Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has described radical Islam as the greatest threat facing the world today.
Radical Islam is world's greatest threat - Tony Blair
Published by Vocalist on 4 September, 2010 - 09:28
User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 633
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 7 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 17:00
- 8 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 15 Dec 2024 - 11:00 to 16:00
Quick Links
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
I don't think he has much room to talk.
One million dead, countless more lives ruined.
Would such things in the UK even have been an issue if it was not for his actions?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Radical Islam existed long before Tony Blair took office. And without 9/11 his only military actions might have been protecting Muslims in and around Serbia.
Iraq had no connection to 9/11.
One million dead.
It is not a surprise that the attacks by those suicide bombers in the UK were after the war (and also after the 2005 elections where people had a chance to vote the war mongers out of office and decided not to), with more failed attacks by some foreign doctors after Blair gave his moral support to Israel during the Lebanon massacres of 2006.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Wooo wo wo wo. Slow down fella!
Only if you're Danish can you speak your mind.
I am just addressing the assumption that these terrorist atrocities are what started everything and that the fault solely lies with the Muslim community.
That is not how I see it - people have legitimate reasons to be angry. When people are angry, they do bad and wrong things and we cannot condone those. However, that does not mean they didn't have a right to be angry in the first place!
There are still countless people being killed in Afghanistan. You will only hear about it though once every few weeks when the person killed is British.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
What is that figure?
ORB survey of Iraq War casualties
and then there is the media blockade on other things like the deformities in children born in Fallujah after the assault on that - probably due to the use of depleted uranium in the coalition weaponry, though it could be because of other reasons.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
One million or just one. It is still a life.
The end is nigh!
Not something that is terribly funny - the Deformed babies of Fallujah.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
That approach to the discussion doesn't work, we know people have died and there are a lot of questions about how many and why. The figure of a million is several times larger than many other estimates and obviously packs a punch. I'm not wading into a heavy discussion for now, I just wanted to know a source for the figure. Otherwise we could be throwing made-up numbers around and saying "the numbers aren't key, a life is still a life".
Thanks.
That made my blood boil. Who'd blame this child's father for picking up an AK and taking a few people out?....
la hawla wala quwwata illa billah
Define: "Radical Islam" please.
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
Appreciated.
If we look at the full context of this war that has been continuous for the last 20 years the number will be higher, this being through direct warfare or indirect sanctions.
Of what percentage would it take for this to be classed as genocide? Or is it not defined by a percentage.... I would have thought so.
Sanctions on Iraq were said to be directly responsible for a high mortality rate within children. Not surprisingly, since the illegal invasion, other reports have emerged to dampen the figure (so to say) where Sadam has been made responsible. I did a few additions a while ago and the high end figure of people being murdered in Iraq since the first invasion was about 2 million of a nation of 22million lets say 9%. For the purpose of this forum lets say this is my opinion from a little research I did a while ago.
I don't think we should bandy about words like "illegal" when it comes to international affairs. That pretends that there is such a thing as a law, while the truth is the rich and powerful do as they want and everyone else has to do as they are told.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
i have to agree with 'You'
Tony Blair has no leg to stand on morally or politically tbh :/
"Love your haterz
Took the stairs, no escalators :)"
People have their own interpretation of what "Radical Islam" is. Some think it is when a Muslim kills in the name of their religion, some simply when a Muslim states homosexuality is wrong... So there is no common answer!
Personally, I define a "Radical Muslim" as an Islamist. So the definition of an Islamist can be used to describe a Radical Muslim. And in my view, such a person need not be a person who is hostile to the west. I would say that if you believe that a man who bommbs civilians because they are Israeli will be rewarded in heaven - you are an Islamist! The former Grand Mufti of Australia, Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly - is an Islamist (imo) after his heinous statements regarding the Sydney gang rapes (when he said) "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred". He has also made detestable references to Jews, not the most tolerant of men :roll:
According to Al-Qaeda, they declared a holy war upon the USA after US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Iraq was the catalyst that brought Al-Qaeda into being!
Also of note. Al-Qaeda have it in their manifesto for the return of East Timor to Indonesia and regard it as Muslim land (despite it being only 1% Muslim)...
However, it should be well known that Al-Qaeda is not a group, it is an idea. Spread across many countries including Iraq.
So you replace the undefined term "Radical islam" with the equally undefined "islamist"?
From your examples of who is and who is not an islamist, it seems that the only think they have in common (apart from apparently being Muslims) is that they have said or did something that you considered particularly distasteful.
(blaming rape victims is not an "islamic thing" - I am quite sure there are other mysogynists and dispicable people who also have a similar view.)
All that talk about the link between Iraq and 9/11 is twisted in a way that gets further from the issue. Iraq was not involved in 9/11. It did not sponsor nor support in any way the perpetrators.
I hope you don't find my posts frustrating - because there are various discussions to be had, but I simply do not think Blair has any room to talk at all.
I would suggest that the people turning towards terrorism (Not the modern meaning where anyone against you is a terrorist, but the real meaning) are doomed to failure - Imam Zaid Shakir mentioned how God would not grant them any victories due to their twisted ideology and all they are capable of is is not victories but creating a mess - watch the clip: Curing Extremism
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Shall I instead us the word "Muslim"? Seeing as that is at least the one thing we can all agree these people are!
the examples I gave were of completely intolerant people who could not even begin to settle in a secular country without moaning about kuffar this or kuffar that. Yes, I find them particularly distasteful.
This was the Grand Mufti I was quoting. And had the Sydney gang rapes happened in an Islamic country, we all know the testimony of the male attackers would have been held far above the victims and perhaps the victims might even got lashed or stoned for their crimes..
True, in the sense that Saddam did not have anything to do with 9/11, but the current crop of terrorists had a safe haven in Iraq under his regime. I have no sympathy for the government of Saddam Hussein, in fact I am coming to the conclusion his removal was a good thing for humanity overall. I would think if he was still around then the likelihood of a War with Iran would have been back on the table.
Not at all... I will be here to challenge, disagree and at times to agree with you. And I myself am no fan of Tony Blair (for his part of the erosion of civil liberties), but had I been PM at the time I could easily have made similar choices after 9/11.
And I would like to point out with hindsight, things could have been a lot worse. The USA is the single most powerful nation on this planet with the military power to destroy countries like Iraq or Iran - if they had so chosen. But they didn't. Despite the moans of the Islamists, America is not a land run by Animals, but people who overall care about their fellow man.
Think about it..
When any country on the planet experiences a natural disaster the US is pretty much first to rally other nations to commit to humanitarian aid, regardless of which country it happens to be - including enemy states (Myanmar).
America is not the enemy!
Terrorism has changed in meaning many times over the years, so perhaps we should stick with the most notable meaning "to terrorize". As for Imam Zaid Shakir, I don't listen much to Imams these days, because when one preaches peace and understanding, sure enough another can be found preaching the exact opposite. Like how I quoted the Grand Mufti.. As a none believer I only listen to Imams when they say something that can affect me, so obviously it is usually on issues including the greater society.
That said.. I do listen to voices raised by regular Muslims as I think that is how best to test the waters (so to speak).
No they didn't.
That is pure codswallop.
The only safe havens in Iraq - if there were any - were the ones that were not under Saddam's control. Maybe in the northern territories which had been given autonomy through the US (from where one group was FIGHTING Saddam).
The millitant groups got introduced into Iraq proper after the invasion (which btw was not a liberation, not was it a failure of the US - they got exactly what they wanted; a subservient Iraq where the government is not strong enough to look after the interests of its people.)
(I assume that you do know tht titles such as grand mufti can be meaningless, especially if self appointed as is the case here.)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
LOL
Radical Islam
Islamist
Islamaphobe
Ikhwanophobe...
WTH
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
To be fair, I dont think he mentioned this one. I did in another place, listing a website: http://ikhwanophobia.com/
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
oh i was just listing some of the ridiculous terms out there
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
I was not referring to al-Qaeda, those links are codswallop. He was however, a supporter and financier of Hamas. (I assume you also consider Hamas as a terrorist organisation)
Before the invasion of Iraq the terrorists in Muslim countries were often at war with either Israel or each other. Then all of a sudden they had kuffars to kill, so naturally went about that business instead.
Also note, Saddam never looked after his people. They meant nothing to him! Even when he was offered the oil for food program he was happier to allow thousands to starve whilst he could build his palaces. When people say he was a bad man, they really show how little they know about how evil and wicked this man was.
humanity as a whole was uplifted when he and his two sons were removed from this life!
The Grand Mufti of Australia is elected by The Council of Islamic Jurisprudence and Research... A similar organisation to the muslim council of Britain.
That really is a BS term.. How is it irrational to fear or hate the Muslim Brotherhood? Seriously, they are opposed to every western value of the enlightenment and are trying to take the world back to the Iron age!
No, I don't.
I consider it the more legitimate democratically elected government of the Palestinian people.
(Wahay, I am an Islamist!)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Then I pose a question for you.
1. When a Hamas operative sets off a bomb strapped to himself (and a bag of nails), whilst sitting on a bus in downtown Tel Aviv - killing himself along with the passengers on that bus.. Does that Hamas operative go to heaven?
When is the last time that happened? Lets live in the real world instead of a hypothetical one.
As for heaven or hell, I simply wouldn't know.
What if the bus passengers were a bunch of soldiers on their way to combat operations in Gaza?
We can all play the game of hypotheticals.
The Palestinians have all right to fight the occupations of their lands and until a just peace has been sought their rights to do so will continue.
The moment Israel stops being an oppressor it will have a more peaceable opposition. You can't seriously expect the victims to protect the aggressor.
nb In this post I have purposefully ignored that Hamas is more than its militant wing. You seem to pretend that that is all there is to it. That is simply untrue.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Skillfully avoided a direct answer to my question despite many actual occasions when such bombings took place. Whether it be on a bus, in a market, the question remains the same and you would not answer it.
Perhaps from the lack of an answer I can assume you think such a man will go to heaven. After all, he is acting on behalf of his people, fellow Muslims against an enemy so vile even your Prophet Mohammad had gone to war with them.
And therein lies the problem. If it is good and righteous for Hamas members to kill themselves whilst taking Israeli citizens to their graves as well, then surely the 19 hijackers on 9/11 and the 7/7 bombers must also go to heaven.
#Hamas kills Israeli civilians because they prop up a regime which is an enemy of the Palestinian people.
#The 9/11 hijackers attacked American civilians because America backs Israel and has in the past killed many Muslims (prior to 9/11).
#The 7/7 bombers killed London commuters because they propped up a state which also props up Israel and is operating wars in Muslim lands.
So, if you accept the actions of Hamas as legitimate and their martyrs have gone to the waiting arms of Allah, then you have no basis to say that the 9/11 or 7/7 attackers are anywhere but in heaven.
Not at all. I am well aware of their charity work as well as the work they do to mobilize and provide food and water for their community. All of which is simply a method for them to further cement themselves into Gaza life and prolong their mandate.
Pages