The Hazards of Belief

TomSweeney

Odhinn wrote: »

No, she was islamised/groomed by extremists. But of course you can't face admitting that.

Sure she was , but did she regret it ?

She's 19 and she has no regrets, she saw heads in bins and it didn't phase her - she said they deserved it they were infidels, at least if she regretted it all and really wanted to change and come back as an integrated citizen - maybe I could have sympathy.
Again 19 is old enough to know better.

I really don't see the similarity with a 13 year old girl on fb that is groomed and then raped by gangs - she is totally innocent in all this.
Begum is not.

Odhinn

TomSweeney wrote: »

Sure she was , but did she regret it ?

................

Evidently not, but seeing as she was never taken from that enviroment, its not that suprising - along the lines of Patty Hearst and the SLA

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

No, she was islamised/groomed by extremists. But of course you can't face admitting that.

She was Islamised from birth, in England, which is obviously a western country. And formerly a Christian one. Her family are downplaying their own role in all this, and talking about her "escape" from IS as if she had been kidnapped or tricked into being there. But nobody wakes up one morning and suddenly decides that it would be a good idea if an Islamic Caliphate ruled the world.

She may have been lured into actually joining those who were setting up the Islamic State via the internet. She believed it would be the start of a vast Caliphate, and it would provide a good and virtuous lifestyle for those who joined early on. As did all the others involved in the project. But the groundwork for those kind of beliefs was done long before that, and it was done a lot closer to home.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

She was Islamised from birth.......,

You've sources for this?

recedite

Its well known she was born into Islam.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

Its well known she was born into Islam.

As ever you're conflating Islam with its militant offshoots. Try again - do you have any evidence she was islamised "from birth"?

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

in England, which is obviously a western country. And formerly a Christian one.

So they should have kept all those bloody non-christians out then?

Are atheists ok? Jews?

Or is it just muslims you have a problem with?

QuintusFabius

Jesus, "Atheists" defending ISIS now.

Hotblack Desiato

Who is?

Peregrinus

TomSweeney wrote: »

Sure she was , but did she regret it ? . . .

I really don't see the similarity with a 13 year old girl on fb that is groomed and then raped by gangs - she is totally innocent in all this.
Begum is not.

I have to tell you that lots of kids who are groomed online for sexual purposes and then abused don't "regret it". They see themselves as being involved in consensual sexual relationships, and/or consider themselves to be in love with their abusers. So this is not a point of difference between Begum's case and others.

Rec is at least honest in admitting that he considers the point of difference between Begum and other victims of online grooming to be the fact that she was raised a Muslim and he doesn't shy away from the logical implication of his position, which is that Muslims generally should be not be entitled to the equal protection of the laws, regardless of whether they have travelled in support of ISIS.

Is Rec really somebody you want to tog out with, Tom?

pauldla

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Who is?

I wonder if your question will ever be answered.... :pac:

ohnonotgmail

QuintusFabius wrote: »

Jesus, "Atheists" defending ISIS now.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Who is?

I'm going to repost something i said on the thread in AH about this woman. I think it is germane

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I never posted anything that would make you think that. You, like a lot of others here, see everything in black and white. Either a poster agrees completely with what you post or they want the complete opposite. there is no nuance, no shades of grey. No scope for intelligent debate. You dont want one, you just want to rant and rave and have your little fantasies about killing people you dont like. I was completely correct when I mentioned the Daily Mail comments section.

Hector Savage

Jesus H Christ .... I just can't believe this thread, forget about the argument of whether she was groomed/regrets it/ has Stockholm syndrome etc - surely people at least agree it's a "Hazard of belief" - come on give me that much, restore my faith in modern day rationality here...

Hector Savage

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have to tell you that lots of kids who are groomed online for sexual purposes and then abused don't "regret it". They see themselves as being involved in consensual sexual relationships, and/or consider themselves to be in love with their abusers. So this is not a point of difference between Begum's case and others.

Rec is at least honest in admitting that he considers the point of difference between Begum and other victims of online grooming to be the fact that she was raised a Muslim and he doesn't shy away from the logical implication of his position, which is that Muslims generally should be not be entitled to the equal protection of the laws, regardless of whether they have travelled in support of ISIS.

Is Rec really somebody you want to tog out with, Tom?

Some do, most don't , do you think the girls that were being raped as they were vomiting from drinking too much thought this ???
Sorry to be graphic, but none of the grooming victims I've read interviews with had a remote iota of Stockholm syndrome.
Massive difference between these two types of people, I don't think it's fair at all to compare them.

Peregrinus

Hector Savage wrote: »

Jesus H Christ .... I just can't believe this thread, forget about the argument of whether she was groomed/regrets it/ has Stockholm syndrome etc - surely people at least agree it's a "Hazard of belief" - come on give me that much, restore my faith in modern day rationality here...

No one in the thread has disputed this, so far as I can see. Am I missing something?

Peregrinus

Hector Savage wrote: »

Some do, most don't , do you think the girls that were being raped as they were vomiting from drinking too much thought this ???
Sorry to be graphic, but none of the grooming victims I've read interviews with had a remote iota of Stockholm syndrome.
Massive difference between these two types of people, I don't think it's fair at all to compare them.

Sure, not all victims of abuse identify with their abusers. But it's not uncommon and, in general, when it happens our response is not to repudiate the victims or deny them our support. So that isn't an obvious reason for doing so in Begum's case.

Odhinn

Hector Savage wrote: »

Jesus H Christ .... I just can't believe this thread, forget about the argument of whether she was groomed/regrets it/ has Stockholm syndrome etc - surely people at least agree it's a "Hazard of belief" - come on give me that much, restore my faith in modern day rationality here...

Nobody has said otherwise.

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

As ever you're conflating Islam with its militant offshoots. Try again - do you have any evidence she was islamised "from birth"?

You used the word "islamised" so its up to you to define what you mean by it, if that is something other than "embracing Islam".
Are you saying she was a militant?
My impression is that her role was more that of a housewife/breeding stock, which is the proper role of a woman according to Islam.
She has said that her last husband was Dutch, so I'd be fairly sure he was one of the foreign IS fighters, and up to his elbows in the blood of innocent Syrians.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Rec is at least honest in admitting that he considers the point of difference between Begum and other victims of online grooming to be the fact that she was raised a Muslim and he doesn't shy away from the logical implication of his position, which is that Muslims generally should be not be entitled to the equal protection of the laws, regardless of whether they have travelled in support of ISIS.
Is Rec really somebody you want to tog out with, Tom?

In fact I said no such thing, and that those are blatant lies.


But rather than focusing in on trying to get you no-platformed, as seems to have become the fashionable tactic around this forum of late, I'll skip on to clarify the points raised.
Th English girls targeted by Muslim rape gangs in the northern English towns were not generally the victims of online grooming, they were generally vulnerable or troubled teenagers who were approached while out on the streets.


Secondly I don't consider a Muslim who watched online videos glorifying the early victories of Islamic State, and who became enamoured with the whole project, to have been "groomed".
You makes your choices, and you picks your side.


Of course Muslims are entitled to the same protection under secular laws as anyone else. The question is, what happens when their beliefs are incompatible with western values and western laws?
You makes your choices, and you picks your side.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

You used the word "islamised" so its up to you to define what you mean by it, if that is something other than "embracing Islam".
Are you saying she was a militant?
My impression is that her role was more that of a housewife/breeding stock, which is the proper role of a woman according to Islam.
She has said that her last husband was Dutch, so I'd be fairly sure he was one of the foreign IS fighters, and up to his elbows in the blood of innocent Syrians.

Waffle, evasion and nonsense.


You stated "She was Islamised from birth, in England". Where is your evidence?

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

In fact I said no such thing, and that those are blatant lies.


But rather than focusing in on trying to get you no-platformed, as seems to have become the fashionable tactic around this forum of late, I'll skip on to clarify the points raised.
......................

Again - evidence please. Who, when, with links and quotes.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Of course Muslims are entitled to the same protection under secular laws as anyone else. The question is, what happens when their beliefs are incompatible with western values and western laws?

In a secular society, which is typically defined by freedom of religion and freedom from religion, nothing at all. People are judged on their actions, not their beliefs. Of course we're all free to speculate that their actions were a result of their religious beliefs, as we do here, but this is of no consequence to the law. Being a member of a terrorist organisation, e.g. ISIS or the I.R.A., may be a criminal offense. Belonging to a broader ethnic or religious group, e.g. British Muslim or Irish Catholic, is not and nor should it be.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

In a secular society, which is typically defined by freedom of religion and freedom from religion, nothing at all. People are judged on their actions, not their beliefs. Of course we're all free to speculate that their actions were a result of their religious beliefs, as we do here, but this is of no consequence to the law. Being a member of a terrorist organisation, e.g. ISIS or the I.R.A., may be a criminal offense. Belonging to a broader ethnic or religious group, e.g. British Muslim or Irish Catholic, is not and nor should it be.

The problem with the worldview of "liberals" such as yourself, is that you pigeonhole and label people according to the "group" they belong in. While failing to assign individual rights and responsibilities.

So in this case, you have created a little chinese wall in your mind between your notional "ethnic group" (the muslims) and "a terrorist organisation" (Daeesh).
And in this warped worldview, you have labelled this woman as "victim of grooming" and "member of an ethnic minority". And as such, you rush to her defence.
But I can tell you, if she had seen your decapitated atheist head lying on top of a pile of heads in the bin outside her husband's office, she would not have even raised an eyebrow. Does that not make you feel slightly uncomfortable?

Islam is a way of life, and Islamic State was an attempt to set up a society run entirely according to the rules and values of Islam. All nationalities and ethnicities were welcome to join, as long as they had fully embraced Salafist Islam.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

The problem with the worldview of "liberals" such as yourself, is that you pigeonhole and label people according to the "group" they belong in. While failing to assign individual rights and responsibilities.

So in this case, you have created a little chinese wall in your mind between your notional "ethnic group" (the muslims) and "a terrorist organisation" (Daeesh).
And in this warped worldview, you have labelled this woman as "victim of grooming" and "member of an ethnic minority". And as such, you rush to her defence.
But I can tell you, if she had seen your decapitated atheist head lying on top of a pile of heads in the bin outside her husband's office, she would not have even raised an eyebrow. Does that not make you feel slightly uncomfortable?

Islam is a way of life, and Islamic State was an attempt to set up a society run entirely according to the rules and values of Islam. All nationalities and ethnicities were welcome to join, as long as they had fully embraced Salafist Islam.

Perhaps you could point out where I labelled this woman a victim of grooming, or defended her? As you've done previously, you speciously claimed I've said something and attempted a rebuttal against an argument I never made. As usual, when it comes to Islam, you seem to predominantly talk shiite.

I think anyone other than an out and out bigot can differentiate between a British Muslim and an Islamic terrorist in much the same way the same way as they can differentiate between an Irish Catholic and a member of the IRA.

And as for walls, they seem to be more of an American thing these days than a Chinese one. Could just be my 'warped worldview' that sees it that way, though :pac:

recedite

smacl wrote: »

As usual, when it comes to Islam, you seem to predominantly talk shiite.
I think anyone other than an out and out bigot can differentiate between a British Muslim and an Islamic terrorist in much the same way the same way as they can differentiate between an Irish Catholic and a member of the IRA.

Oh really?
So, Shamima Begum - British Muslim or Islamic terrorist?
Or, now that you mention it, Michael Collins- Irish Catholic or a member of the IRA?


I respect the courage of both of these people. Both had the courage of their convictions. And both were a danger to those who opposed their values.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

The problem (................) embraced Salafist Islam.

You stated "She was Islamised from birth, in England". Again - Where is your evidence?

Or are you going to withdraw your remark?

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Oh really?
So, Shamima Begum - British Muslim or Islamic terrorist?
Or, now that you mention it, Michael Collins- Irish Catholic or a member of the IRA?


I respect the courage of both of these people. Both had the courage of their convictions. And both were a danger to those who opposed their values.

Wow, you're really struggling with some pretty basic logic there Rec. In what way does being a British Muslim and a member of a ISIS, or being an Irish Catholic and a member of the IRA, imply that British Muslims or Irish Catholics are prone to terrorism in any general sense? By extension, given the number of violent gun deaths carried out by Americans of late do we assume Americans are generally prone to psychopathy? These are of course nonsensical implications as they take the behaviour of a tiny fraction of a percentage of the members of a group, i.e. exceptional outliers, and suggest that they are somehow representative of the much larger group.

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

Or are you going to withdraw your remark?

No.


Why don't you focus on making your own arguments?
Its been a while since you last regaled us with an update on the latest Hindu atrocity committed on the world. Or on the damage being done by Hindu cows.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

No.
............................................

Then back it up. You stated "She was Islamised from birth, in England" - where is your evidence?

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

In fact I said no such thing, and that those are blatant lies.

Own your own words:

recedite wrote: »

If you're referring to vulnerable non-muslim English girls being groomed on the streets by British Asian gangs for sexual purposes, I don't see much commonality.

Non-Muslim girl groomed for sexual purposes: bad. Muslim girl groomed to become a brood mare for terrorists: meh.

If you don't mean to draw a distinction between the grooming of Muslim and non-Muslim girls, you could always try not drawing that distinction. But you did draw that distinction, so it's disingenuous to get the hump when you're called out on it.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Wow, you're really struggling with some pretty basic logic there Rec. In what way does being a British Muslim and a member of a ISIS, or being an Irish Catholic and a member of the IRA, imply that British Muslims or Irish Catholics are prone to terrorism in any general sense?

Did I say that? No.
I challenged you to say which group these individuals belonged to, as you said it was easy to differentiate.

By extension, given the number of violent gun deaths carried out by Americans of late do we assume Americans are generally prone to psychopathy? These are of course nonsensical implications as they take the behaviour of a tiny fraction of a percentage of the members of a group, i.e. exceptional outliers, and suggest that they are somehow representative of the much larger group.

There you go with your labels and your groups again.

Its very simple; an American with a gun is more likely to shoot somebody than an American without a gun.



Unfortunately the liberal agenda always places far too much emphasis on putting people in groups. Thus we have justice for various "groups" (females, brown skinned people, homosexuals etc..) which involve mandatory diversity placings and quotas for various jobs and college places.
All the while, justice for the individuals who are displaced from the places they have earned through hard work and merit is ignored. Individual justice sacrificed to ensure equality between the groups.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you don't mean to draw a distinction between the grooming of Muslim and non-Muslim girls..

I already answered that.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

But rather than focusing in on trying to get you no-platformed, as seems to have become the fashionable tactic around this forum of late

If there's been a change to the forum charter, well, I've certainly missed it.

Can you please clarify exactly what you mean by this?

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

As usual, when it comes to Islam, you seem to predominantly talk shiite.

Talking shyte about islam and deh gheys appears to be quite the speciality now.

I think anyone other than an out and out bigot can differentiate between a British Muslim and an Islamic terrorist in much the same way the same way as they can differentiate between an Irish Catholic and a member of the IRA.

Exactly this.

It takes a very special level of lacking insight for an Irish person not to see how wrong this is.

And as for walls, they seem to be more of an American thing these days than a Chinese one. Could just be my 'warped worldview' that sees it that way, though :pac:

Seems to me the only person here doing the grouping and the labelling is the person accusing you of doing it.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Did I say that? No.
I challenged you to say which group these individuals belonged to, as you said it was easy to differentiate.

There you go with your labels and your groups again.

Its very simple; an American with a gun is more likely to shoot somebody than an American without a gun.

Any individual will typically belong to a number of groups. Because they belong to one, does not imply they will belong to another, even if the second group is a small subset of the first.

Unfortunately the liberal agenda always places far too much emphasis on putting people in groups. Thus we have justice for various "groups" (females, brown skinned people, homosexuals etc..) which involve mandatory diversity placings and quotas for various jobs and college places.
All the while, justice for the individuals who are displaced from the places they have earned through hard work and merit is ignored. Individual justice sacrificed to ensure equality between the groups.

In case you hadn't noticed, you're entire argument, and in fact this entire thread, is predicated on putting people into groups. While I don't have a copy of you're 'liberal agenda' (perhaps you could post one, could make for a fun read), my take in liberalism was that it emphasized the importance of the individual freedoms over the group.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

my take in liberalism was that it emphasized the importance of the individual freedoms over the group.

Classical liberalism and/or libertarianism did. Whereas classic fascism drew strength from the group.
The modern liberal agenda is a different kind of fascism, which emphasises various group identities, as opposed to national identities, and relishes the no-platforming of all those who disagree with it.


Ironically Shamima Begum now finds herself with a problem, because her primary group label is now deemed to be "terrorist" which eclipses "brown" "female" or "muslim". Despite the fact that as she says herself, she was only an IS housewife, and her attitudes to Islam and the benefits of Sharia nowadays are no different to the day she left London. Or indeed, to the attitudes of thousands of other muslims living in the UK.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

Classical liberalism and/or libertarianism did. Whereas classic fascism drew strength from the group.
The modern liberal agenda is a different kind of fascism, which emphasises various group identities, as opposed to national identities, and relishes the no-platforming of all those who disagree with it.


Ironically Shamima Begum now finds herself with a problem, because her primary group label is now deemed to be "terrorist" which eclipses "brown" "female" or "muslim". Despite the fact that as she says herself, she was only an IS housewife, and her attitudes to Islam and the benefits of Sharia nowadays are no different to the day she left London. Or indeed, to the attitudes of thousands of other muslims living in the UK.

Your evidence that "She was Islamised from birth, in England".....?

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

...a different kind of fascism, which emphasises various group identities...

[...]

...thousands of other muslims...

Indeed.

smacl

oscarBravo wrote: »

Indeed.

Yep, the irony in some of the recent posts is nothing short of astounding.

recedite wrote: »

The problem with the worldview of "liberals" such as yourself, is that you pigeonhole and label people according to the "group" they belong in.

:pac:

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

The modern liberal agenda is a different kind of fascism

:rolleyes:

I think a big part of what is going wrong in the world today is that WWII is passing out of living memory. Nobody who had experienced actual fascism would come out with shyte like the above.

Unfortunately it appears the slow learners among us have forgotten the lessons of history and want to recreate the horrors of the past.

Hector Savage

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I think a big part of what is going wrong in the world today is that WWII is passing out of living memory. Nobody who had experienced actual fascism would come out with shyte like the above.

Unfortunately it appears the slow learners among us have forgotten the lessons of history and want to recreate the horrors of the past.

Yes and the mass import into Europe an ideology that absolutely despises the Jews is one of the chief drivers of these horrors being re created.

smacl

Hector Savage wrote: »

Yes and the mass import into Europe an ideology that absolutely despises the Jews is one of the chief drivers of these horrors being re created.

You'd wonder why one group of people could so deeply despise another based on their ethnicity or religious beliefs. Article 24 of the Nazi platform makes for an interesting read in this regard

"We demand the freedom of all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not jeopardize the state's existence or conflict with the manners and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The Party as such upholds the point of view of a positive Christianity without tying itself confessionally to any one confession. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit at home and abroad and is convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only be achieved from within on the basis of the common good before individual good."

Problem is, every major group throughout history always considers themselves to be the good guys and their interests aligned with the common good. A common theme with these good guys seems to be to identify, subjugate or plain annihilate the next set of bad guys on their shít list.

Hazards of belief extend well beyond religious belief.

oscarBravo

Hector Savage wrote: »

Yes and the mass import into Europe an ideology that absolutely despises the Jews is one of the chief drivers of these horrors being re created.

I can see why it might be comforting to a certain mindset to believe that anti-semitism in Europe is all those nasty Muslims' fault, but do you have any actual evidence to support that belief?

Odhinn

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can see why it might be comforting to a certain mindset to believe that anti-semitism in Europe is all those nasty Muslims' fault, but do you have any actual evidence to support that belief?

Indeed
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47268651

mikhail

Odhinn wrote: »

Indeed
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47268651

That article doesn't mention muslims. At all. Did you misread the question?

Odhinn

mikhail wrote: »

That article doesn't mention muslims. At all. .............

Yep.

recedite

Lots of Jews are being hounded out of the British Labour party at the moment. The reasons are not simple, but a combination of increased numbers of Pakistani/Bangladeshi members and general voters who will not support them, combined with pressure from the far left to oust them. The fascist "anti-fa" types.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/hard-left-activists-target-jewish-mp-in-terrifying-campaign-of-abuse-1.63256



While in France the dire situation is almost entirely due to Muslim immigrants, who have a tendency to try to change their adoptive country rather than adopt its values.

France is the only country in Europe where Jews are periodically murdered for being Jewish. No fewer than 12 Jews have been killed in France in six separate incidents since 2003: Sébastien Selam, Ilan Halimi, Jonathan Sandler, Gabriel Sandler, Aryeh Sandler, Myriam Monsonégo, Yohan Cohen, Philippe Braham, François-Michel Saada, Yoav Hattab, Lucie Attal and Mireille Knoll. In each of these cases, at least one of the perpetrators was from what the French call minorités visibles, or “visible minorities”, which typically refers to those of north African or west African descent; in most cases, the perpetrators have been linked with some form of extremist Islam. In nearly every case, the victims have been either identifiably Jewish or personal acquaintances of the perpetrator. Almost all perpetrators and victims have been lower middle-class, residing in the same diverse neighbourhoods, the same streets, or even the same buildings.

The autopsy would later reveal that the woman’s skull had been crushed, most likely with the telephone on her bedside table. Before and after his victim lost consciousness, the assailant beat her until the nightgown she was wearing – white, with a blue floral pattern – was soaked with her blood. He then dragged her body to the balcony of the apartment, and threw her over the railing – exactly the same way, he told prosecutors, as John Travolta does in The Punisher, the film he had been watching before the attack. “I killed the sheitan!” he yelled from the balcony, according to testimonies given by neighbours. “Sheitan” is an Arabic word for “devil”. Neighbours heard him repeatedly chant “Allahu Akbar”.
The victim was Lucie Attal, an Orthodox Jewish woman who sometimes used the name Lucie Attal-Halimi. The perpetrator, who confessed to the crime, was Kobili Traoré, a Franco-Malian Muslim. He later told authorities he knew that his victim was Jewish. According to her family, Attal had long felt afraid of Traoré. Her brother, William Attal, told me that Traoré had verbally abused her in the building’s elevator, and she had said she would only feel safe if he were in prison...

Parts of Belgium are also badly affected and these islamified neighbourhoods are the source of many of the Islamic State jihadis and their brides.

robindch

QuintusFabius Has been carded for incivility

smacl

I see that Tommy Robinson has picked himself up a permanent ban from Facebaook and Instagram for breaching its policies on hate speech. Good riddance!

recedite

smacl wrote: »

I see that Tommy Robinson has picked himself up a permanent ban from Facebaook and Instagram for breaching its policies on hate speech. Good riddance!

As it says there,

Mainstream outlets have struggled to deal with Robinson. When he was interviewed by Sky News last year, Robinson responded by uploading an unedited video of the discussion, which became an online success and was shared far more widely online than the original interview. Robinson adopted a similar tactic with the BBC’s Panorama, which is investigating the far-right activist. Two weeks ago, Robinson agreed to be interviewed by the programme, only to turn the tables on reporter John Sweeney....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNd2bvLvyk4