ISIS sinks to new depths of depravity
05 February 2015, 12:56 PM
#121
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-10024847.html
Not really too sure about the UN myself, but if this isn't in some way propaganda
Then I think we've taken another giant step towards full on war with this lot
Not really too sure about the UN myself, but if this isn't in some way propaganda
Then I think we've taken another giant step towards full on war with this lot
05 February 2015, 01:03 PM
#122
Scooby Regular
I'm not going to get into an debate over symantics. Like I said, if there is evidence for the intelligence services to deem there is credible threat they will deal with it like they did recently with the drone strike. You seem so intent that despite this particular threat being effectively irradicated, you now want to see our country commit our forces to a ground incursion despite no credible evidence of them actually having successfully created a functional chemical weapon.
What evidence do you have that IS have in control a chemical stockpile or even a stockpile of chemicals to make the most deadly and banned of chemical weapons? Under the UN Security Council's resolution in 2013, much of Syria's most deadly stockpile and equipment have been decommissioned or taken out of Syria and has been confirmed by the OPCW at the end of 2014. Therefore I would question IS's ability to get hold of such deadly chemicals, and if any exist in Syria, they would be hidden in the most secure locations away from the prying eyes of the UN Security Council and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Unfortunately, because chlorine is not as deadly and not banned under international law, (Syria are still using this chemical on its own people), there will be no ground incursion to seize and destroy these weapons.
IS make no secret of the chemical weapons ambition and therefore all the intelligence agencies will be monitoring their activities very closely and will deal with the threat accordingly. The threat, however, as it currently stands is not enough to warrent a costly full scale military ground intervention that is likely to last several years. We tried that with the Talibans and Al-Qaeda and what did that acheive?
What evidence do you have that IS have in control a chemical stockpile or even a stockpile of chemicals to make the most deadly and banned of chemical weapons? Under the UN Security Council's resolution in 2013, much of Syria's most deadly stockpile and equipment have been decommissioned or taken out of Syria and has been confirmed by the OPCW at the end of 2014. Therefore I would question IS's ability to get hold of such deadly chemicals, and if any exist in Syria, they would be hidden in the most secure locations away from the prying eyes of the UN Security Council and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Unfortunately, because chlorine is not as deadly and not banned under international law, (Syria are still using this chemical on its own people), there will be no ground incursion to seize and destroy these weapons.
IS make no secret of the chemical weapons ambition and therefore all the intelligence agencies will be monitoring their activities very closely and will deal with the threat accordingly. The threat, however, as it currently stands is not enough to warrent a costly full scale military ground intervention that is likely to last several years. We tried that with the Talibans and Al-Qaeda and what did that acheive?
So far the World has sat back and not taken seriously the threat Al Qaeda in Iraq posed. So whilst they were highly ambitious they were ignored because they were thought of as an insignificant risk. The most extreme members of that organisation then split off and create ISIS which in turn is again ignored as being insignificant. Then out of nowhere they suddenly control half of Syria defeating Bashad's troops and move East slowly but steadily expanding across the North of Iraq and then Southwards to where they now sit close to the edge of Bagdhad. Whilst they have been doing that they have been growing in numbers, financial strength, military capabilities and murdering thousands of people in the process.
That doesn't sound like containment to me. So just how much more 'containment' do you want to see before it's then serious enough to warrant a ground offensive to drive them back out of the major cities they hold and severely reduce their presence and capabilities? Wiat until they have taken Bagdhad? Wait further until they have pushed South to the oil fields and control them? Or wait still further until they start terrorist operations against the West?
From what parts I have followed and what is publicly reported it seems the biggest success against ISIS has come from the Kurds/Peshmerga and that was through ground offensives pushing back ISIS away from their Kurdish run territory in the North East, especially away from the large dam/reservoir at Mosul which at one point ISIS had taken control of. So whilst the coalition continues it's air strikes they aren't having the same effect as ground troops. Those local troops have been calling for foreign troops to join them for months now because they need greater numbers to carry on fighting ISIS.
Surely if that is an offensive that works then supporting the Peshmerga with more than just air strikes is vital to success in fighting against ISIS.
05 February 2015, 01:09 PM
#123
Scooby Regular
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-10024847.html
Not really too sure about the UN myself, but if this isn't in some way propaganda
Then I think we've taken another giant step towards full on war with this lot
Not really too sure about the UN myself, but if this isn't in some way propaganda
Then I think we've taken another giant step towards full on war with this lot
05 February 2015, 01:17 PM
#124
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 2,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For which we have to take YOUR word.
I've done some research over the past couple of hours and you'd never guess, whilst what I posted is at the extreme end of Sharia law, it exists.
Aww diddums. Deal with it. I coped fine without offence being called a ***** (very mature of you Shaid, by the way
)
And thats quite a telling comment. I'd not be offended about being told "some of YOUR Britsih laws" because they are the laws under which I live and I am happy to embrace and accept them. What is there for a British person to be offended about Shaid? So tell us, why would that offend YOU as a British person?
Oh, yeah, and and discussing it on an Islamic (to be 100% accurate) forum is going to be?? Lets add "dilusional" to "persecuted" and "hypocrite".
Your opinion of me is irrelevant Shaid. But I will accuse you of avoiding the subject for as long as you continue to do so. What I want to know is what parts of what I posted earlier are not part of Sharia Law?
Youve been given an opportunity to correct what you consider to be "sensasional bollox". Simply saying "most of it is BS" doesn't cut it.
You're avoiding the subject becase you cannot defend the indefensible.
"End of really" tells us all we need to know.
I've done some research over the past couple of hours and you'd never guess, whilst what I posted is at the extreme end of Sharia law, it exists.
Aww diddums. Deal with it. I coped fine without offence being called a ***** (very mature of you Shaid, by the way
) And thats quite a telling comment. I'd not be offended about being told "some of YOUR Britsih laws" because they are the laws under which I live and I am happy to embrace and accept them. What is there for a British person to be offended about Shaid? So tell us, why would that offend YOU as a British person?
Oh, yeah, and and discussing it on an Islamic (to be 100% accurate) forum is going to be?? Lets add "dilusional" to "persecuted" and "hypocrite".
Your opinion of me is irrelevant Shaid. But I will accuse you of avoiding the subject for as long as you continue to do so. What I want to know is what parts of what I posted earlier are not part of Sharia Law?
Youve been given an opportunity to correct what you consider to be "sensasional bollox". Simply saying "most of it is BS" doesn't cut it.
You're avoiding the subject becase you cannot defend the indefensible.
"End of really" tells us all we need to know.
My opinion of you is very relevant to this discussion.
Who is this 'we' that you speak of? I believe it is another tactic certain folk use to strengthen their argument. Numbers and moral support from like minded folk. Just goes to prove as I said - too afraid to venture outside the comfort zone.
From what I can see you're another cop out. You have no intention of learning just trolling in an attempt to get a raise. If you really want to debate bring it on however all I ask is you debate it on a appropriate platform. You can bring some of your buddies to give you moral support too.
05 February 2015, 01:27 PM
#125
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 2,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd not be offended about being told "some of YOUR Britsih laws" because they are the laws under which I live and I am happy to embrace and accept them. What is there for a British person to be offended about Shaid? So tell us, why would that offend YOU as a British person?
It's almost like saying that just because our legal system has made some daft judgements in the past then that is 'our' law as if we fully support it without question.
05 February 2015, 01:46 PM
#126
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS - and being quite blunt, you can take your Sharia Law and shove it up your ****.
According to the Sharia law:
• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad's words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be Halal.
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
• The list goes on.
Not quite the same as having to avoid the M6 in your 1.6 Focus, is it?
According to the Sharia law:
• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad's words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be Halal.
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
• The list goes on.
Not quite the same as having to avoid the M6 in your 1.6 Focus, is it?
Blimey, was this simplistic bigotry lifted straight from the National Front website?
05 February 2015, 01:59 PM
#127
Scooby Regular
My opinion of you is very relevant to this discussion.
Who is this 'we' that you speak of? I believe it is another tactic certain folk use to strengthen their argument. Numbers and moral support from like minded folk. Just goes to prove as I said - too afraid to venture outside the comfort zone.
From what I can see you're another cop out. You have no intention of learning just trolling in an attempt to get a raise. If you really want to debate bring it on however all I ask is you debate it on a appropriate platform. You can bring some of your buddies to give you moral support too.
Who is this 'we' that you speak of? I believe it is another tactic certain folk use to strengthen their argument. Numbers and moral support from like minded folk. Just goes to prove as I said - too afraid to venture outside the comfort zone.
From what I can see you're another cop out. You have no intention of learning just trolling in an attempt to get a raise. If you really want to debate bring it on however all I ask is you debate it on a appropriate platform. You can bring some of your buddies to give you moral support too.
"We" is the plural of "I", pure and simple. Last time I checked there was more than one person interested in your answer. If you think I'm using it to somehow address an insecurity you are very wrong
I'm not trolling in any way shape or form. If there is ever a "cop out", then accusing somene of trolling to avoid giving a straightforward answer, its that. Incidentally, the phrase is "get a rise" "Not get a raise"
I'm not the one avoiding the issue here Shaid. I'm not the one hiding. I'm happy to deal with it head on.
I agree i should have been more clear. When someone is blatantly lying about the law i will be offended when i am told those lies are somehow associated with 'me. Most people would be.
It's almost like saying that just because our legal system has made some daft judgements in the past then that is 'our' law as if we fully support it without question.
It's almost like saying that just because our legal system has made some daft judgements in the past then that is 'our' law as if we fully support it without question.
If what I posted is all lies, and Shiria Law does not include a whole range of indefensibles, then why be offended at being associated with it?
Have aread of this, written by a Muslim, and come back and tell me all I'be written is bollox and b/s
http://muslimsfacingtomorrow.com/i-a...-hasan-mahmud/
05 February 2015, 02:04 PM
#128
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 2,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaid, I'm not the one refusing to answer the question
"We" is the plural of "I", pure and simple. Last time I checked there was more than one person interested in your answer. If you think I'm using it to somehow address an insecurity you are very wrong
I'm not trolling in any way shape or form. If there is ever a "cop out", then accusing somene of trolling to avoid giving a straightforward answer, its that. Incidentally, the phrase is "get a rise" "Not get a raise"
I'm not the one avoiding the issue here Shaid. I'm not the one hiding. I'm happy to deal with it head on.
Nice attempt to backtrack
If what I posted is all lies, and Shiria Law does not include a whole range of indefensibles, then why be offended at being associated with it?
Have aread of this, written by a Muslim, and come back and tell me all I'be written is bollox and b/s
http://muslimsfacingtomorrow.com/i-a...-hasan-mahmud/
"We" is the plural of "I", pure and simple. Last time I checked there was more than one person interested in your answer. If you think I'm using it to somehow address an insecurity you are very wrong
I'm not trolling in any way shape or form. If there is ever a "cop out", then accusing somene of trolling to avoid giving a straightforward answer, its that. Incidentally, the phrase is "get a rise" "Not get a raise"
I'm not the one avoiding the issue here Shaid. I'm not the one hiding. I'm happy to deal with it head on.
Nice attempt to backtrack
If what I posted is all lies, and Shiria Law does not include a whole range of indefensibles, then why be offended at being associated with it?
Have aread of this, written by a Muslim, and come back and tell me all I'be written is bollox and b/s
http://muslimsfacingtomorrow.com/i-a...-hasan-mahmud/
Put simply you are a liar! Nothing more.
You post a load of bollox and then expect me to refute it? You really are a special kind of stupid.
My offer is open come along don't be spineless.
05 February 2015, 02:07 PM
#129
I'm not suggesting a ground offensive purely because of the threat of chemical weapons, i'm suggesting it because of all the threats put together of which chemical weapons is just one risk.
So far the World has sat back and not taken seriously the threat Al Qaeda in Iraq posed. So whilst they were highly ambitious they were ignored because they were thought of as an insignificant risk. The most extreme members of that organisation then split off and create ISIS which in turn is again ignored as being insignificant. Then out of nowhere they suddenly control half of Syria defeating Bashad's troops and move East slowly but steadily expanding across the North of Iraq and then Southwards to where they now sit close to the edge of Bagdhad. Whilst they have been doing that they have been growing in numbers, financial strength, military capabilities and murdering thousands of people in the process.
That doesn't sound like containment to me. So just how much more 'containment' do you want to see before it's then serious enough to warrant a ground offensive to drive them back out of the major cities they hold and severely reduce their presence and capabilities? Wiat until they have taken Bagdhad? Wait further until they have pushed South to the oil fields and control them? Or wait still further until they start terrorist operations against the West?
From what parts I have followed and what is publicly reported it seems the biggest success against ISIS has come from the Kurds/Peshmerga and that was through ground offensives pushing back ISIS away from their Kurdish run territory in the North East, especially away from the large dam/reservoir at Mosul which at one point ISIS had taken control of. So whilst the coalition continues it's air strikes they aren't having the same effect as ground troops. Those local troops have been calling for foreign troops to join them for months now because they need greater numbers to carry on fighting ISIS.
Surely if that is an offensive that works then supporting the Peshmerga with more than just air strikes is vital to success in fighting against ISIS.
So far the World has sat back and not taken seriously the threat Al Qaeda in Iraq posed. So whilst they were highly ambitious they were ignored because they were thought of as an insignificant risk. The most extreme members of that organisation then split off and create ISIS which in turn is again ignored as being insignificant. Then out of nowhere they suddenly control half of Syria defeating Bashad's troops and move East slowly but steadily expanding across the North of Iraq and then Southwards to where they now sit close to the edge of Bagdhad. Whilst they have been doing that they have been growing in numbers, financial strength, military capabilities and murdering thousands of people in the process.
That doesn't sound like containment to me. So just how much more 'containment' do you want to see before it's then serious enough to warrant a ground offensive to drive them back out of the major cities they hold and severely reduce their presence and capabilities? Wiat until they have taken Bagdhad? Wait further until they have pushed South to the oil fields and control them? Or wait still further until they start terrorist operations against the West?
From what parts I have followed and what is publicly reported it seems the biggest success against ISIS has come from the Kurds/Peshmerga and that was through ground offensives pushing back ISIS away from their Kurdish run territory in the North East, especially away from the large dam/reservoir at Mosul which at one point ISIS had taken control of. So whilst the coalition continues it's air strikes they aren't having the same effect as ground troops. Those local troops have been calling for foreign troops to join them for months now because they need greater numbers to carry on fighting ISIS.
Surely if that is an offensive that works then supporting the Peshmerga with more than just air strikes is vital to success in fighting against ISIS.
05 February 2015, 02:11 PM
#130
Scooby Regular
Yes, I'm sure Muslim converts would have a lot of nasties to say about their previous way of life too.
Put simply you are a liar! Nothing more.
You post a load of bollox and then expect me to refute it? You really are a special kind of stupid.
My offer is open come along don't be spineless.
Put simply you are a liar! Nothing more.
You post a load of bollox and then expect me to refute it? You really are a special kind of stupid.
My offer is open come along don't be spineless.
I'm no liar. You are, however, in denial.
You've been quick to use wikipedia to support your position in the past, so have a read of this, and the link I posted above.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law
You going to tell me, and anyone else intersted, that that is all bollox as well?
You're a joke
05 February 2015, 02:24 PM
#131
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 2,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How am I a liar Shaid? I copied something from the internet, you called it bollox and I asked you to refute it. You have failed to do so other than to say its b/s.
I'm no liar. You are, however, in denial.
You've been quick to use wikipedia to support your position in the past, so have a read of this, and the link I posted above.
Sharia law - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You going to tell me, and anyone else intersted, that that is all bollox as well?
You're a joke
I'm no liar. You are, however, in denial.
You've been quick to use wikipedia to support your position in the past, so have a read of this, and the link I posted above.
Sharia law - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You going to tell me, and anyone else intersted, that that is all bollox as well?
You're a joke
You linked Wikipedia which says regarding Sharia
There is not a strictly codified uniform set of laws that can be called Sharia. It is more like a system of several laws, based on the Qur'an, Hadith and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent.
So now knowing this you still think that bullcrap you posted is credible. Don't get me wrong, i'm not too keen on the apostate rulings either however the absurd comment you claim are 'sharia law' simply shows your true colours and the credibility you have (or lack of).
05 February 2015, 02:49 PM
#134
Super Muppet
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Inside out
Posts: 33,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have muslim mates I do not call them ******* pakies Shaid not sure what you are trying to achieve here,yes i have read the thread but you seem to be a bit lost.
Assalamu alaykum
Assalamu alaykum
05 February 2015, 02:52 PM
#135
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 2,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05 February 2015, 02:54 PM
#136
Scooby Regular
I know what you are saying, but putting troops on the ground will mean going into Syria, that's just not possible. They are not our allies, they have not requested help and any incursion into their country will be considered an invasion and an act of war on Syria. The Syrian army are much better equipped than IS. As cold as it may seem, the risks far out weigh the possible benefits. Also Syria are allies of Russia, China and Iran. I'm afraid it's not as simple as going in after IS terrorists.
Yes he may well draw the line at any ground offensive but then the coalition can turn round and say that's fine it's for him to deal with when they drive ISIS back out of Iraq into Syria. Would he want to be left to deal with them on his own after they have already taken half of Syria? Not even a nutcase like him is that mad. He has an opportunity to save his own skin and stay in power by doing deals with the US over how much they can do on Syrian soil.
05 February 2015, 03:59 PM
#137
Scooby Regular
You are a liar. You spread lies. Simple as (again, you rely on number to strengthen your argument).
You linked Wikipedia which says regarding Sharia
Watch / Listen (forward to 09:45)
Outstanding Speech on Religion of Islam by Mehdi Hasan - YouTube
So now knowing this you still think that bullcrap you posted is credible. Don't get me wrong, i'm not too keen on the apostate rulings either however the absurd comment you claim are 'sharia law' simply shows your true colours and the credibility you have (or lack of).
You linked Wikipedia which says regarding Sharia
Watch / Listen (forward to 09:45)
Outstanding Speech on Religion of Islam by Mehdi Hasan - YouTube
So now knowing this you still think that bullcrap you posted is credible. Don't get me wrong, i'm not too keen on the apostate rulings either however the absurd comment you claim are 'sharia law' simply shows your true colours and the credibility you have (or lack of).
I could equally say that you are a liar, on the basis that i consider much of what you post to be lies, however I won't lower myself to that.
What's your point about the selective quote from Wikipedia you posted?
I could selectvely have quoted other parts of that article directly supporting much of what was in my copy and paste.
Whether or not its a strictly codified uniform set of laws or a system of several laws, based on the Qur'an, Hadith and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent doesn;t change the fact that much of that system is unacceptable to the basis of the society you and I chose to live in.
So what that Mehdi Hassan states something similar.
Doesn't change a thing. "British Law" is made up of a system of several laws, interpretation and precedent. There's no one rule book for that either You are presumably familiar with the concept of "common law"
You question my credibility yet you seek to pick and chose elements of your belief system to somehow justify your "argument".
Try again sunshine
05 February 2015, 04:18 PM
#138
No but cutting off ISIS in Iraq from their routes over the Syrian border and destroying them in Iraq would go a long way to massively reduce their caliphate. Plus don't be surprised by what is going on behind the public veil that Syria has no say in the air strikes. These wouldn't be happening if there wasn't agreement from Syria no matter how the US try and dress it up. The US have had to negotiate behind closed doors with Bashad to get the air corridors in place for the coalition to work. Syria and Iran want ISIS destroyed and that is more important to them than kicking off over aerial incurrsions into their territory by the US. As far as I know there have been no attacks on the coalition flights over Syria from Bashad's forces. That demonstrates Bashad's acceptance that the aerial incursions are necessary to stop Syria falling further into the hands of ISIS.
Yes he may well draw the line at any ground offensive but then the coalition can turn round and say that's fine it's for him to deal with when they drive ISIS back out of Iraq into Syria. Would he want to be left to deal with them on his own after they have already taken half of Syria? Not even a nutcase like him is that mad. He has an opportunity to save his own skin and stay in power by doing deals with the US over how much they can do on Syrian soil.
Yes he may well draw the line at any ground offensive but then the coalition can turn round and say that's fine it's for him to deal with when they drive ISIS back out of Iraq into Syria. Would he want to be left to deal with them on his own after they have already taken half of Syria? Not even a nutcase like him is that mad. He has an opportunity to save his own skin and stay in power by doing deals with the US over how much they can do on Syrian soil.
Last edited by jonc; 05 February 2015 at 04:20 PM.
05 February 2015, 04:18 PM
#139
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 2,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaid
I could equally say that you are a liar, on the basis that i consider much of what you post to be lies, however I won't lower myself to that. Erm.. you have already posted a load of lies. How can you deny that you are not a liar? I have not posted any lies.
What's your point about the selective quote from Wikipedia you posted?
I could selectvely have quoted other parts of that article directly supporting much of what was in my copy and paste.
Whether or not its a strictly codified uniform set of laws or a system of several laws, based on the Qur'an, Hadith and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent doesn;t change the fact that much of that system is unacceptable to the basis of the society you and I chose to live in. And here is the crux of the matter. Do you have sufficient knowledge to make such a judgement? Clearly not as the list of diatribe you posted speaks wonders of your position. I'm no expert in either British or Sharia law and i can accurately assume that you clearly are not either otherwise one would be embarrassed to post such nonsense. However the fact remains that you made a daft comment and when i asked you a simple question as to what you actually know about Sharia Law and your answer by a post full of bull. With this in mind how do you possibly consider yourself worthy of debate?
I could equally say that you are a liar, on the basis that i consider much of what you post to be lies, however I won't lower myself to that. Erm.. you have already posted a load of lies. How can you deny that you are not a liar? I have not posted any lies.
What's your point about the selective quote from Wikipedia you posted?
I could selectvely have quoted other parts of that article directly supporting much of what was in my copy and paste.
Whether or not its a strictly codified uniform set of laws or a system of several laws, based on the Qur'an, Hadith and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent doesn;t change the fact that much of that system is unacceptable to the basis of the society you and I chose to live in. And here is the crux of the matter. Do you have sufficient knowledge to make such a judgement? Clearly not as the list of diatribe you posted speaks wonders of your position. I'm no expert in either British or Sharia law and i can accurately assume that you clearly are not either otherwise one would be embarrassed to post such nonsense. However the fact remains that you made a daft comment and when i asked you a simple question as to what you actually know about Sharia Law and your answer by a post full of bull. With this in mind how do you possibly consider yourself worthy of debate?
05 February 2015, 04:57 PM
#140
Scooby Regular
Freedom of speach might not figure in Islam but it certainly does here. In my culture, Shaid, cutting and pasting does not make one a "liar" irrespective of what has been copied and pasted.
If you are no expert in Sharia Law then how can you claim what I posted was b/s and call me a liar?
Last edited by Devildog; 05 February 2015 at 04:59 PM. Reason: colours
06 February 2015, 08:40 PM
#141
Scooby Regular
http://rt.com/uk/193520-isis-britain-ground-troops/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-thr...l-morell-says/
06 February 2015, 09:05 PM
#142
We will have to agree to disagree on that point because I don't believe it is working enough to have a long term detrimental effect on ISIS and it seems i'm not the only one who believes that. 2 articles from people very much more in the know than either you or me and they state ground troops are needed to defeat ISIS:
http://rt.com/uk/193520-isis-britain-ground-troops/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-thr...l-morell-says/
http://rt.com/uk/193520-isis-britain-ground-troops/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-thr...l-morell-says/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ic-state-syria
06 February 2015, 09:07 PM
#143
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Berks
Posts: 4,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We will have to agree to disagree on that point because I don't believe it is working enough to have a long term detrimental effect on ISIS and it seems i'm not the only one who believes that. 2 articles from people very much more in the know than either you or me and they state ground troops are needed to defeat ISIS:
http://rt.com/uk/193520-isis-britain-ground-troops/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-thr...l-morell-says/
http://rt.com/uk/193520-isis-britain-ground-troops/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-thr...l-morell-says/
06 February 2015, 09:43 PM
#145
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 February 2015, 10:51 PM
#147
Scooby Regular
Your first article is out of date. The Kurds with support from US airstrikes have driven out IS in Kobani.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ic-state-syria
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ic-state-syria
To push ISIS back will require ground troops, period. Airstrikes are only damaging current strongholds and aren't enough to defeat them. As i've already pointed out the only major victories have been the Peshmerga Kurdish troops pushing ISIS back and they need supporting more than what they are getting currently.
Jordan are allegedly in talks over whether they commit ground troops and that would be a big move if they do.
Last edited by An0n0m0us; 06 February 2015 at 10:52 PM.
06 February 2015, 11:50 PM
#149
Out of date? It's nothing to do with being out of date, it shows a former British Army General stating his opinion ground troops are required only 4 months ago and then the other article showing a former 2nd in command of the CIA saying the same thing only a couple of days ago. Are you saying these experts in military planning and strategy are wrong?
To push ISIS back will require ground troops, period. Airstrikes are only damaging current strongholds and aren't enough to defeat them. As i've already pointed out the only major victories have been the Peshmerga Kurdish troops pushing ISIS back and they need supporting more than what they are getting currently.
Jordan are allegedly in talks over whether they commit ground troops and that would be a big move if they do.
To push ISIS back will require ground troops, period. Airstrikes are only damaging current strongholds and aren't enough to defeat them. As i've already pointed out the only major victories have been the Peshmerga Kurdish troops pushing ISIS back and they need supporting more than what they are getting currently.
Jordan are allegedly in talks over whether they commit ground troops and that would be a big move if they do.
07 February 2015, 12:30 AM
#150
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I'm saying is we tried stopping al-Qaeda, we tried stopping the Talibans. Did we manage to stop them? No we didn't. Ok, say we send in the troops, what do you think it will actually achieve? A safer world? Nope? Huge casualties in the hundreds of thousands on both sides? Most likely if Afghanistan and Iraq are anything to go by. Who will our troops be fighting and become a target for? Potentially IS forces, Syrian Army, Taliban, al-Qaeda and Jabhat al-Nusra. Will the troops be successful? Judging by our previous efforts, no.
We did nothing in Syria and we have around 3 million refugees and half the population displaced. We act in Iraq and all hell breaks loose.
We really are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
I think intervention can only be justified if we have a realistic expectation of being sucessful.
I would not necessarilly be fan of sending in the troops, but at present the UK efforts is pretty pathetic - a legacy of Iraq unfortunately