BF2S Forums Look Out Great Britain, Your Appeasement Is Showing!!

IG-Calibre wrote:

A quote from Gary Young in todays Guardian comment sums Lowing up perfectly

Chinese terrorists are streaming across the border. Barack Obama is a violent socialist. Mexico has been launching military attacks against America. God has endorsed Mike Huckabee. Spend a week with Republicans in South Carolina and you will hear the most incredible things. That a small minority in any group might say crazy things is not surprising; it is when the majority don't dismiss them as crazy that you start to worry. At first it sounds as though most of them are living in a state of suspended reality. But with time you realise that they have simply been marinating in the bellicose polemics of talk radio and rightwing news anchors for far too long. Their reality is specific and bespoke.

Having warped their understanding of how the world works to suit their ideology, they now have the terrible burden of having to live in it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … 48,00.html

Lets face it, Lowing makes his money out of war, he wants to keep the conflict in the Middle East going so he can go over there and make serious money. the end.

I really am not going to justify this comment by responding to it.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Exactly OBS.

WHO IS BENEFITING FROM THIS SO CALLED APPEASEMENT? For there to be appeasement someone has to be benefiting.

GB is benefiting, by lying about what is REALLY happening and turning it into something it is not, GB has bought an appeased Muslim community in hopes that this community will feel warm and fuzzy toward GB and not turn radical themselves the next time a fucking cartoon or equivalent occurs.

So appeasement to you is benefiting yourself with your own policy, eh?  You can't appease yourself!!!!!!


As Cam said (and Neville Chamberlain) appeasement is giving the enemy something they want in return for them backing down.  THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED.

The terrorist are not being granted any concessions here, how can you fail to see this massive flaw in your argument.  As a yank you should know what appeasement is as you have a long history of making deals with your enemies. 

If we were debating say the Good Friday Agreement as a case of GB appeasement we might be able to talk but this issue has nothing what so ever to do with the word.  Conversely if we were talking about this issue and Political Correctness we could debate...

It is painfully obvious that you did not start from page 1, and I am not inclined to bring you up to date.

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Time for a recap as I understand it.

As generally agreed it is insulting and unhelpful to generalise the anti-western terrorism emanating from the middle east as 'Islamic Terror'. Labelling something 'Atheist Terrorism' or 'Christian Terrorism' based on the acts of a few of each grouping would be deeply insulting to me in the case of the former and to many others in the case of the latter. The use of such terms would breed general anti-Atheist or anti-Christian sentiment, as occurred in 1930s Germany when Hitler and Goebbels spread anti-Jewish propaganda. The level of completely unwarranted anti-Muslim sentiment today has reached frightful levels.

So the British government have decided not to refer to what was previously referred to as 'Islamic Terror' but instead to refer to it simply as terrorism, in the interests of common decency. They have added to this a commentary on this terrorism stating that they find it incompatible with Islamic moral and cultural norms, as is the case. This builds tolerance and lifts the feeling of persecution that any of us might feel if subjected to generalised insults regarding our belief system.

No Muslim who engages in anti-western terrorism benefits from the change in description of this form of terrorism from 'Islamic Terror' to simply 'Terrorism'. Not one single person. For the British to be appeasing the enemy those who engage in such acts must benefit in some way, shape or form. No-one throughout the entire course of this thread has demonstrated any kind of benefit these people could derive. Lowings case is null and void and built on a house of cards. The British government are not ceasing to use the term terrorism, they are simply being more respectful in their phraseology.

GB is referring to Islamic Terrorism as simply "terrorism". They are referring to it as "ANTI_ISLAMIC ACTIVITY" and this is nothing but a pile of bullshit.

See Lowing you are no different to Vilham. The same way he asserts that every Catholic here supported the provisional IRA, you pretty much assert every Muslim supports Terrorism, where this is clearly not the case, & to the sane this is as plain as the nose on your face.  All your kind of thinking leads to is bigotry & hatred, all roads lead  to the murder and suffering of the innocent. The many are punished for the actions of the few.  Alas I fear your verging psychotic lack of empathy is what makes the likes of you & your kind so easily manipulated by certain "evil" for want of a better word forces..

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2008-01-21 07:04:41)

lowing wrote:

2. For the 12th time GB is not appeasing the terrorists, they are appeasing the Muslim community in hopes to create warm fuzzies between them and GB so the moderates find it harder to turn radical. Wich of course, they can and have in the recent past.

Why is that such a bad thing?

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

[
GB is not shying away from the terrorists, they are appeasing the moderates to keep them from potentially finding reasons to join them or sympathize with them. THis has been stated several times.

THey are lying they are trying to make like Islam has nothing to do with Islamic TERRORIST committing Terrorists acts in the name of ISLAM.

We shall agree to dis-agree on this.

Okay so your case is that it is a bad thing to improve relations with the general Muslim community by discontinuing disparagement of their religion through the use of the term 'Islamic Terror'. Am I correct in my understanding here?

Yup, I think it is pussified to call this something it is not, or pretend that Islam has nothing to do with ISLAMIC TERRORISM. I think it is a lie to say ISLAMIC TERRORISTS ARE NOT ISLAMIC TERRORISTS. in order to appease the moderates and hopefully keep them from going ape shit AGAIN like they did over those stupid cartoons..

I think the moderates should recognize and own up to the FACT that there religion has a significant ISLAMIC TERRORIST element to it and should be fuckin dealt with.

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Time for a recap as I understand it.

As generally agreed it is insulting and unhelpful to generalise the anti-western terrorism emanating from the middle east as 'Islamic Terror'. Labelling something 'Atheist Terrorism' or 'Christian Terrorism' based on the acts of a few of each grouping would be deeply insulting to me in the case of the former and to many others in the case of the latter. The use of such terms would breed general anti-Atheist or anti-Christian sentiment, as occurred in 1930s Germany when Hitler and Goebbels spread anti-Jewish propaganda. The level of completely unwarranted anti-Muslim sentiment today has reached frightful levels.

So the British government have decided not to refer to what was previously referred to as 'Islamic Terror' but instead to refer to it simply as terrorism, in the interests of common decency. They have added to this a commentary on this terrorism stating that they find it incompatible with Islamic moral and cultural norms, as is the case. This builds tolerance and lifts the feeling of persecution that any of us might feel if subjected to generalised insults regarding our belief system.

No Muslim who engages in anti-western terrorism benefits from the change in description of this form of terrorism from 'Islamic Terror' to simply 'Terrorism'. Not one single person. For the British to be appeasing the enemy those who engage in such acts must benefit in some way, shape or form. No-one throughout the entire course of this thread has demonstrated any kind of benefit these people could derive. Lowings case is null and void and built on a house of cards. The British government are not ceasing to use the term terrorism, they are simply being more respectful in their phraseology.

GB is referring to Islamic Terrorism as simply "terrorism". They are referring to it as "ANTI_ISLAMIC ACTIVITY" and this is nothing but a pile of bullshit.

See Lowing you are no different to Vilham. The same way he asserts that every Catholic here supported the provisional IRA, you pretty much assert every Muslim supports Terrorism, where this is clearly not the case, & to the sane this is as plain as the nose on your face.  All your kind of thinking leads to is bigotry & hatred, all roads lead  to the murder and suffering of the innocent. The many are punished for the actions of the few.  Alas I fear your verging psychotic lack of empathy is what makes the likes of you & your kind so easily manipulated by certain "evil" for want of a better word forces..

I will defy you to show me where I have said every muslimis a terrorists and that every muslim supports terrorism. I keep asking for this and no one will show me. I don't get it., could it be because I have never made such a claim?

lowing wrote:

1. They are pretending that ISLAMIC terroristism is not occuring. WHich it is. THey are trying to "cede" that this form of terrorim has nothing to do with this religion, which it does. SO, there is your "pretending" and your "ceding".

How are they pretending it isn’t happening exactly?  The name change has caused enough controversy on this board alone let alone the press headlines, if anything they are publicising the threat even more.  If anything I believe our Government overplays the threat in order to excuse cutting civil liberties.

lowing wrote:

2. For the 12th time GB is not appeasing the terrorists, they are appeasing the Muslim community in hopes to create warm fuzzies between them and GB so the moderates find it harder to turn radical. Wich of course, they can and have in the recent past.

“Between them and GB”??????  So Muslims aren’t a part of Great Britain now?  The whole point of this is to reduce the “them and us” attitude that you are clearly displaying right now.  What is so embarrassing or wrong about that anyway, the thread title implies that GB has had to ignore it’s principles or something.  Do you consider the civil rights changes “appeasing” black people?

lowing wrote:

GB is not shying away from the terrorists, they are appeasing the moderates to keep them from potentially finding reasons to join them or sympathize with them. THis has been stated several times.

And this is a bad thing how?  You mean we should be encouraging moderates to become radicals, is that what you’re suggesting.

lowing wrote:

They are lying they are trying to make like Islam has nothing to do with Islamic TERRORIST comitting Terrorists acts in the name of ISLAM.

Um no they’re not lying at all.  As an atheist I would argue all holy books are as bad as each other but in today’s modern society Islam is practiced by millions of peaceful people with no intention of ever attacking the West.  The vast majority of Muslims believe Islam stands for peace and therefore a terrorist killing people is the opposite to what their religion teaches.  If anything “anti-Islamic activity” is more accurate.

Lowing a concept you fail to understand is that “Islamic terror” wasn’t invented by Islam but by terrorists who use Islam for their gains.  By calling it “Islamic terror” you are allowing the terrorists to hijack the word Islam, otherwise I could go on a killing spree, say I did it for atheists and then demonise every atheist in the world regardless of how anti-violence they are, do you think that is fair.

Lowing you only have a point if Islam explicitly justifies and encourages terrorism which it doesn’t (well no more than the Bible does anyway). I asked earlier but you didn’t reply, just one question I want you to think about. 

If the term was currently just ‘terrorist’ and you had to argue for the introduction of Islamic being attached to it, could you?

m3thod wrote:

lowing wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Lowing can you explain to me exactly what the UK has done.  Look I accept your weird definition of appeasement to mean brown nosing the enemy but I can not work out at which point that has happened, please answer me this!

GB is not brown nosing the enemy, they are brown nosing the moderates to make sure they do not go radical. Which they have already in the recent past.

It's not brown nosing or appeasment.  It's understanding.

It is appeasement, it is preventitive maintenance of the moderate muslim community.

lowing wrote:

GB is not brown nosing the enemy, they are brown nosing the moderates to make sure they do not go radical. Which they have already in the recent past.

It's clear the US us brown nosing the moderate Muslims in Turkey by refusing to classify the Armenian genocide as genocide in case the moderates get angry.

'Historic mass killings' my arse. 1.5 million dead people is genocide.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7038095.stm

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. They are pretending that ISLAMIC terroristism is not occuring. WHich it is. THey are trying to "cede" that this form of terrorim has nothing to do with this religion, which it does. SO, there is your "pretending" and your "ceding".

How are they pretending it isn’t happening exactly?  The name change has caused enough controversy on this board alone let alone the press headlines, if anything they are publicising the threat even more.  If anything I believe our Government overplays the threat in order to excuse cutting civil liberties.

lowing wrote:

2. For the 12th time GB is not appeasing the terrorists, they are appeasing the Muslim community in hopes to create warm fuzzies between them and GB so the moderates find it harder to turn radical. Wich of course, they can and have in the recent past.

“Between them and GB”??????  So Muslims aren’t a part of Great Britain now?  The whole point of this is to reduce the “them and us” attitude that you are clearly displaying right now.  What is so embarrassing or wrong about that anyway, the thread title implies that GB has had to ignore it’s principles or something.  Do you consider the civil rights changes “appeasing” black people?

lowing wrote:

GB is not shying away from the terrorists, they are appeasing the moderates to keep them from potentially finding reasons to join them or sympathize with them. THis has been stated several times.

And this is a bad thing how?  You mean we should be encouraging moderates to become radicals, is that what you’re suggesting.

lowing wrote:

They are lying they are trying to make like Islam has nothing to do with Islamic TERRORIST comitting Terrorists acts in the name of ISLAM.

Um no they’re not lying at all.  As an atheist I would argue all holy books are as bad as each other but in today’s modern society Islam is practiced by millions of peaceful people with no intention of ever attacking the West.  The vast majority of Muslims believe Islam stands for peace and therefore a terrorist killing people is the opposite to what their religion teaches.  If anything “anti-Islamic activity” is more accurate.

Lowing a concept you fail to understand is that “Islamic terror” wasn’t invented by Islam but by terrorists who use Islam for their gains.  By calling it “Islamic terror” you are allowing the terrorists to hijack the word Islam, otherwise I could go on a killing spree, say I did it for atheists and then demonise every atheist in the world regardless of how anti-violence they are, do you think that is fair.

Lowing you only have a point if Islam explicitly justifies and encourages terrorism which it doesn’t (well no more than the Bible does anyway). I asked earlier but you didn’t reply, just one question I want you to think about. 

If the term was currently just ‘terrorist’ and you had to argue for the introduction of Islamic being attached to it, could you?

1. THey are trying to make as if Islam has nothing to do with it, which it does.

2. Interesting argument, but I will say no, the black community fought for their civil rights to become equal in the eyes of the law and society. Our govt. and the white community did everything they could to keep this from happening. THey did not appease the black community, they simply lost the battle. .....our govt. and the white community simply lost the war.........and rightfully so, I might add.

3. No we should not be afraid that they will turn radical, like they did overthe cartoons. It is bullshit preventative maintenance

4. Calling ISLAMIC TERROR .....ANTI ISLAMIC ACTIVITY is a lie. It is sugar coating what is happening with this so called peaceful religion.

5. Sure could, the second all of the terror attacks that occur in the name of Islam. It can be so labeled.

lolthread is lol

m3thod wrote:

lowing wrote:

m3thod wrote:

It's not brown nosing or appeasment.  It's understanding.

It is appeasement, it is preventitive maintenance of the moderate muslim community.

So you'd rather alienate the moderate muslims.  Good job.

I se no reason to appease them no. Their religion has a radical element to it and is significant. I see no reason to deny it.