In the news

Anyway, the intention of my comment was - that the infographic doesn't really communicate the "not all muslims are terrorists" thing (partly because that's quite obvious), but what it communicates to me is that Isis are 2x bigger than the Taliban and 10x bigger than Al Quaeda, and that's disturbing to me. (And it can be read as a sort of counter message to the overall intention of the infographic - shit aren't they getting big fast, we need to kill kill kill etc)

My acquaintances are mostly fine, it's the local groups and stuff full of people I don't know that are more worrying.

those 'all muslims aren't teh evil, look at this pic / vid / opinion i've lazily shared lol!' posts exists mostly to reassure the poster's acquaintances that they aren't a racist arsehole whilst simultaneously creating the impression that the poster thinks said acquaintances most probably are.

it can be read as a sort of counter message to the overall intention of the infographic - shit aren't they getting big fast

That's an interesting point! I wouldn't have thought of that. Not a response I have seen so far though. Mostly, I think the image will be shared between well meaning people who agree with each other to strengthen their own views- it is at worst useless / harmless.

'd like to see a chart that shows a circle that represents religious people compared to a circle representing fucking stupid irrational thinking cunts.

Here, I'll make one...

o

I think the one I posted illustrates the opposite point.

The point is that all religion is an outdated concept based on a faith in what was written in books thousands of years ago. Not irrational?

Initiating self-imposed media blackout in 3, 2, 1...

I'm going on a cisgender rally

what the fuck are we doing arguing like a bunch of cunts on the internet on a friday night?

i miss joe.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/20/girl-becomes-first-briton-convicted-of-trying-to-join-fight-against-islamic-state-in-syria

Can someone please explain to me how our government can convict some for attempting to fight against a terrorist group that our government are supporting the fight against?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/macer-gifford-briton-fight-isis-shine-light-conflict

I guess it's only cool if you join the Syrian front, rather than the Turkish front of essentially the same organisation.

(Edited to remove DM link)

There is a list of organisations that the government has made it illegal to attempt to join or to support on the grounds that they will use acts of terrorism in order to achieve their aims. PKK is on that list. That PKK is currently fighting against ISIS isn't really relevant. If a state holds that terrorism is a bad thing, we can't then give a free pass to a terrorist organisation just because they're fighting a common enemy. We can't work in concert with them and we definitely can't gain any assurances that they won't carry out acts of terrorism and/or aggression against us or other states or organisations we're allied with.

The UVF/UFF/UDA/YMCA were/are still criminals even if they were theoretically fighting the IRA who were the enemy of the British Army (an ex squaddie mate actually said he was told anybody Catholic was the enemy on his first tour of NI).

Well they seem comparatively reasonable in the fact from the article they seem to reject minors from their ranks. Isis would have snapped her up.

The UN and Switzerland don't see the PKK as a terrorist group.

They now seem to be somewhere in the difficult grey area of terrorist/freedom fighter territory. When they were blowing up civilian buses rather than just fighting with the Turkish army it was a bit more clear cut.

Our government seems to have no qualms about providing support (and allegedly arms) to proscribed terrorist organisations through.

The case seems to have parallels with this one: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo

Hold the front page, Government policy in inconsistency shocker!

Nah, can't allow people to go abroad and join armies and armed groups willy nilly. I'd say serving national service in another NATO country would be just about alright, but any armed group we don't have oversight over is not OK.
There are any number of armies and stateless militias around the world that may seem like nice chaps one minute, then commit atrocities the next. My personal pet peevee is UK teenagers joining the IDF as if it the most natural thing in the world.
And even if she was going to fight 'the good war', who knows what psychological damages she'd return with. Ex UN soliders, for example, have been known to do some pretty horrible things upon return to civilian life.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/pendleton-salford-mass-brawl-10479669

Here's the latest in a number of recent reports of vulnerable disabled people being mugged:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/disabled-sixstone-man-dragged-up-alleyway-and-mugged-for-cash-while-waiting-for-bus-a3120006.html

The most famous case was that of Alan Barnes, for whom a successful fundraising campaign was subsequently launched, raising more than £300,000. His assailant, Richard Gatiss, was later jailed for four years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-32157820

Although the crime is the same, these cases attract considerably more attention from the press and public (myself included) than assaults on people who are not severely disabled.

On the prison bus to court Gatiss had been "the subject of some pretty awful double-standard behaviour" from other inmates, Mr Adams said.

Hi hi

Can't remember who but up thread it said IS isn't a state. It has some cities (including Mosul, Iraq's second city), an army of sorts with some heavy weapons/a few tanks, collects taxes, has regional governors, an ideology, a flag, some real nice songs and nuff territory. Could be argued it's a weak state?