The Left and Islam

[Bast]

So.. are you saying that the left supports Islam, or that the left supports terrorism?

Cuz.. I dare you to find one instance of anyone on the left speaking out in favour of islamic terrorism.

This article is bunk.

Read the article. It's not criticizing the left. Please read it and know who it's talking about.

 

[blackheart]

That's great but how's that going to stop Jihadist propaganda from spreading?

Educate people and give them something else to believe in.

 

[Sidhe]

That's great but how's that going to stop Jihadist propaganda from spreading?

Do it then you live in a democracy, get a petition together and send it to your local MP, get him to raise your issues in your parliament. In this country three letters from seperate people, assuming it meets the requirements of a topic of conversation must be raised in the houses of parliament by law.

Well I'm not going to stop any propoganda from spreading personally, nor could I, but I don't think jihadist propoganda is particularly condoned, even by muslims.

 

[Gelion]

^^^It is filled with propaganda cliches! From the very first line....

 

[skadistic]

While that first link may be slightly disturbing, it should be known that, if you think that is bad, imagine mass media during WWII. Stuff like this happens in every war.

It also doesn't say they deliberately targeted civilians because they were civilians.

Sergeant First Class John Meadows summed up the prevailing attitude amongst his colleagues telling the Evening Standard that Iraqi fighters were dressed in civilian clothes.


"You can't distinguish between who's trying to kill you and who's not," he said.

So you came up with a link. How does that answer my questions?

 

[Gelion]

I came up with a simple search you could have done on your own. I did answer your question: "yes US military deliberately targets civilians". You could have done the same yourself. My claims are backed.... try and learn how to use Google, ok?

 

[Bast]

I came up with a simple search you could have done on your own. I did answer your question: "yes US military deliberately targets civilians". You could have done the same yourself. My claims are backed.... try and learn how to use Google, ok?

LOL! Have you ever heard of collateral damage?

In a war, ANY war, civillians are killed. But the US miliatary doesn't target civillians, if one jumps in front of a terrorist what can you do?

 

[Gelion]

LOL! Have you ever heard of collateral damage?

In a war, ANY war, civillians are killed. But the US miliatary doesn't target civillians, if one jumps in front of a terrorist what can you do?

LOL... do go to at least a few of the links under the search...LOL.....

 

[Bast]

LOL... do go to at least a few of the links under the search...LOL.....

No because you made a Google search which also brings up bloggers and other biased sites. Not all of it were news articles from reliable sources.

And NONE of them says the US military deliberately targets civillians.

 

[sysyphus]

LOL! Have you ever heard of collateral damage?

In a war, ANY war, civillians are killed. But the US miliatary doesn't target civillians, if one jumps in front of a terrorist what can you do?

Which is the very reason why all war must be tightly scrutinised by the general public. Not always objected to, but deeply scrutinised.

 

[Gelion]

No because you made a Google search which also brings up bloggers and other biased sites. Not all of it were news articles from reliable sources.

And NONE of them says the US military deliberately targets civillians.

You mommy always unwrapped your sweets before putting them into your mouth? Sorry I won't do her work. If you can't accept the information from "wrong" sites (there's got to be well paid professionals distributing false information to corrupt pure australian minds, right?) chances are you won't accept anything not fitting into your well colored (black and white) picture of the world. Try inserting "BBC", "atrocity" "Iraq" "CNN" "Euronews" into the search. Combining with the words used above they can provide you with hours of entrtaining (but certainly wrong) information.

 

[Sidhe]

^^^It is filled with propaganda cliches! From the very first line....

Sorry was that directed at me?

 

[Gelion]

Sorry was that directed at me?

No, the first post of this page (if you use forum standarts)...

I might have put too many arrows.

 

[Elrohir]

Very well said. But don't blame socialism totally. Remember what Bebel said, "Anti-semitism is the socialism of fools" just like "Anti-Americanism is the anti-Imperialism of fools".

I don't think all socialists fall into this trap, and I think it's certainly possible to be a socialist or a leftist and not sympathize with terrorist groups. (Although I confess I don't understand why anyone would choose to be a socialist at all.) But in a way I think it is the logical growth of socialist thought, and the desire for international solidarity. A sort of "we scratch your back, you scratch ours" sort of thing, only they don't understand that radical Islamists have no interest in later helping socialists.

I came up with a simple search you could have done on your own. I did answer your question: "yes US military deliberately targets civilians". You could have done the same yourself. My claims are backed.... try and learn how to use Google, ok?

You mommy always unwrapped your sweets before putting them into your mouth? Sorry I won't do her work. If you can't accept the information from "wrong" sites (there's got to be well paid professionals distributing false information to corrupt pure australian minds, right?) chances are you won't accept anything not fitting into your well colored (black and white) picture of the world. Try inserting "BBC", "atrocity" "Iraq" "CNN" "Euronews" into the search. Combining with the words used above they can provide you with hours of entrtaining (but certainly wrong) information.

I've decided to create a new term: argumentum ad google. Many times I've seen people vaguely tell others to "google it" because they're "too busy to explain it". It's closely related to the argumentum ad verecundiam (Appeal to authority) and argumentum ad populum (Appeal to the people, or majority). In effect, what you're saying is "everyone knows it, just google it" and throwing your burden of proof on google.

That's not good enough. You made your assertion, you prove it.

Note:The term "argumentum ad google" has been used before, but in a different context. (Why getting a certain number of hits doesn't reflect the quality of the website)

 

[Gelion]

It works because certain people are not willing to accept information unless it comes from "approved" sites. I find it dull.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6152118.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5311056.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5037124.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3209426.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5096660.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5134106.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5028830.stm

This is only from BBC...

 

[Sidhe]

The BBC is not a particularly good example of lying, sure it can get things wrong, but the last time it was considered wrong or biased it had a professional and public enquiry into it, which it then acknowledge would lead to certain words and terms not being used, not that it's stories were wrong but that it's dialogue was prejorative.

If you want crap then look at certain media sources that are the basis of all crapness allegations. Worthless IMHO. Might as well listen to Hitler's speeches, probably got more truth in than propagandist drivel, based on bias. There is always going to be bias, but reporters have a responsibility to report the facts, if they don't they're just comedians with a suit and tie.

 

[Gelion]

The BBC is not a particularly good example of lying

Thanks for that it was my point. As for the rest...I dont know what you mean and probably because we are talking about different things. If you can make your point clearer, then please do so.

 

[Sidhe]

My mistake I kinda fudged up there. Appologies.

 

[Katheryn]

Thanks Winner. Happy New Year, btw.

And it's not minorities, just a "minority". But really it's not because there are 1 billion + muslims in the world and growing. It's the fastest growing religion in the world (also the western world).

Only because they treat it as a 'race' as well as a religion.

It is also illegal to convert on paper, so many converts do not process the paperwork. Those that do are harrassed and denied the paperwork. In many Islamic countries, Muslim women are forbidden from marrying Chrisitan men, so they just don't bother. Their children are also classified as "Muslim". It's pretty difficult for these people, as more and more Islamic law is instituted in Asia and the Middle East.

 

[skadistic]

It works because certain people are not willing to accept information unless it comes from "approved" sites. I find it dull.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6152118.stm
Rape is not diliberately targeting civilians. This does not show the US military uses the tactic of targeting civilians. What happened to the soldiers? What happened to the last bomber of a market by his comand chain?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5311056.stm
This one doesn't say the US uses the tactic of targeting civilians. It doesn't even sat the solders are gulity. But there is an investigation. When the last mosque was blown up did that bombers superiors launch an investigation?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5037124.stm
Again doesn't show the US uses the tactic of targeting civilians.

A pregnant Iraqi woman in labour and her cousin were shot dead by US forces as they rushed to hospital along a closed road, police and relatives say.

So a car running at full speed down a closed road is the fault of the man who didn't stop.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3209426.stm
Human Rights Watch.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5096660.stm
This is allready been covered.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5134106.stm

The US military has opened a criminal investigation into the alleged killing of an Iraqi family by US soldiers.

So tell me how does this proove the US uses the tactic of targeting civilians. And what did the leaders of the men who exacuted 50 Iraqi military men do? Did they launch an investigation?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5028830.stm

The top military adviser to the US president says a probe into whether US marines deliberately killed a group of Iraqi civilians must not be prejudged.
But Gen Peter Pace said there would be charges if marines were found to have killed the civilians in Haditha last November and tried to cover it up.

And this prooves the US uses the tactic of targeting civilians how?

This is only from BBC...

It doesn't mater what other sources you dig they will point to the same stories.

Not one of your links pointed out any proof that the US targets civilians as a tactic. What it does show is there are some criminals, some accidents, some questionable acusations and some collateral damege.