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

lowing wrote:

Basically, this is the same argument that Clinton used when he got caught lying.... Ummmm "define IS". A lame attempt at stalling the truth.

The bottom line is, we all know what the definition of appeasement is, and this lame attempt to dissect it, is an attempt at distracting us from the meat and potatoes of this thread. Nothing more

Hell, I even have people that normally do not agree with calling bullshit on this attempt.

Nice avoidance of the arguments.

Daily mail wrote:

Last night the Home Office stressed that no phrases have been "banned".

"It must also be about stopping people becoming or supporting terrorists. We can't, after all, simply arrest our way out of this problem."

Wow. They used the term 'terrrorist'. Now where is your appeasement coming from, eh? lol. I should really read the article before posting arguments, shouldn't I? Typical Daily Mail spinmongering. They aren't calling it something it's not - they call it terrorism, they just use more/better explanatory language when describing the terrorism. So, lowing, if they still call it terrorism then what exactly is it that they're hiding???

If I saw some set of activity described in terms of atheism, as in atheist terrorism, I would be grossly insulted at such a generalisation and such an attack on my own ethos/(lack of) belief system.

There is no argument really, lowing just finds it hard to distinguish between normal Muslims and terrorists that use Islam as a reason for their attacks.

Varegg wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

There is no argument really, lowing just finds it hard to distinguish between normal Muslims and terrorists that use Islam as a reason for their attacks.

And not to forget why we should distinguish between them, call it appeasement or whatever - Great Britain have, if the OP turns out to be right seing as some of the debatees have the opinion that the source sucks, stated that there is a difference between Muslims and Muslim terrorists.

I believe that you'll find that nearly all countries make that distinction. Bush himself has made that distinction many times.

OMG...all you guys agree with Bush.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Basically, this is the same argument that Clinton used when he got caught lying.... Ummmm "define IS". A lame attempt at stalling the truth.

The bottom line is, we all know what the definition of appeasement is, and this lame attempt to dissect it, is an attempt at distracting us from the meat and potatoes of this thread. Nothing more

Hell, I even have people that normally do not agree with calling bullshit on this attempt.

Nice avoidance of the arguments.

Daily mail wrote:

Last night the Home Office stressed that no phrases have been "banned".

"It must also be about stopping people becoming or supporting terrorists. We can't, after all, simply arrest our way out of this problem."

Wow. They used the term 'terrrorist'. Now where is your appeasement coming from, eh? lol. I should really read the article before posting arguments, shouldn't I? Typical Daily Mail spinmongering. They aren't calling it something it's not - they call it terrorism, they just use more/better explanatory language when describing the terrorism. So, lowing, if they still call it terrorism then what exactly is it that they're hiding???

If I saw some set of activity described in terms of atheism, as in atheist terrorism, I would be grossly insulted at such a generalisation and such an attack on my own ethos/(lack of) belief system.

1. No, Cam, you know I do not avoid arguments, I am simply tired of spending 17 pages defining "IS" instead of arguing the point of the OP with a group of people who can come up with no better defense as to what GB is doing other than to DISSECT a single word in the post.

2. Wow, they chose not to "BAN" the phrase, well that is so very western of them. Not sure how this applies to the OP or my opinion on what they ARE doing.

Look lowing this isn’t appeasement (by your definition).  I keep asking but no one answers, exactly what concession is being to terrorists here?  What deal is being struck with them for it to be “appeasement”.

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Basically, this is the same argument that Clinton used when he got caught lying.... Ummmm "define IS". A lame attempt at stalling the truth.

The bottom line is, we all know what the definition of appeasement is, and this lame attempt to dissect it, is an attempt at distracting us from the meat and potatoes of this thread. Nothing more

Hell, I even have people that normally do not agree with calling bullshit on this attempt.

Nice avoidance of the arguments.

Daily mail wrote:

Last night the Home Office stressed that no phrases have been "banned".

"It must also be about stopping people becoming or supporting terrorists. We can't, after all, simply arrest our way out of this problem."

Wow. They used the term 'terrrorist'. Now where is your appeasement coming from, eh? lol. I should really read the article before posting arguments, shouldn't I? Typical Daily Mail spinmongering. They aren't calling it something it's not - they call it terrorism, they just use more/better explanatory language when describing the terrorism. So, lowing, if they still call it terrorism then what exactly is it that they're hiding???

If I saw some set of activity described in terms of atheism, as in atheist terrorism, I would be grossly insulted at such a generalisation and such an attack on my own ethos/(lack of) belief system.

1. No Cam, I have never backed down from an argument unless I am proven wrong. This is not the case. I am just no longer going tospend another 17 pages defining "IS". All of your lack of a real defense has amounted to hanging your hats on dissecting one word instead of defending whqat GB has done.

2. How very western of them NOT to "BAN" the word terrorist. What is the point?

Why did you respond to the same post twice independently and ignore my response?

Exactly OBS.

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

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.

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.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-21 06:20:01)

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.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

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.

The enemy against which you are shying from is supposed to benefit in a situation involving 'appeasement'. Tell me again how the enemy is benefiting in this situation and stop shying away from the weakness of your case.

They're not lying about what is really happening either, AS STATED UMPTEEN TIMES BY ME NOW AT THIS STAGE AND IGNORED BY YOU.

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 comitting Terrorists acts in the name of ISLAM.

We shall agree to dis-agree on this.

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.