felt victimised and at risk in a post Saddam Iraq.

[David Johnson]

"many Muslims condemn ISIS but that says more about them as good people rather than it being a 'good' religion."

This highlights your daft views on this subject. According to you, ISIS carry out evil acts because of a belief in an evil religion, Islam in which only Allah can explain beheadings as an evil act. Many Muslims condemn ISIS because they are good people rather than believers in a "good" religion.

I could just as easily and incompetently argue the opposite i.e. ISIS carry out evil acts because they are evil people and use religion as cover. Many Muslims condemn ISIS because they are believers in a religion which condemns ISIS's vile, disgusting behaviour.

[Sam Slater]

As I thought. David still either cannot understand my points, or has lost his spectacles and just misreading me.

The common belief amongst many modern leftists is that somehow we caused ISIS. The next common belief is that British Muslims are fighting for ISIS because they too are angry at our involvement in the area. Basically, it's our own fault and nothing to do with religion.

I say that it has everything to do with religion. Firstly, it's in the name 'ISIS'. Secondly they're targeting anyone who isn't a Sunni Muslim. Thirdly, the European and American recruits so far have been predominantly (maybe even exclusively) Sunni Muslim. They're shouting 'Allahu akbar!' as they cut peoples' heads off for Christ's sake. Anyone who denies this is anything to do with religion is mad.

Now......of course, most Sunni Muslims condemn ISIS and everything they stand for. They either interpret the passages ISIS use to justify their caliphate differently, or just by being 'human', they find it abominable in spite of their religion. My argument is if any philosophy on life, any guide or any religious book can be interpreted, and is frequently being interpreted in a way that brings about groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda then there is something wrong with that text. If we had a law whereby it was often being misinterpreted by judges, leaving many criminals to walk free, we'd seek to change that law. But because it's religion it's somehow untouchable and worthy of protection at all costs.

The trouble with people like David is he wants to protect Islam from any criticism because he equates it to an attack on Muslims who happen to be a minority in this country. What he is yet to understand is that this attitude helps no one but the people who are determined to do us harm. It certainly doesn't help the minority of liberal Muslims who are willing to reform their religion from within. They are usually shunned by a good proportion of their own community and cannot even find succor amongst their supposed western liberal bedfellows. People always complain that our media only ever seems to show radicalised, 'extremist' Muslims on our tv - the Adnan Chaudhrys of our world. I agree with them. So maybe if western liberals started listening to, and supporting reformist Muslims they might get a bit more tv time to spread their message. You know we have problems with the liberal left when a liberal, reformist Muslim has more in common with an EDL knucklehead.

Again, this 'we must not criticise Islam in case we look a bit racist' attitude helps no one we actually want to help. It becomes more about us not looking bigoted than helping progressive Muslims. As I've said before, in affect it becomes a vanity project. Let's stop making it about us; let's stop being defensive and join together to push for change and support Muslims who actually want to drag their religion into the 21st century.

Please don't ostracize me for my views.

[David Johnson]

We disagree. End of.