[Marc]

This is really sad

[Ammi]

..actually I realise that I went OT there..with the hostage situation in Australia, I do personally believe that this guy was probably mentally ill but obviously that's not based on any information ..it's just that I don't think that he would have done it if he was mentally healthy..but because he focused on his beliefs with his illness, it's kind of complicated things but I'm not sure how relevant his religion actually is ..it's more that something obviously 'tipped his balance'..but could not that have been anything like with others who do similar things....anyway as I say, it's just an initial opinion because we don't have many facts about him yet....

[arista]

You can not blame the Cops going in
as the Manager went to take his gun
but lost his life.
Its now being told

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by The Geordie Jesus

Yeah shame we couldn't torture an unhinged individual acting alone for information about groups that he has no actual contact or affiliation with. The idea that all extremists are part of a highly organised and coherent command structure is a convenient idea but an inaccurate one. Kinda similar to the idea that the more brutal the torture the better information you get; convenient but false.

With great respect MTVN, I must state that all Islamic extremists are ‘part of a highly organised and coherent command structure’ even if they act alone or are mentally unhinged (aren’t they all?) or both.

Certain parties are playing up that Monis had ‘mental health problems’ and was ‘acting alone’ for ‘unknown reasons’, and are taking great pains to assure everyone that he was ‘not part of any terror organisation’, because they are frightened of causing alarm and of being accused of ‘Racism’ and ‘Islamaphobia’ if they speak the truth.

So let’s look at the facts:
.
Mental Health
Monis was mentally stable enough to plot his ex-wife’s horrific murder and devise a very elaborate alibi which included faking a heart attack that led to a staged car accident on the day of the murder.

He was also mentally cunning enough to have himself filmed asking someone what time it was, in addition to also ensuring he was filmed with a clock in the background at the approximate time of the murder.

He was also mentally proficient enough to take out an insurance policy covering his Home Contents , specifying certain items, before ‘staging’ a robbery at his flat on the day of the murder and reporting those ‘pre-specified’ items as stolen.

Monis was also mentally capable enough to run his own website, and to write morally disgusting, highly offensive letters to the widows of 7 soldiers who were tragically killed whilst serving in Afghanistan.

He was also mentally devious enough to pose as a ‘Spritual Healer’ to enable him to sexually assault scores of women, and for which he was criminally charged with 40 offences.

Fundamentalism
Monis converted from the Shia branch of Islam to the ISIS linked Sunni branch which regards all non-Muslims and Westerners – including Australia, the UK and America - as ‘enemies’ of Allah.

Monis’s former lawyer, Manny Conditsis - while ‘downplaying’ the ‘organised terrorist’ element of his ex-clients murderous hostage taking – actually unwittingly confirmed Monis’s Islamic extremism, when he said: of Monis: “His ideology is just so strong and so powerful that it clouds his vision for common sense and objectiveness."

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott did the same, when he said of Monis:"He had a long history of violent crime, infatuation with extremism and mental instability," and: "As the siege unfolded yesterday, he sought to cloak his actions with the symbolism of the ISIL death cult. Tragically, there are people in our community ready to engage in politically motivated violence”

So as a devout Islamic Fundamentalist, Monis was not only duty bound to follow the Quran, but would have been extremely intent on following it literally:

Quran 9:5:
"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

As he would have been to follow the orders of his ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who just a month before Monis's murderous hostage taking, called for all jihadists to carry out “lone wolf” attacks against Muslim Shi’ites and Westerners around the world. .

Baghdadi singled out Europe, Australia, Canada and America, as targets, and told his Islamic followers to: “Dismember their limbs, snatch them as groups and individuals – erupt volcanoes of jihad everywhere”

A mentally troubled loner with no links or affiliation to organised Islamic Fundamentalist terror groups?

I don’t think so.

As a footnote, and in support of certain other statements in this ‘conspiracy theorists’ oft ignored or maligned posts, I would point out Monis was born in Iran and came to Australia as a refugee in 1996.

So Australia would not now be mourning 3 of her own innocent citizens dead, have other innocent citizens wounded and psychologically damaged, 7 innocent war widows so immorally offended, and other innocent women traumatised by being sexually molested, had they not embraced a poor Muslim ‘refugee’ and welcomed him in to her country with open arms.

I wonder how many more deeply ensconced ‘grateful’ and ‘loyal’ immigrants there are there who are just biding their time before heeding the call of Quran and Baghdadi?

[MTVN]

^ I don't think any of that disproves that he was acting alone. No doubt he buys into the belief system of IS. No doubt he has an infatuation with them and is desperate to portray himself as one of their soldier. And yes it is also true that IS leaders are inciting and encouraging these attacks, but from everything we can gather so far he has no actual tangible, real world contact with IS or any other organisation. And I don't think we should see him as part of a highly organised command structure any more than we do Tim McVeigh or David Copeland. I do accept though that the problem of extremism is obviously a lot bigger than one man/

Originally Posted by Ammi

..a good post Matt..tbh I'm quite conflicted about the torture thing which is why I haven't joined in with the 'CIA discussion' yet..and I actually didn't think that I would be conflicted because I'm abhorred by the whole idea of torturing any human being and I know it's cliché but one you 'become them'/extremists then all values are lost...

..anyways I guess that I'll give you my thoughts and why I feel conflicted..this might not be a good analogy but it's how I'm thinking atm...you know how we often have hypothetical dilemmas..?..and sometimes these can be about what someone would do to say one person or relatively few people to potentially help the safety of many..?..often people will think about it and think that they would do something that would be totally alien to their beliefs if that actual dilemma was presented to them...whether they actually would or not, we won't know because most people don't have to face such extreme things...anyways, say if this was personal and specific to a member of someone's family/a loved one..or the whole of their family..?..if (hypothetically..)..a person were to somehow discover that their loved ones were at threat of something quite horrific..a certain death maybe..?..and they could possible do something which was to them quite inhumane but that would prevent the death of their loved ones..would they do it..?...obviously that's very personal but if you then also apply it to people who may have to make that decision collectively for their country..a threat to their country which could mean many losses of life...really, what a crappy situation for them to be in because these 'extreme dilemmas' are something that are real to them..?...hmmmm, I honestly don't know Matt..torture of any kind to any human being goes against everything I believe in but I really can't be 'black and white' about this, which also conflicts me lol...because also some people who make these decisions and who do things are good people but people who know that sometimes in this life, very awful things might be necessary..but there possibly are also a few quite sadistic people as well maybe...

..anyway yeah..I'm going to keep thinking about this because I guess it's just so much less complicated when you know that you'll never have to make the decision yourself...and I'm not even sure that my thoughts are along the right lines and that I'm looking at it the right way...

I do understand your point but I don't think that sympathising with their motives is incompatible with a condemnation of torture. I've referenced John McCain a few times on this, because he's such an authority on this subject and has such remarkable integrity in being so firm a critic of torture while also staunchly believing in taking strong military action against extremists across the world, and this is part of what he had to say:

"I know, too, that bad things happen in war. I know in war good people can feel obliged for good reasons to do things they would normally object to and recoil from. I understand the reasons that governed the decision to resort to these interrogation methods, and I know that those who approved them and those who used them were dedicated to securing justice for the victims of terrorist attacks and to protecting Americans from further harm. I know their responsibilities were grave and urgent, and the strain of their duty was onerous.

But I dispute wholeheartedly that it was right for them to use these methods, which this report makes clear were neither in the best interests of justice nor our security nor the ideals we have sacrificed so much blood and treasure to defend,"

Plus for me you could also remove any ethical concerns about torture, any hang ups that it would make us compromise the principals we went to war in the first place on, and torture still wouldn't be justified. Even from a brutally practical and utilitarian view it does not work imo. Patrick Cockburn wrote a good article showing just how misplaced the faith in torture was, and always has been. The same justifications used now are the same that have been used for hundreds of years: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...w-9923288.html

This part of the article in particular is illuminating:

The Senate report has a revealing passage saying that the statement of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ("KSM") "during his first day in CIA custody included an accurate description of a Pakistani/British operative, which was dismissed as having been provided during the initial 'throwaway stage' of information collection when the CIA believed detainees provided false or worthless information". KSM was later water-boarded (simulated drowning) 183 times, leading him to make frequent confessions that later turned out to be false. Another section of the report says that "KSM fabrications led the CIA to capture and detain suspected terrorists who were later found to be innocent".

[Vanessa]

Very upsetting news, especially this time of the year.

[arista]

Originally Posted by NevaSnow

Very upsetting news, especially this time of the year.

Yes he had been in Australia
since 1996
a Nasty Confused man
a one off.

[kirklancaster]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-30491113

Terrorists kill over 126 mainly schoolchildren in Peshwar attack.
Key Points

Officials say at least 126 people, mostly children, have been killed in a Taliban attack on an army-run school in north-west Pakistan

Pakistan's security forces are struggling to regain control of a school amid reports children are being held hostage inside

Some pupils, who escaped, said the gunmen went from classroom to classroom, shooting children indiscriminately

The Taliban say the assault is in response to army operations in North Waziristan and the Khyber area. All times GMT.

HOW CAN ANY OF YOU STILL MAINTAIN THAT THESE BASTARDS ARE HUMAN AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH??????????????????????????

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-asia-30491113

Terrorists kill over 126 mainly schoolchildren in Peshwar attack.
Key Points

Officials say at least 126 people, mostly children, have been killed in a Taliban attack on an army-run school in north-west Pakistan

Pakistan's security forces are struggling to regain control of a school amid reports children are being held hostage inside

Some pupils, who escaped, said the gunmen went from classroom to classroom, shooting children indiscriminately

The Taliban say the assault is in response to army operations in North Waziristan and the Khyber area. All times GMT.

HOW CAN ANY OF YOU STILL MAINTAIN THAT THESE BASTARDS ARE HUMAN AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH??????????????????????????

Surely this shouldn't matter to you Kirk? Pakistan is a Muslim country and therefore it's citizens are ticking time bombs of savagery just waiting to blow. Better that these children are killed now, surely, than they be given the chance to become monsters? It is after all, inevitable. You told me so when I asked about the case of adoption, only a day or two ago. It's in their genes, isn't it?

Of course that could have been xenophobic nonsense I suppose. Just a thought.

To answer your question: all it takes to consider these people human is to accept the truth that humans are ****ing horrible creatures. Of course they are human. Being horrendous humans doesn't somehow alter their species. Is a vicious dog who mauls a baby suddenly "not a dog"?

I have no real objection to how they're treated after carrying out these attacks or if they're caught red handed in the process of putting such a plan into action. Do What you want with them. My only problem with what you've had to say is the suggestion that all people of certain genetic backgrounds are "terrorists waiting to happen" and are somehow literally "different" to us "normal humans". And I suspect this is part of what you mean when you wonder "how can we consider them to be human".

[kirklancaster]

Quote =Toy Soldier;7421828]

"Surely this shouldn't matter to you Kirk? Pakistan is a Muslim country and therefore it's citizens are ticking time bombs of savagery just waiting to blow. Better that these children are killed now, surely, than they be given the chance to become monsters? It is after all, inevitable. You told me so when I asked about the case of adoption, only a day or two ago. It's in their genes, isn't it? "

Oh Boy, my boy. Am I so poorly versed in the English Language that you do not understand, or misinterpret what I say in my posts T.S.?

I have stated on here numerous times on various threads – should you wish to check back through all the relevant posts of mine– that I am not referring to ordinary Muslims of any Nationality, when I am referring to terrorist scum.

I have gone to great lengths to make this clear, as the four examples from just some of my posts clearly prove:.

This thread:

"With great respect MTVN, I must state that all Islamic extremists are ‘part of a highly organised and coherent command structure’ even if they act alone or are mentally unhinged (aren’t they all?) or both."

Isis in Iraq :UK to Air Bomb Iraq : Gulf War 3 :Turkey traded British

“I am a British born Christian and proud to be both, but before anyone on here lambasts me, let me stress that I am referring specifically to Muslim Fundamentalists, and not ordinary Muslims - who have as much in common with these maniacs as ordinary Irish Roman Catholics had with the I.R.A. Even ordinary Muslims are being terrorised and slaughtered by these terrorists.”

“The billions in God's 'armies' are harmless, decent, civilised human beings who can be found knelt worshipping in Churches, Chapels, Mosques and Synagogues, not killing, maiming and beheading innocent people.”

“No 'faithfull Muslims' are going to be encouraged to 'go off and fight alongside their Muslim Brothers' because they would already be enlisted if that was the case, and the demons waging this 'war' are not 'Muslim brothers', they are evil terrorists pure and simple. They are actually slaying their 'Muslim brothers' and have as much in common with genuine Muslims, as the cowardly bastard who beheaded Alan Henning”

So I am not referring to the ordinary Muslim in any of my posts, nor to any specific Middle Easter country or people.

I am referring specifically to a certain type of evil non-human who walk among us and have done for thousands of years, and if this sounds preposterous and like something akin to 'Invasion of The Body Snatchers', then so be it - it is no less true because of that, and these non-humans are no less 'alien' in the context of normal humanity as any 'non-terrestrials' because of it too.

The very real problem here is in modern man's obstinate refusal to recognise that a very real force genuinely does exist, which - for want of a better descriptor - is called evil.

This has nothing at all to do with 'religion' and does not automatically obligate a belief in God if someone does acknowledge the existence of a dark, malignant force called evil.

History is littered with individuals who carry out the most despicable acts against human beings, such as child torturers and killers Hindley and Brady, and sadistic murderer Peter Sutcliffe, and they are by all know definitions -- evil.

Then there are evil 'Individuals' who lead 'groups' of other evil people, such as Hitler and Stalin, and though these evil demons assume the power to represent their respective ‘Nations’ this does not mean that those nations actually identify with the demonic ideologies of these evil figureheads or support their twisted aims because they don't. It is just an example of how in human society passive peaceful majorities are always dominated and controlled by active, violent evil minorities.

But let's note something, which - in the context of this thread - is highly pertinent; that such evil individuals and their equally as evil little groups, only manifest themselves once or even twice, over the relevant nation's multiple thousands of years of history.

There has ever only been one Hitler and his Nazi party. Only one Stalin. One Mao Tse Tung, but the history of the Middle East, is a whole different 'bag of mashings'.

Here we have an almost unbroken succession of evil inhuman acts perpetrated throughout the 1,400 years of Islamic history dating back to Muhammed himself, and throughout this same period there has been an almost unbroken succession of the most prolific clustering of literally thousands of evil Islamics who were responsible for instigating and executing those evil acts.

In this, the Middle East is unique and no other region on Earth throughout its history can boast of this same combination.

But I will stress again - because I am tired of being misunderstood or misquoted - that for me, it is not the passive, Muslim majority who I am referring to when I advocate zero tolerance and eradication, but the inhuman, minority Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists.

"Of course that could have been xenophobic nonsense I suppose. Just a thought. "

No 'xenophobic nonsense' from me T.S., because I say what I mean and mean what I say. And here, I mean exactly what I say.

"My only problem with what you've had to say is the suggestion that all people of certain genetic backgrounds are "terrorists waiting to happen" and are somehow literally "different" to us "normal humans". And I suspect this is part of what you mean when you wonder "how can we consider them to be human".


I have answered this misquote above. It is Islamic Fundamental terrorists who I stated are "different to us" as "normal humans" because they are not human - they are inhuman.

"To answer your question: all it takes to consider these people human is to accept the truth that humans are ****ing horrible creatures. Of course they are human. Being horrendous humans doesn't somehow alter their species. Is a vicious dog who mauls a baby suddenly "not a dog"?"


Ridiculous analogy. A dog has no intrinsic Moral Code. It is a naturally feral animal not a human being. No HUMAN BEING would ever 'maul' a baby, because - like those who execute children - whoever did could not ever be categorised as HUMAN in my opinion.

Finally, I will stress again - that no HUMAN BEING could ever stroll through school rooms coldly executing poor little innocent children as these bastards just did. They are NOT human and do not deserve to be categorised as human, or treated as human once captured. They are totally evil subhumans.

[JoshBB]

I just think I need to say that we cannot use a tragedy as an excuse to fuel the flame of bigotry towards muslims. A very very tiny minority of muslims are extremists and we need to be careful in what we say.

My heart goes out to the families, and rest in peace victims.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by JollyBB

I just think I need to say that we cannot use a tragedy as an excuse to fuel the flame of bigotry towards muslims. A very very tiny minority of muslims are extremists and we need to be careful in what we say.

My heart goes out to the families, and rest in peace victims.

Please tell me that your post is not directed at me? Because I have just posted at length to correct one person who misunderstood what I was saying, and virtually all my post was made to point out that I am not referring to the passive, peaceful majority of ordinary Muslims - just to the minority of inhuman demonic Islamic terrorists.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Please tell me that your post is not directed at me? Because I have just posted at length to correct one person who misunderstood what I was saying, and virtually all my post was made to point out that I am not referring to the passive, peaceful majority of ordinary Muslims - just to the minority of inhuman demonic Islamic terrorists.

Can't see how it could be directed at you, Kirk.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Livia

Can't see how it could be directed at you, Kirk.

Thanks for this Livia. I am genuinely beginning to doubt my sanity and my ability to write.

[Creggle]

Originally Posted by JollyBB

I just think I need to say that we cannot use a tragedy as an excuse to fuel the flame of bigotry towards muslims. A very very tiny minority of muslims are extremists and we need to be careful in what we say.

My heart goes out to the families, and rest in peace victims.

No offence Josh but you'd have to be pretty stupid to take posts like Kirks, his opinions on terrorists as bigotry towards Muslims. Not at all saying that this is what you're implying but just throwing that out there.

[Toy Soldier]

I'm not sure if you yourself are not properly remembering what you've said in other threads, or possibly not realising the implications of what you have said. Here is an illustrative quote:

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Murderous inhuman savagery is in these terrorists blood, in their sub-human genes, and in their black hearts and warped minds, and has been for thousands of years.

You are saying that there is a biological, genetic profile for a terrorist and you can only possibly be implying that that genetic profile is passed down through the ancestral lines of people all across the middle east. Unless, you're implying that all Muslim extremists are the offspring of other Muslim extremists? Because, clearly, this is not the case... many young Muslims get caught up in extremism and terrorist cells despite their parents being perfectly tolerant, peaceful people.

So, whether you realise it or not, you are implying that all middle-eastern people have "sub-human" or savage natures simply because of their racial bloodline. If this is NOT what you think or what you mean, then you really need to reconsider how you phrase quotes like the ones above, or perhaps your understanding of genetics and what that would imply about an entire population, not just a direct ancestral line.

[Livia]

I think you're stretching semantics a little far there TS. Kirk's gone to great length to make it clear he's not referring to all Muslims.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm not sure if you yourself are not properly remembering what you've said in other threads, or possibly not realising the implications of what you have said. Here is an illustrative quote:

You are saying that there is a biological, genetic profile for a terrorist and you can only possibly be implying that that genetic profile is passed down through the ancestral lines of people all across the middle east. Unless, you're implying that all Muslim extremists are the offspring of other Muslim extremists? Because, clearly, this is not the case... many young Muslims get caught up in extremism and terrorist cells despite their parents being perfectly tolerant, peaceful people.

So, whether you realise it or not, you are implying that all middle-eastern people have "sub-human" or savage natures simply because of their racial bloodline. If this is NOT what you think or what you mean, then you really need to reconsider how you phrase quotes like the ones above, or perhaps your understanding of genetics and what that would imply about an entire population, not just a direct ancestral line.

No, I am not confused about what I am saying, or the meaning of what I am saying. It is you who is confused about what I’m saying – either that, or you are deliberately trying to alter my argument so that you can continue to be seen to be countering it, which I am frankly finding tiresome.

Let us start with what you refer to as your “illustrative quote” of what I said:

“Murderous inhuman savagery is in these terrorists blood, in their sub-human genes, and in their black hearts and warped minds, and has been for thousands of years”

Now by this statement, if I was “implying that all middle-eastern people have "sub-human" or savage natures simply because of their racial bloodline” as you so wrongfully allege, then I would not have qualified such a statement with the word “terrorist”, I would simply have written; “Murderous inhuman savagery is in the blood of all middle eastern people etc.”

I wrote what I meant. I meant exactly what I wrote, and I most clearly identified the subject about whom I was writing, by writing ‘terrorists’ as clearly distinct from “all middle-eastern people”.

On to your next contention:

“You are saying that there is a biological, genetic profile for a terrorist and you can only possibly be implying that that genetic profile is passed down through the ancestral lines of people all across the middle east.”.

In the above statement, you are actually nearly correct, but in making it, you very conveniently ignore my earlier statement to you in this very thread, which is reproduced below:

“So I am not referring to the ordinary Muslim in any of my posts, nor to any specific Middle Easter country or people “

However, that glaring exclusion apart, because psycopathic personality traits are genetically inherited by children from parents, and hence, where one or both parents are terrorists who hail from, or reside in, the middle east, then I am definitely saying as much – yes – and below is just why I am saying it:

Because there is irrefutable evidence from years of different scientific research, that psycopathic personality traits are genetically inherited by children from parents.

Because, there are numerous other cases of scientific research – including one by psychologists at the University of Edinburgh who carried out a study of more than 800 sets of twins – where it was found that genetics were more influential in shaping key traits than a person's home environment and surroundings.

So ‘Nature’ – genetic inheritance – is the dominant factor over ‘Nurture – external environmental interaction – when it comes to determining an offspring’s character.

Or put another way: Inhuman monster terrorist mama or papa = inhuman monster terrorist ‘mini me’s’.

Further; If inhuman monster terrorist family live in the middle east, then that explains why the middle east is unique in that it has 1,400 years of almost unbroken war and evil atrocities, and over the same period has the continually greatest ‘clustering’ of perpetrators of such war and evil atrocities than any other region on Earth.

“Unless, you're implying that all Muslim extremists are the offspring of other Muslim extremists? Because, clearly, this is not the case... many young Muslims get caught up in extremism and terrorist cells despite their parents being perfectly tolerant, peaceful people.”

No – I’m not ”implying that all Muslim extremists are the offspring of other Muslim extremists” and once again you are so conveniently ignoring what I said to you earlier in this thread;

“One study (in Stockholm in 2002, I think) into the children of serial killers who were adopted as infants and raised by ‘normal’ non-sociopath parents, found that all of the children studied definitely possessed inherited psychopathic tendancies, but the report concluded that positive environmental influences early in life can prevent such tendencies from ever manifesting themselves”.

I’ve never said that all children of terrorists become terrorists, I said that all children of terrorists inherit their parents evil, psychopathic character traits, but that only in a precise set of circumstances will those traits cause some of the children to become terrorist.

And to prove as much, I said to you earlier:

“I think of it as the estranged children of psychopaths having ‘time bombs’ in their brains or psyche, and some can live normal lives, whilst others who encounter the precise set of circumstances needed to ‘detonate’ that bomb, will explode”.

Ok – these were in response to your hypothesis about ‘adopted’ children of terrorists, but the sentiment remains the same.

As for:

“many young Muslims get caught up in extremism and terrorist cells despite their parents being perfectly tolerant, peaceful people.”

Yes, they do, but this really not relevant in the context of your objection to the points I made in my two posts.

However, I have always believed that no sane, decent human being can ever be radicalised into carrying out inhuman evil acts, unless the propensity, the desire to do so is already within them – no matter how deeply buried that propensity is.

In addition, I believe strongly that such cases could be attributable to ‘Atavism’, where genes from an ancestor may have lain ‘dormant’ for generations before surfacing in certain children.

Rather like white parents giving birth to a black child.

I have actual experience of this which I related in an early thread, where I was seated at a business seminar with about 30 young Asians – mostly Pakistani and mostly British born – when the TV flashed with 911 news footage of the hijacked jets flying into the twin towers. To a man, the entire room burst into applause and loud cheering punctuated with anti-American and, inexplicably, anti-British jeering. I and an Indian friend were the only ones shocked, and we both remonstrated with the others, and almost got to blows with them.

The biggest shock was the intense anti-western hatred spewed by a British born Pakistani ‘friend’ who I had known for a fair while, and whose father was an Imam in his local Muslim community, and one of the gentlest, most decent and peace-loving men I had ever met.

I will conclude by saying, as clearly as I am capable of, that in my opinion, whenever terrorists are encountered by our forces during armed conflict, or captured by them in any situation, whether such terrorists are terrorists by genetic determination, or terrorist from peace-loving parents who have elected to voluntarily 'join the cause', then our armed forces or security services are justified in any action against them, because such terrorists by their continuous evil inhuman acts, have lost all right to be categorised as 'human' - evil human or otherwise.

If this drama just happens to be played out in a 'Theater of War' which is in the 'Middle East' - for whatever reason - then so be it.

As a footnote T.S. I really did not like your sarcastic comment asking why I should be bothered about the slaughter by these terrorist devils of the poor little innocent schoolkids. I really didn't. I have children of my own, and my grief for these poor kids and their families is matched only by my intense hatred of the demonic subhuman bastards who so coldly and calculatingly murdered these kids. As for setting a human being ablaze - what kind of sick, satanic evil is that?

[Toy Soldier]

I think we really will just have to drop it. I can accept that perhaps you aren't referring to all middle eastern people, but (for reasons I've covered) I don't think that particularly matters. The way you're stating your point could easily be misconstrued as xenophobia, whether it is in fact or not, as I said that's largely irrelevant because it's the effect of such arguments that is the problem; I.e. Alienation, and why that makes conversion easier for the true "monsters" - who as I said have almost certainly never lifted a gun or a bomb in their life much less taken a life with their own hands.

The reason we will have to drop it is that clearly your argument partially extends into some form of mysticism and that's not really on my radar for rational discussion. I do not believe in God, I do not believe in evil, I do not believe in Satan, I do not believe in demons. When I look at unfathomably sadistic and twisted humans I see just that. Humans. In all of our foul, selfish, idiotic, naive and utterly wretched glory. Just people, Kirk. I think you find that difficult to accept to the point that you never will, so I conceed. You can have your demons.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by The Geordie Jesus

^ I don't think any of that disproves that he was acting alone. No doubt he buys into the belief system of IS. No doubt he has an infatuation with them and is desperate to portray himself as one of their soldier. And yes it is also true that IS leaders are inciting and encouraging these attacks, but from everything we can gather so far he has no actual tangible, real world contact with IS or any other organisation. And I don't think we should see him as part of a highly organised command structure any more than we do Tim McVeigh or David Copeland. I do accept though that the problem of extremism is obviously a lot bigger than one man/



I do understand your point but I don't think that sympathising with their motives is incompatible with a condemnation of torture. I've referenced John McCain a few times on this, because he's such an authority on this subject and has such remarkable integrity in being so firm a critic of torture while also staunchly believing in taking strong military action against extremists across the world, and this is part of what he had to say:



Plus for me you could also remove any ethical concerns about torture, any hang ups that it would make us compromise the principals we went to war in the first place on, and torture still wouldn't be justified. Even from a brutally practical and utilitarian view it does not work imo. Patrick Cockburn wrote a good article showing just how misplaced the faith in torture was, and always has been. The same justifications used now are the same that have been used for hundreds of years: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...w-9923288.html

This part of the article in particular is illuminating:

..thanks for the links etc Matt, they're really interesting...I fairly much agree with you on this, I mean that's my instinct and my inclination but I think that really I'm questioning whether I'm being a bit too 'black and white' or whether that's exactly how it should be...whether it's so black and white to say no never ever is torture justified or yes, in some cases it can prove a success to achieve something...because with most things in life/virtually everything...things always have grey elements..it's only the hypothetical stuff that doesn't have that..what I mean is that I know that with some actual experience, some situations will have proved complete ineffectiveness but then others would have been the opposite and may have saved many lives so like everything else..so it's impossible to say it's not effective or it is effective... it would be trying to judge that and taking each situation individually...but I guess that's the key really and why I find it hard to agree with or not be abhorred by it...that really how could you judge something like that/know what the outcome would be....

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think we really will just have to drop it. I can accept that perhaps you aren't referring to all middle eastern people, but (for reasons I've covered) I don't think that particularly matters. The way you're stating your point could easily be misconstrued as xenophobia, whether it is in fact or not, as I said that's largely irrelevant because it's the effect of such arguments that is the problem; I.e. Alienation, and why that makes conversion easier for the true "monsters" - who as I said have almost certainly never lifted a gun or a bomb in their life much less taken a life with their own hands.

The reason we will have to drop it is that clearly your argument partially extends into some form of mysticism and that's not really on my radar for rational discussion. I do not believe in God, I do not believe in evil, I do not believe in Satan, I do not believe in demons. When I look at unfathomably sadistic and twisted humans I see just that. Humans. In all of our foul, selfish, idiotic, naive and utterly wretched glory. Just people, Kirk. I think you find that difficult to accept to the point that you never will, so I conceed. You can have your demons.

Yes - I agree we should drop it as we will never agree, but I must address your comments about 'mysticism' and 'Demons' etc. So here is hopefully my last post on this by way of explanation and a degree of defense:

I use certain phraseology T.S. because there are no other adequate words in the English language to describe 'people' like these terrorists and their actions, but this has nothing to do with God or mysticism.

'Evil', 'Demonic' and 'Satanic' have accepted meaning outside of any Religious or Biblical connotation and I use such words purely because their synonyms are inadequate, less potent as descriptors in the context of terrorists and their acts - 'There are no words' in other words, and this has nothing to do with 'Mysticism’ - Nothing at all.

Every newspaper in the UK uses the same terminology to describe these Islamic terrorists and their atrocious acts. Do we decline to discuss the latest terrorist atrocity in Peshwan because the ‘Times’ uses the words; 'Evil', 'Demonic', or 'Satanic' in its articles on the same?

I know that 'Man' is capable of 'evil' T.S. and that we all have 'Good' and 'Evil' inside all of us. I have pointed this fact out myself in a previous post. I also know that Man's inhumanity to Man has occurred throughout history, and that such inhumanity has not been exclusive to the Middle Eastern races.

From the very start of recorded history there have been individual men, : , groups of men and whole Nations of men who have transcended all accepted boundaries of human decency:

From Pedro Alonso López a Colombian who did the most unspeakable acts to over 300 young girls before butchering them, to Andrei Chikatilo 'The Butcher of Rostov' who sexual assaulted, murdered and horrifically mutilated over 52 women and children, to more familiar names such as Fred and Rose West, Peter Sutcliffe, Hindley and Brady, and Venables and Thompson.

From the Aztec, Maya and Inca child sacrifices, to the Roman torture and Crucifixion of Christians, the Catholic torture and execution of heretics under the Spanish Inquisition, Hitler's 'Final Solution', and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia - the list is endless.

We learn of these acts, hear some of the details - phrases such as ‘Hung Drawn and Quartered’, Crucified, ‘Disembowelled’ etc. but do we really sit and seriously give deep thought to what such phrases really mean? Do we think about what it takes to be able to saw a living human into quarters? To rip out the ribcage, and disembowel living men?

Do we really contemplate and perceive in its entirety, the real horror of a terrified 12 year old boy sobbing for his mother in the middle of a dark, desolate moor, whilst he knows that he will never see her again because the adult who has led him there is holding a spade and is telling him in sordid detail just exactly what is going to be his fate?

But 'Man' has an intrinsic Moral Code, and an innate faculty for distinguishing 'right from 'wrong', and a 'conscience', and because of these qualities, the above are boundaries of behaviour that no normal human will even contemplate crossing, let alone actually traverse.

You simply call these monsters ‘bad humans’, whilst I just cannot perceive of them as being human at all, so I call them ‘Monsters’, Demons’, Devils’ – for want of other descriptors.

And what does it really matter T.S. what we call them ? Does what we call them lessen the gravity or incredulity of their atrocious acts of pure evil? Does it rationalise it? Make it any more acceptable?

Yes, Man has ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ inside of him, and sometimes there is a constant ‘battle’ between these two opposing forces for control of our actions, and sometimes ‘Evil’ wins, and we may act in spite of our ‘conscience’, but there is a ‘tipping point’ when a man’s actions are so consummately evil that he ceases to be human by all known descriptors other than biological and physiological ones.

You do not need to embrace ‘mysticism’ or ‘spirituality’ or ‘religion’ or ‘faith’ to use words such as ‘Demon’, ‘Evil’ and ‘Satanic’ when trying to describe the wholly inhuman acts of Hitler, Venables and Thompson, Pol Pot , or the bestial subhumans who behead cowed and bound, terrified, innocent people, or who stroll through school classrooms coldly executing hundreds of terrified, helpless and innocent children.

[Toy Soldier]

It doesn't make it more acceptable and the people who have done these things don't deserve any compassion or restraint, and yet, it DOES matter. A distinction has to be made between genuine psychopaths and people who have been deliberately indoctrinated, broken and twisted. Not for them, they are gone, they are now worthless to the world, they can't be "unbroken", they have been turned into "soulless" tools of war, but believe me when I say that it is VITAL that people accept that they were NOT born that way and that other people - people whose faces you will most likely never see, and whose names you will never know - have deliberately taken these people and warped them.

It matters more than almost anything else. Because if you ARE right... if the majority of terrorists are psychopaths who were simply "born wrong"... then all efforts to combat terrorism are utterly futile. Thankfully, I believe (no, I know) that it's not the case. It is not "in their genetic code". A perfectly healthy mind, especially a young one, can be taken, and shattered. And that is how terrorists recruit. And the people at the top of that chain are not religious and do not believe in Allah or any sort of crusade... those are simply their tools. A population with high levels of strict religious adherence and low levels of quality education. Ripe for the picking.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It doesn't make it more acceptable and the people who have done these things don't deserve any compassion or restraint, and yet, it DOES matter. A distinction has to be made between genuine psychopaths and people who have been deliberately indoctrinated, broken and twisted. Not for them, they are gone, they are now worthless to the world, they can't be "unbroken", they have been turned into "soulless" tools of war, but believe me when I say that it is VITAL that people accept that they were NOT born that way and that other people - people whose faces you will most likely never see, and whose names you will never know - have deliberately taken these people and warped them.

It matters more than almost anything else. Because if you ARE right... if the majority of terrorists are psychopaths who were simply "born wrong"... then all efforts to combat terrorism are utterly futile. Thankfully, I believe (no, I know) that it's not the case. It is not "in their genetic code". A perfectly healthy mind, especially a young one, can be taken, and shattered. And that is how terrorists recruit. And the people at the top of that chain are not religious and do not believe in Allah or any sort of crusade... those are simply their tools. A population with high levels of strict religious adherence and low levels of quality education. Ripe for the picking.

I believe this also, no race or religion is inherently bad.

[MTVN]

I largely agree although I'm not sure about the bit regarding the people at the top. If we do not see the average terrorist as inherently psychopathic then why should we see the leaders like that? What makes them so apparently calculating and manipulative with no reason for being so? It's too easy to dismiss them as just holding an unbridled lust of power and nothing more imo, I think those at the top are likely to be more zealous for their cause than anybody else

[lime]

Originally Posted by ArchAngel

I believe this also, no race or religion is inherently bad.

yip I agree with you kizzy.If we watch what happened in Rwanda....a christian country..every race and religion is capable of carrying out bad deeds.