• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NUS motion to condemn Isis fails amidst claims of islamophobia

Rainman05

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,966
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
NUS motion to condemn Isis fails amidst claims of islamophobia - News - Student - The Independent

The National Union of Students has rejected a call to condemn militant group Isis on the grounds that the motion was “islamophobic”, in a move which has promoted campaigners to accuse the body of being in the “stranglehold” of divisive “identity politics”.
Click to expand...

The motion, proposed by Daniel Cooper and Clifford Fleming with international students officer Shreya Paudel, called on British students “to condemn the IS and support Kurdish forces fighting against it, while expressing no confidence or trust in the US military intervention.”

However the call, which also called for unity among Muslims and has already been passed by the Scottish NUS, was rejected by a members led by black students’ officer Malia Bouattia, according the student website The Tab.

Ms Bouattia is reported to have spoken against the motion. She is reported to have said: “We recognise that condemnation of Isis appears to have become a justification for war and blatant islamophobia. This rhetoric exacerbates the issue at hand and in essence is a further attack on those we aim to defend.”
Click to expand...

Are you stupid?
You must be kidding me. Seriously, this must be some sort of joke. It is impossible to be this stupid. It truly must be impossible to be this stupid and function as a human being... how can you not forget to breathe when you're this stupid?

I'm done. I'm genuinely done. I respect the right of everyone to say what they wish without political or judicial prosecution, because that's free speech. But I also respect the right for people to put their money where they mouth is and put your life to work for what you stand for.These people truly stand by ISIS, because this is what this means if you fight against a condemnation of ISIS, you are fighting on the side of ISIS in the public arena. If you don't take a stance one way or another or just give out observations, that is neutrality, but when you actively fight against a condemnation, that means you're taking sides. So since these people truly stand by ISIS, then they should be allowed to go to ISIStan. It's after all, what they want to have for themselves because ISIS is clearly such a wonderful thing and the west is apparently unfairly judging these people and that group. We are just islamophobic.

All these people... you know... some of them college educated, it just goes to show that thinking clearly and thinking for yourself is not for everybody. It is easier to subscribe to an ideology and roll with it. Because that's the promise that the ideology has, you will never be wrong and you will never have to think for yourself. The west is always evil. ISIS is good and misjudged. Truly, just... screw it all.
 
Rainman05 said:
NUS motion to condemn Isis fails amidst claims of islamophobia - News - Student - The Independent





Are you stupid?
You must be kidding me. Seriously, this must be some sort of joke. It is impossible to be this stupid. It truly must be impossible to be this stupid and function as a human being... how can you not forget to breathe when you're this stupid?

I'm done. I'm genuinely done. I respect the right of everyone to say what they wish without political or judicial prosecution, because that's free speech. But I also respect the right for people to put their money where they mouth is and put your life to work for what you stand for.These people truly stand by ISIS, because this is what this means if you fight against a condemnation of ISIS, you are fighting on the side of ISIS in the public arena. If you don't take a stance one way or another or just give out observations, that is neutrality, but when you actively fight against a condemnation, that means you're taking sides. So since these people truly stand by ISIS, then they should be allowed to go to ISIStan. It's after all, what they want to have for themselves because ISIS is clearly such a wonderful thing and the west is apparently unfairly judging these people and that group. We are just islamophobic.

All these people... you know... some of them college educated, it just goes to show that thinking clearly and thinking for yourself is not for everybody. It is easier to subscribe to an ideology and roll with it. Because that's the promise that the ideology has, you will never be wrong and you will never have to think for yourself. The west is always evil. ISIS is good and misjudged. Truly, just... screw it all.
Click to expand...

I read about this a couple days back. This political positioning is the worse example I could imagine of what has seriously afflicted the left. The thought that 'everyone's' views are of equal worth, is grotesque to say the least. Any defence of IS is to be attacked at every occasion. Similarly, this positioning has been prevalent for quite some time, but on issues that can be deemed debateable or contentious, but IS, is neither. It is 100% barbaric, fact.

Paul
 
Ridiculous.
 
spoken from the warm comfort of a college campus no doubt, on someone else's dime. It's easy to be philosophically correct with no exposure to risk or real life.
 
It's difficult to see how NUS's refusal to condemn ISIS is consistent with its stated mission "to create a better world" and to "fight...injustice." In a bid to position itself as a moderate and rational voice, NUS has only succeeded in taking a truly extreme position that reveals its lack of understanding of the ISIS movement, its goals, its methods, and the terrible atrocities it has inflicted. Its move is not an act of leadership nor a demonstration of the kind of critical thinking capability one would hope college students possess by the time they near their graduation. My guess is that this body is essentially an ideological island among itself and it is out of step with the views of the UK's broader student population.

For those who are interested, the text of the defeated motion can be found at: NUS refuses to condemn ISIS terrorists…because it’s ‘Islamophobic’ | The Tab - Everyone reads it
 
tech30528 said:
spoken from the warm comfort of a college campus no doubt, on someone else's dime. It's easy to be philosophically correct with no exposure to risk or real life.
Click to expand...

I can look to NO philosophical underpinning, that would offer anything remotely coherent. Unless you know of such a position?

Paul
 
The decision by NUS unfortunately cements the ridiculous position NUS has had for quite a few years - very few students actually get involved with the NUS beyond buying a membership card to get discounts in all the major retailers. Very few students are actually aware that a leadership exists that goes into politics and the political stance is notoriously linked to radical movements and groups.

Malia Bouattia is just one of a long list of students who seem better suited to the world created by Malcolm Bradbury in his "History Man" books rather than the real world where the groups she wishes to protect are actually some of the most barbaric terrorists in recent history. She is responsible for the block on condemning ISIS and seems to have quite the history - she's led Black British Black Panther marches, pro Palestine / anti-Israel, anti Police marches.

Pictures | Malia4BSO

Worst thing is the official funding that groups like hers call down for their very "right on" causes.
 
This group is killing a bunch of muslims and they're worried about islamophobia in condemning them?

Sad that I'm not surprised.
 
It's rediculous to not condemn Isis ... AS rediculous as it is for Conservative Americans to ignore the fact that the use of Atomic bombs on Japan were not horrible acts of terrorism.

This isn't just a "liberal" problem.
 
RGacky3 said:
It's rediculous to not condemn Isis ... AS rediculous as it is for Conservative Americans to ignore the fact that the use of Atomic bombs on Japan were not horrible acts of terrorism.

This isn't just a "liberal" problem.
Click to expand...

I don't see the connection between ISIS and World War II. Could you perhaps elaborate?
 
Wiggen said:
I don't see the connection between ISIS and World War II. Could you perhaps elaborate?
Click to expand...

The point I'm making is you have to hold the US accountable for it's own atrocities, if you're going to demand everyone condemns other people's atrocities.
 
This is the NUS. Were it some debate within a credible and relevant political organisation I might be concerned. I was involved with the NUS when I was a student (cough, cough) years ago, and I remember a lot of the looney-tunes motions that got proposed and passed by NUS Conference. Having said that, read the Indy article and note that no one was supporting ISIS, just that the wording of the proposal appeared to support interventionism, which no one supported.

Nothing to see here, just a bunch of 19-year-olds being 19-year-olds.
 
Andalublue said:
This is the NUS. Were it some debate within a credible and relevant political organisation I might be concerned. I was involved with the NUS when I was a student (cough, cough) years ago, and I remember a lot of the looney-tunes motions that got proposed and passed by NUS Conference. Having said that, read the Indy article and note that no one was supporting ISIS, just that the wording of the proposal appeared to support interventionism, which no one supported.

Nothing to see here, just a bunch of 19-year-olds being 19-year-olds.
Click to expand...

Not that I disagree that nobody cares what the NUS thinks, it's extremely difficult to ready anything like interventionism or islamophobia in the following wording.

NUS National Executive Committee notes:

The ongoing humanitarian crisis and sectarian polarisation in Iraq - which has resulted in thousands of Yazidi Kurds being massacred.
NUS NEC believes

That the people of Iraq have suffered for years under the sectarian and brutally repressive dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, the US/UK invasion and occupation, the current sectarian regime linked to both the US and Iran, and now the barbaric repression of the “Islamic State” organisation.

That rape and other forms of sexual violence are being used as weapons against women in IS-occupied areas, while minorities are being ethnically cleansed.

NUS NEC resolves:

To work with the International Students’ Campaign to support Iraqi, Syrian and other international students in the UK affected by this situation.

To campaign in solidarity with the Iraqi people and in particular support the hard-pressed student, workers’ and women’s organisations against all the competing nationalist and religious-right forces.

To support Iraqis trying to bridge the Sunni-Shia divide to fight for equality and democracy, including defence of the rights of the Christian and Yazidi-Kurd minorities.

To condemn the IS and support the Kurdish forces fighting against it, while expressing no confidence or trust in the US military intervention.

Encourage students to boycott anyone found to be funding the IS or supplying them with goods, training, travel or soldiers.

To make contact with Iraqi and Kurdish organisations, in Iraq and in the UK, in order to build solidarity and to support refugees.

To issue a statement on the above basis.
Click to expand...
 
Andalublue said:
This is the NUS. Were it some debate within a credible and relevant political organisation I might be concerned. I was involved with the NUS when I was a student (cough, cough) years ago, and I remember a lot of the looney-tunes motions that got proposed and passed by NUS Conference. Having said that, read the Indy article and note that no one was supporting ISIS, just that the wording of the proposal appeared to support interventionism, which no one supported. Nothing to see here, just a bunch of 19-year-olds being 19-year-olds.
Click to expand...
Good point. They may be kids but they have more sense than the warmongering politicians who constantly vote in favor of intervention and just end up making an even bigger mess.
 
RGacky3 said:
The point I'm making is you have to hold the US accountable for it's own atrocities, if you're going to demand everyone condemns other people's atrocities.
Click to expand...

Of course that assumes that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocities - a fact not in evidence. There have been countless threads and discussions on the whole atomic bomb issue as it was used to end World War II. The net result is that those who don't particularly like the United States think it was an atrocity. Those of us who think World War II was worth winning, and winning as quickly as possible, do not. Folks included in the latter group include the tens of thousands of allied prisoners of war slowly being starved to death by the Japanese and any combat infantryman who was destined to take part in the invasion of Japan (and any sailor on a ship that would have had to deal with kamikaze attacks from 5,000 or so aircraft ready for that mission). Since my father was among that group, it's highly likely that I would not be here had he been among the troops landing in Japan.
 
Andalublue said:
This is the NUS. Were it some debate within a credible and relevant political organisation I might be concerned. I was involved with the NUS when I was a student (cough, cough) years ago, and I remember a lot of the looney-tunes motions that got proposed and passed by NUS Conference. Having said that, read the Indy article and note that no one was supporting ISIS, just that the wording of the proposal appeared to support interventionism, which no one supported.

Nothing to see here, just a bunch of 19-year-olds being 19-year-olds.
Click to expand...

Well, its good to know that they don't support ISIS. They just don't want to do anything to stop them. Makes it all better.
 
Wiggen said:
1. Of course that assumes that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocities - a fact not in evidence. There have been countless threads and discussions on the whole atomic bomb issue as it was used to end World War II. The net result is that those who don't particularly like the United States think it was an atrocity. Those of us who think World War II was worth winning, and winning as quickly as possible, do not. Folks included in the latter group include the tens of thousands of allied prisoners of war slowly being starved to death by the Japanese and any combat infantryman who was destined to take part in the invasion of Japan (and any sailor on a ship that would have had to deal with kamikaze attacks from 5,000 or so aircraft ready for that mission). Since my father was among that group, it's highly likely that I would not be here had he been among the troops landing in Japan.
Click to expand...

1. Really ... murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians for a political end? That wasn't an atrocity?

2. You're argument for the atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be used With EQUAL force to defend almost all islamic terrorism.

3. Japan was looking to end the war anyway, the US wanted a show of force, unconditional surrender and to be on the up end in the begining of the Cold war ... those thousands of civilians in Japan died for the pride of the American military, NOTHING else, not for Peace, just for political Power ... that's called terrorism ...

Yet you don't condemn it .... so shut the **** up about the NUS .... if you can't condemn Your own countries blatent and obvious terrorism, then don't look at the Straw in Your Brothers eye.
 
Wiggen said:
Well, its good to know that they don't support ISIS. They just don't want to do anything to stop them. Makes it all better.
Click to expand...

Had their resolution called for all four horsemen of the apocalypse to rain down fire and damnation on ISIS, it would not have done a single thing to stop them either. I don't think we should be getting exercised over the mumblings of adolescent radicals and musings of bar-room ideologues. I think an NUS executive resolution has the political import and social impact of one of NavyPride's DP thread starters.
 
RGacky3 said:
1. Really ... murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians for a political end? That wasn't an atrocity?

2. You're argument for the atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be used With EQUAL force to defend almost all islamic terrorism.

3. Japan was looking to end the war anyway, the US wanted a show of force, unconditional surrender and to be on the up end in the begining of the Cold war ... those thousands of civilians in Japan died for the pride of the American military, NOTHING else, not for Peace, just for political Power ... that's called terrorism ...

Yet you don't condemn it .... so shut the **** up about the NUS .... if you can't condemn Your own countries blatent and obvious terrorism, then don't look at the Straw in Your Brothers eye.
Click to expand...

Massive fail on your part. Japan was not looking for a way to end the war, and all of the leftist drivel in the world doesn't change that fact. They came very close to not surrendering even after the bombs were dropped. Try to get this through your thick, anti-American leftist skull - the bombs ended world war II, and nothing you or any of your fellow fringe lefties can change that undeniable fact. In addition to saving tens of thousands of American lives, it also saved maybe a million Japanese lives. Your lefty revisionists crack me up. Keep up the hilarious stuff!:lamo
 
Wiggen said:
Massive fail on your part. Japan was not looking for a way to end the war, and all of the leftist drivel in the world doesn't change that fact. They came very close to not surrendering even after the bombs were dropped. Try to get this through your thick, anti-American leftist skull - the bombs ended world war II, and nothing you or any of your fellow fringe lefties can change that undeniable fact. In addition to saving tens of thousands of American lives, it also saved maybe a million Japanese lives. Your lefty revisionists crack me up. Keep up the hilarious stuff!:lamo
Click to expand...

Hiroshima bomb may have carried hidden agenda - science-in-society - 21 July 2005 - New Scientist

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was "looking for peace". Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

ALso

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/31.pdf

where it says

His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland.[46]

also

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/40.pdf

Where it says.

With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. ... It is in order to avoid such a state of affairs that we are seeking a peace, ... through the good offices of Russia. ... it would also be disadvantageous and impossible, from the standpoint of foreign and domestic considerations, to make an immediate declaration of specific terms


So yes ... they were looking for Peace ....

The US and UK wanted UNCONDITIONAL surrender ....

they couldn't get it, so they decided to do terrorism.

If that isn't terrorism, murdering thousands of civilians because a country who WANTS PEACE will not UNCONDITIONALLY surrender ... then NOTHING is terrorism.
 
Japan wanted peace? Tell that to the Filipinos or the Vietnamese or the Chinese. You honestly think we were going to let the perpetrators of unbelievable atrocities against civilians and prisoners of war dictate the terms of peace? Ridiculous.

Discussed and dissected numerous times on this forum. It always boils down to those anti-American nitwits who hate this country and everything it stands for consider this something new and terrible. In fact, it was merely the continuation of a vicious war started by the Axis powers and ended by us.

It was always going to be unconditional surrender. The Americans murdered by the Japanese in POW camps and the Chinese murdered in Nanking and the Brits murdered on the Burma Railroad demanded nothing else. You apologists and Monday morning quarterbacks can quote whomever you like. You weren't there and you don't know. No American President could have survived allowing that war to go on one more day than necessary.

Save your tears for those who really deserved them.
 
I Think m,Wiggen, that to understand the left you mjust forst understand that they hate the USA and will condone any atrocity directed at the US or its allies if it is done by an anti US force. They will support the most illiberal organisations in the world.

E
 
ataturk said:
They will support the most illiberal organisations in the world.
Click to expand...

You mean like Wahhabi fanatics in Saudi Arabia? Or the military dictators in Egypt? Or provide logistical support to death squads throughout Latin America? Or is that kind of behaviour only beyond the pale when it's carried out by non-Americans and/or anti-Americans?
 
Andalublue said:
You mean like Wahhabi fanatics in Saudi Arabia? Or the military dictators in Egypt? Or provide logistical support to death squads throughout Latin America? Or is that kind of behaviour only beyond the pale when it's carried out by non-Americans and/or anti-Americans?
Click to expand...

How does this in any way negate the fact that the left will support any group that is anti American no matter how illiberal they are? And that is RIGHT NOW. The left will support Homophobes, racists, mass murderers,indeed just about anyone. The left claims to be about human rights and against discrimination but really they are just hypocrites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom