Thread: Special Forces Assassins Infiltrate Taliban in Afghanistan

Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

That is more helpful. I take it the reputable Islamic "press" and "authorities" (quotes not pejorative-only mean the terms broadly) have condemned the action?

It has its own thread: http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewto...c/start=0.html

To answer your next, utterly ridiculous question, look, here's evidence of a murder in Manchester: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ding-site.html

I await with bated breath condemnations from the Pope, Patriarch of Moscow, and the Westboro Baptist Church of this despicable act. Otherwise, it's clearly evidence of collusion, or at least collusion-through-silence from this evil, Christian death-cult...

Your frequent claims of dispassionate interest in the Islamic world are belied by the skewed, malicious thinking which passes for logic in your posts.

You can continue your attacks on my bona fides but I can do no more than to pose the questions and state my actual not feigned reasons, that you may notice I am now trying to do specifically--though apparently in a forlorn hope that it would avoid the waste of energy that the attacks by you and others on my "intentions" cause. For me, integrity does not include the kind of artifice and gamesmanship that you have apparently experienced in your service or elsewhere (please note that I specifically avoid saying that you lacked integrity since I do not know you--just as I might add you do not know me) it is selective.

Contrary to your assumption--I was genuinely interested in what "the" Islamic perspective was on this but since I actually do not have the time at present to look for other threads or news on this in general I was confident you and others (who have made it abundantly clear by attacking me personally on the basis of your erroneous assumptions about my intentions--and I do take any suggestion that I am an artful dodger as personal -- on every post even remotely touching on Islam) who pay closer attention to this particular subject could provide the answer. If you twill take the time to review my various musings and other postings I hope you will note that where I have been wrong I have so acknowledged--I have not noticed the same from you or others who seem so prone to attack the poster rather than the post.

Just as you have accused me in the past of being irrationally defensive about things near and dear to me, you and some others do the same in your rabid posts about me (and I might add Christianity) whenever I have the temerity to even mention the word Islam. You may wish to consider whether such hair trigger invective does harm to the larger issues you appear to embrace.

And in case you are at all interested, and I am beginning to wonder if you really are open to intellectual discourse, if you want to discuss the excesses of any religious group such as the Westboro crowd (who I have personally helped prevent them from disrupting 3 military funerals in my local area), I am more than willing to do so as I do not support such actions either in spite of your apparent assumptions.

Originally Posted by lsquared

Question:

If a male suicide bomber 'gets' seventy-two virgins, what does a female suicide bomber get?

She gets divided into seventy two bits (or more) to share out.

JJH, steady on, old chap.

Contrary to your assumptions about my assumptions (phew) above, I don't think you are a member or supporter of the Westboro loons (nor of the Roman Catholic or Russian Orthodox churches, who I also namechecked above).

As you are no doubt fully aware, I was pointing out that just because the brutal father involved may well practice Islam in some form (and I'm including Alevism here), this doesn't mean it's an Islamic act, which requires condemnation on specifically Islamic grounds, rather than those of common human decency.

Question 1: do you or do you not concede that this is the case?

Qustion 2: would you demand that the Pope (or Patriarch of Moscow, or me, or you yourself) should apologise for or condemn the acts of any or every misdeed carried out in a majority Christian state by someone who may or not be Christian? If not, why not?

Question 3: can you see the failures of logic in your assumptions about the rationale behind this despicable act?

This is the skewed thinking to which I referred, which can be ascribed to, I guess, either shocking ignorance and incapacity for critical thought, or to malice.

Question 4: given that the Kurds, whatever faith they profess, have a long-documented cultural tendency towards these kinds of acts, as do many highland tribal peoples, is it not the case that is more likely an instance of Kurdish family 'honour' being appeased than it is a comment or reflection on Islam in general? If, on the other hand, you believe that this is a specifically Islamic act, then I would be interested in seeing the reasoning behind it.

For my part, I strongly suspect that your statement that:

I take it the reputable Islamic "press" and "authorities" (quotes not pejorative-only mean the terms broadly) have condemned the action?

is related to your previous statements that:

It seems to me that until there is much more being said by reputable and respected Muslim leaders about their condemnation of terror etc. by those who wrongly invoke Islam and cooperation from law-abiding Muslims in isolating ans assisting in the elimination of the terrorists, those looking at these matters from a non-Muslim perspective will continue to make the kinds of assumptions and correlations that you find so objectionable.

Examples such as the violence in various places around the world following the publication of the political cartoons in Denmark, the murder of individuals who have supposedly insulted Islam, the "honor" killings of women and children both in the US and abroad, the beheadings (on videotape no less) of "western" captives, the 9/11 attacks etc. etc. At the same time, some Americans wonder why if Islam is the religion of peace and enlightenment that our own presidents and others claim it to be there is a virtual silence at least in America among prominent groups that profess to be muslim about such violence, whether or not it is "terrorism" in the legal sense. All of these events have created certain images, biases and no doubt some misconceptions about the violence that has been attributed to or otherwise appears related to muslims (due to the fact that the perpetrators profess to be muslims etc.)

and so on, to be found here:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewto...start=140.html

Note also that contrary to your claim that:

I hope you will note that where I have been wrong I have so acknowledged--I have not noticed the same from you or others who seem so prone to attack the poster rather than the post.

in that post, when your assertions were factually disproven, you retreated into wordy obfuscation of your original claims, ascribing them to the perceptions of mysterious unidentified Americans other than you, whose views you propounded as your own before being challenged on their factual accuracy, but then disavowed.

If you think I have attacked your integrity, then it is only your intellectual integrity, for slinking away from honest debate in the manner outlined above. As to your qualities as an actual person, rather than words on a screen, I have no idea, but am predisposed to think well of you due to your USMC career. This, however, is utterly beyond and irrelevant to the realms of the debate.

Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas

Originally Posted by the_boy_syrup

They are aware that Carry on up the Khyber was a p1ss take and not a blue print for winning

Lets hope the Jocks have taken their kilts with them

The "Devils in Skirts" have been informed that the Taliban have a heavily defended Buckfast dump in the region.. I almost pity Terry when the Jocks get their hands on that objective!

"Kilts - RAISE!!!"

"Come back men! There's nothing to be afraid of...oh, I dunno though!"

I realise that modern tactics must have changed/advanced since previous wars, but I can't quite envisage any benefit, psychological or otherwise if true, in announcing to the enemy that "Special forces guys have been going in on assassination missions with the aim of decapitating the Taliban force." As a military source told the Sunday Times.

The only reason for doing this that I can see, is that it is in fact bullshit and is hopeful of sowing the seeds of unrest and disruption amongst the enemy.

Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin

JJH, steady on, old chap.

Contrary to your assumptions about my assumptions (phew) above, I don't think you are a member or supporter of the Westboro loons (nor of the Roman Catholic or Russian Orthodox churches, who I also namechecked above).

As you are no doubt fully aware, I was pointing out that just because the brutal father involved may well practice Islam in some form (and I'm including Alevism here), this doesn't mean it's an Islamic act, which requires condemnation on specifically Islamic grounds, rather than those of common human decency.

Question 1: do you or do you not concede that this is the case?

Qustion 2: would you demand that the Pope (or Patriarch of Moscow, or me, or you yourself) should apologise for or condemn the acts of any or every misdeed carried out in a majority Christian state by someone who may or not be Christian? If not, why not?

Question 3: can you see the failures of logic in your assumptions about the rationale behind this despicable act?

This is the skewed thinking to which I referred, which can be ascribed to, I guess, either shocking ignorance and incapacity for critical thought, or to malice.

Question 4: given that the Kurds, whatever faith they profess, have a long-documented cultural tendency towards these kinds of acts, as do many highland tribal peoples, is it not the case that is more likely an instance of Kurdish family 'honour' being appeased than it is a comment or reflection on Islam in general? If, on the other hand, you believe that this is a specifically Islamic act, then I would be interested in seeing the reasoning behind it.

For my part, I strongly suspect that your statement that:

I take it the reputable Islamic "press" and "authorities" (quotes not pejorative-only mean the terms broadly) have condemned the action?

is related to your previous statements that:

It seems to me that until there is much more being said by reputable and respected Muslim leaders about their condemnation of terror etc. by those who wrongly invoke Islam and cooperation from law-abiding Muslims in isolating ans assisting in the elimination of the terrorists, those looking at these matters from a non-Muslim perspective will continue to make the kinds of assumptions and correlations that you find so objectionable.

Examples such as the violence in various places around the world following the publication of the political cartoons in Denmark, the murder of individuals who have supposedly insulted Islam, the "honor" killings of women and children both in the US and abroad, the beheadings (on videotape no less) of "western" captives, the 9/11 attacks etc. etc. At the same time, some Americans wonder why if Islam is the religion of peace and enlightenment that our own presidents and others claim it to be there is a virtual silence at least in America among prominent groups that profess to be muslim about such violence, whether or not it is "terrorism" in the legal sense. All of these events have created certain images, biases and no doubt some misconceptions about the violence that has been attributed to or otherwise appears related to muslims (due to the fact that the perpetrators profess to be muslims etc.)

and so on, to be found here:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewto...start=140.html

Note also that contrary to your claim that:

I hope you will note that where I have been wrong I have so acknowledged--I have not noticed the same from you or others who seem so prone to attack the poster rather than the post.

in that post, when your assertions were factually disproven, you retreated into wordy obfuscation of your original claims, ascribing them to the perceptions of mysterious unidentified Americans other than you, whose views you propounded as your own before being challenged on their factual accuracy, but then disavowed.

If you think I have attacked your integrity, then it is only your intellectual integrity, for slinking away from honest debate in the manner outlined above. As to your qualities as an actual person, rather than words on a screen, I have no idea, but am predisposed to think well of you due to your USMC career. This, however, is utterly beyond and irrelevant to the realms of the debate.

I think whenever violence of this kind (or say in the case of priests abusing their offices in the Catholic church by pedophilia etc.) that certainly all levels of the church’s leadership should forthrightly condemn it and clearly explain how such behavior violates the tenets of their faith. If you will re-read my post I specifically disclaimed any specific “level� from which this should come so your references to the Pope etc. are I assume rhetorical devices rather than literal. Thus my question was perfectly reasonable and did not warrant your insulting dismissal. That is yet again another example of the apparent hair trigger predisposition that some of the posts of you and others on anything having to do with Islam reflect.
In reflecting on your approach you should also remember (and indeed you should since you and others have pointed this out in quite dismissive tones, that in our culture at least in the US, and I acknowledge the failing, we have not been as acquainted with “eastern� ( I use this generically so do not attribute any slight if it is not technically accurate in your expert frame of reference) religions such that we are more susceptible to distortions and misconceptions and that was my intent in asking for those who know more to clarify. Apparently your default approach for any posts referring to Islam is to attribute nefarious motives even when there are none.
In terms of my acknowledging error, when I see it as error I do try to acknowledge it either affirmatively or impliedly by not contesting the correction. This is precisely what I did when you provided details of some Muslim leaders speaking out against some of the violence that has occurred that was attributed to Islam by the perpetrators or the media or both. My statement was not limited to posts on this subject but more broadly such that I stand by my statement.
I would suggest that you try to restrain the insults and other unnecessarily offensive tone of some of your posts and it might actually cause those of us who are “ignorant� to have a slightly different attitude about what you actually say. Perhaps your admonition to me might be a good reminder….�Steady on..�

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

You can continue your attacks on my bona fides but I can do no more than to pose the questions and state my actual not feigned reasons, that you may notice I am now trying to do specifically--though apparently in a forlorn hope that it would avoid the waste of energy that the attacks by you and others on my "intentions" cause. For me, integrity does not include the kind of artifice and gamesmanship that you have apparently experienced in your service or elsewhere (please note that I specifically avoid saying that you lacked integrity since I do not know you--just as I might add you do not know me) it is selective

Cobblers, it's just another newspaper article posted without comment or opinion, nor is there any reason why you posted it.

Whinging about the NAAFI responses will get you nowhere. Why do you post without comment?

Originally Posted by CQMS

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

You can continue your attacks on my bona fides but I can do no more than to pose the questions and state my actual not feigned reasons, that you may notice I am now trying to do specifically--though apparently in a forlorn hope that it would avoid the waste of energy that the attacks by you and others on my "intentions" cause. For me, integrity does not include the kind of artifice and gamesmanship that you have apparently experienced in your service or elsewhere (please note that I specifically avoid saying that you lacked integrity since I do not know you--just as I might add you do not know me) it is selective

Cobblers, it's just another newspaper article posted without comment or opinion, nor is there any reason why you posted it.

Whinging about the NAAFI responses will get you nowhere. Why do you post without comment?

Not whinging as you put it. Enjoying the discourse actually. I await your comments with bated breath. Or I suppose you can go to another more informative thread and not waste time on my drivel. :D

I'd drop an airborne Division on the town for good measure, actually why not drop the 82nd and the 101st? No need to fight their way in in then!

JJH and Rumplestiltskin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/honourcr...honour_1.shtml

This should put it to bed (i hope) :P


@ the bottom of the Page

'Tradition, not religion'

None of the world's major religions condone honour-related crimes.

But perpetrators have sometimes tried to justify their actions on religious grounds.

"Honour crime happens across the board in the Asian community," says Ram Gidoomal of the South Asian Development Partnership.

"People try to blame Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs but it tends to happen in families where there are the strongest ties and expectations. It's a very strong cultural issue."

Leaders of the world's faiths have also strongly denounced a connection between religion and honour killings.

Originally Posted by Punk_trooper

JJH and Rumplestiltskin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/honourcr...honour_1.shtml

This should put it to bed (i hope) :P


@ the bottom of the Page

'Tradition, not religion'

None of the world's major religions condone honour-related crimes.

But perpetrators have sometimes tried to justify their actions on religious grounds.

"Honour crime happens across the board in the Asian community," says Ram Gidoomal of the South Asian Development Partnership.

"People try to blame Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs but it tends to happen in families where there are the strongest ties and expectations. It's a very strong cultural issue."

Leaders of the world's faiths have also strongly denounced a connection between religion and honour killings.

Just curious--why does the BBC have a website on ethics?

Originally Posted by jumpinjarhead

Originally Posted by Punk_trooper

JJH and Rumplestiltskin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/honourcr...honour_1.shtml

This should put it to bed (i hope) :P


@ the bottom of the Page

'Tradition, not religion'

None of the world's major religions condone honour-related crimes.

But perpetrators have sometimes tried to justify their actions on religious grounds.

"Honour crime happens across the board in the Asian community," says Ram Gidoomal of the South Asian Development Partnership.

"People try to blame Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs but it tends to happen in families where there are the strongest ties and expectations. It's a very strong cultural issue."

Leaders of the world's faiths have also strongly denounced a connection between religion and honour killings.

Just curious--why does the BBC have a website on ethics?

I'm curious too as the BBC, just like our government has no ethics.

dunno guys to be honest, just found what i could on the subject

Come, come, JJH, that's nonsense and you know it.

I think whenever violence of this kind (or say in the case of priests abusing their offices in the Catholic church by pedophilia etc.) that certainly all levels of the church’s leadership should forthrightly condemn it and clearly explain how such behavior violates the tenets of their faith.

If you will re-read my post I specifically disclaimed any specific “level� from which this should come so your references to the Pope etc. are I assume rhetorical devices rather than literal.

These two consecutive sentences surely cancel each other out? In the first you say all levels of the clergy should condemn such acts, then in the second sentence you say my namechecking Il Pappa is a reduction ad absurdum... which is it?

If it's the first, then you'll be aware that you're applying a double standard- as my three questions to you, which you conspicuously didn't answer, make clear in easy-to-follow logical steps.

If it's the second, what do you want me to do? Take Friday off work, fly to Diyarbakir, hire a taxi and interpreter and drive to the shitkicking Kurdish village involved to sound out the local imam, just to reassure an American on the internet that not all Muslims are daughter-inhuming monsters?

Pah.

Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin

Come, come, JJH, that's nonsense and you know it.

I think whenever violence of this kind (or say in the case of priests abusing their offices in the Catholic church by pedophilia etc.) that certainly all levels of the church’s leadership should forthrightly condemn it and clearly explain how such behavior violates the tenets of their faith.

If you will re-read my post I specifically disclaimed any specific “level� from which this should come so your references to the Pope etc. are I assume rhetorical devices rather than literal.

If it's the second, what do you want me to do? Take Friday off work, fly to Diyarbakir, hire a taxi and interpreter and drive to the shitkicking Kurdish village involved to sound out the local imam, just to reassure an American on the internet that not all Muslims are daughter-inhuming monsters?

Pah.

yes please--I look forward to your trip report.