IS gleefully murder British Taxi Driver Alan Henning

These guys clearly have no religious background and must be pathological.

Mad British Jihad announces the beheading of 47 year old taxi driver who was motivated to go with our Muslims overland to Syria to deliver supplies for those in desperate need.

Al Qaeda sent people to them saying they must not kill him.

One hundred of our Imams wrote to them and told them that there was no way in Islam that his killing was acceptable.

4 of our Most radical Muslims sent them videos telling him the killing of this man was not acceptable under Islam and totally wrong.

All he was was a taxi driver with a heart for those in need who travelled with Muslims to help Muslims.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...enning-beheaded-by-Islamic-State-killers.html

Edit: Got it, they think this will make people hate Muslims.

 

It goes without saying that the actions of these head-chopping maniacs are reprehensible. It seems to me they are crazy but not stupid in as much as the purpose of these videos is on the one hand to act as a propaganda, recruitment and public relations exercise. On the other hand, potentially, this opens up another set of hypothetical questions and scenarios. The filming of these vile acts must be intended to goad the US-UK into action that will extend beyond Iraq into Syria thus almost certainly resulting in the toppling of Assad which seems to have been the U.S/UK objective all along. In other words, is attacking ISIS the means to an end as far as the alliance is concerned? If it is, then one has to ask the question as to who is really pulling the strings of this bunch of maniacs?

 

Talking of which:

http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/10/u-s-alliance-with-fsa-and-isil-in-six-photographs/

 

Really not sure if it is all out to get Assad. The US were of course funding them and the other Al Qaeda type groups before the UK refused to go to war against Syria and they had to admit they were funding terrorists. However Saudi Arabia and Qatar were the main funders and the Saudi's were well pissed off when the US did not go to war. The only thing that they do not like about Daesh is that it does not recognise them as the supreme rulers.

It is understandable that we provide some support like we did some time ago when these Iraqi people were in danger of genocide but everyone who spoke from Parliament last week did not believe that bombing would help the situation even though they almost unanimously agreed to it. Their main argument towards Galloway was 'well what would you suggest then?' like they are doing this because they cannot think of anything else, which is insane. The sane thing to do would have been to take time working out the best solution and doing it through the UN.

They did know and admitted when questioned that they were signing the death sentences of the two Brits.

and as people were pointing out last night why would Daesh care for a man whose only failing was to try to help Muslims when they kill and rape Muslim women and children themselves. They do not care for any human life - which I read was a perception they were trying to create. Eventually when they have the territory they want they will then move on to becoming more human - I think they are missing out the reality that they will not possess the ingredients -empathy being one and one they clearly do not have already.

By all accounts they, unlike Al Qaeda had no intentions to harm the West. Their publicised beheadings are to show the US and UK up for not paying ransoms. That obviously will change now. ie their interest in harming the West as I believe they have already said.

Given that they are so rich and have such good on going business with their oil, it surely only has to be a matter of time before they get more dangerous weapons.

RIP Alan Henning

 

iguess its a sign that the uk government doesnt give a hoot for their citizens abroad, the hostages. theyve had plenty of warnings but have let the families down.

 

Too sad that there are psychopaths whose behavior is triggered by events in the world. And too sad there have become too many radicals who engage those psychopath in their activity.
I wish they were finally erased from the face of the Earth...

 

They killed a British aid worker before we began attacking if that is what you are referring to.

 

The murder of the taxi driver is beyond sick, but you are mistaken if you think the Saudis or Qatar want a wider war. They don't.. There is NO benefit to them. Syria is not rich.. and have a tiny oil production of which more than half goes for domestic use.

Iraq has huge potential... Their production is way down and about 10% of that is Kurdish or was before ISIL.

 

Attacking who, we've been bombing the region for decades?

- - - Updated - - -

You can thank Europeans for arming them to the hilt, it's not like we don't have our fair share of psycho reigning fire from above.

 

Maybe we can have him do the commencement speech at Oberlin College.

 

These killings by ISIS could be avoided. Avoided by following what most people will not do. I will not go into an area here in the local town that is filled with black gangs. Because you might lose your life. So I refuse to do it. Neither do I walk barefooted into a den of rattlesnakes.

So, these people that go into the middle east, infidels that go there, are subject to Darwin's ideas, and nature attempts to end their gene lineage. For they are not capable of surviving. If they didn't get killed in the middle east, some other act of stupidity would remove their set of genes.

 

It must be that Islam begets so many Godless murderers because it teaches judgment and condemnation rather than repentance and contrition. This is the aggression of Islam. And the peace....the peace.......well, peace comes to all, even Muslims. It is not the fruit of Islam. It is the victim of Islam.

 

Let's not demean his memory. Remember him doing his thing. Helping people.



RIP Alan.

 

What are you talking about? Have you looked at the murder statistics for the US which is presumably Christian?

 

We have religious liberty with a multitude of religions, including atheism and agnosticism. You should know this.

 

Really? You want to equate crime with the religious teachings of Islam?

 

81 per cent of MPs voted in favour of yet more air strikes in Iraq. Prior to the media propaganda blitz, just 37 per cent of the British public were in favour of a bombing campaign. This figure subsequently shot up to to 57 per cent. The 81/57 per cent differential illustrates the extent of the democratic deficit that is indicative of parliamentary democracy. I agree with you that their rush to bomb was disgraceful and yes, by doing so, they did knowingly sign the death sentence of Alan Henning while also putting at risk the lives of other UK citizens. So, from the perspective of power the decision of Parliament to bomb must of been predicated on a cost-benefit calculation. In other words the MPs are willing to sacrifice British lives in order to further their wider strategic aims. This is the logical conclusion of their decision. There can be no other. All along I have maintained that ostensibly this is not about attacking ISIS but the stepping-stone to toppling Assad. I stick by that.

 

That is a pretty vapid response. The UK and the US don't pay for release of prisoners and their death warrants are signed once they are captured. They are sold off by other groups to ISIS who will behead anybody. Destroying ISIS actually helps Assad.

 

IS would have murdered Henning even if the UK had not started bombing the hell out of those IS savages.

 

You might consider that... Saudi Arabia's crime rate can't compare with our own. Do you want to attribute that to Islam?

- - - Updated - - -

I suspect that you are correct.............

 

You mean hangings, stonings, and beheadings for crime that comes from Islamic law? You don't attribute that to Islam.

 

Another thread about hate demans Alan Henning's memory.

 

I know that the UK and U.S don't pay for release of prisoners. The wider point I was trying to make is that ISIS cannot be defeated by bombs. It's a bit like saying it's possible to target a particular breed of fish in an ocean or targeting clouds. That's why, like I said, this is ostensibly not about attacking ISIS. In other words, my point is that attacking Iraq (because that is what it is) is clearly counterproductive. That's not just me saying that but senior members of the British intelligence services. If the aim was really to destroy ISIS they would be seeking Assad's help in eradicating them.

 

Thus attacking ISIS helps Assad like I said. I agree that bombing will not stop ISIS but what will stop ISIS is a stable ME even if that means supporting oppressive dictators like Assad.

 

That's true. But the point I was trying to make is that bombing won't get rid of them but will only make things worse.