Shooting range uses images of ISIS bride Shamima Begum as target practice after a 'record number of requests' from customers

First topic message reminder :


A shooting range is using an image of ISIS bride Shamima Begum as a target after receiving a 'record number' of requests from customers.

The Ultimate Airsoft Range in Wallasey, Merseyside, has defended using a picture of the teenager's face for shooting practice after facing a fierce backlash.

Owners of the attraction, which is used by children as young as six, said the move was in response to her 'lack of remorse and empathy' in television interviews.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6751329/Merseyside-shooting-range-defends-using-images-ISIS-bride.html

Thor wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:and again I think you are proposing a false argument didge

Its not about a "woman" or even a "woman in a burka"

Its about that one particular woman whose face is there, the face of an UNREPENTANT terrorist.

How about this terrorist then?



At he timke he was in prison he was unrependant

Stop using timescales as an argument and actually starting seeing the reality she was groomed

Does that mean I excuse her hateful views?

No, but I understand she has been groomed

Its targeting an unarmed woman plain and simple and you have condemned her based on her beliefs and views to be seen as a target. to then justify this

You have no moral ground on this and I do not even support her what so ever on her views

You just tried to justify her being seen as a legitimate target

I guess smelly would shit a brick, when she was carrying the unborn child

the above is all irrelevant didge

I doubt people even think of her as "an unarmed woman" in this context, they see an evil isis terrorist.....if it was a male the same would happen. and didge...even if she was and is unarmed that does NOT relieve her of being a combatant in this particular war.....since she was doubtless a "facilitator" the only thing that now relieves her of combatant status is her "prisoner " status as she should be treated as a prisoner of war.

Lord Foul wrote:

Thor wrote:


How about this terrorist then?



At he timke he was in prison he was unrependant

Stop using timescales as an argument and actually starting seeing the reality she was groomed

Does that mean I excuse her hateful views?

No, but I understand she has been groomed

Its targeting an unarmed woman plain and simple and you have condemned her based on her beliefs and views to be seen as a target. to then justify this

You have no moral ground on this and I do not even support her what so ever on her views

You just tried to justify her being seen as a legitimate target

I guess smelly would shit a brick, when she was carrying the unborn child

the above is all irrelevant didge

I doubt people even think of her as "an unarmed woman" in this context, they see an evil isis terrorist.....if it was a male the same would happen. and didge...even if she was and is unarmed that does NOT relieve her of being a combatant in this particular war.....since she was doubtless a "facilitator" the only thing that now relieves her of combatant status is her "prisoner " status as she should be treated as a prisoner of war.

Well that is he difference in morality

As in a conflict she was involved in, she was unarmed, pregnant and not seen as a legitamate target was she

She was not even taken prisoner there

So why are people doing so now?

Just because people follow evil ideologies, does not mean they should be executed

If we did that, the vast majority of the population of German should have been executed for supporting Nazism

We never executed the vast majority of them, espically unarmed women,  but Russian Soldiers and Poloes butchered them. Just as the Nazi's did to them. Just as the Soviets did to the Poles

Are you claiming that was okay, if they were maried to Nazi's?

So either you back the Geneva convention on rules of engagement. Or you back the Nazi , Soviet Union and Imperial Japanese view on this, that raped and butchered unarmed women?

So what is it going to be?

Anyway so tired Lord Foul, mate

Night

Didge. The Good Friday Agreement ended the troubles as we all know, we were able to broker that peace treaty because the aims of the IRA and UVF etc were political, not motivated by religious fanaticism.

Neither side wanted a barbaric theocracy in NI. We simply can’t negotiate the same way with ISIS and Al Qaeda, because they don’t want any sort of compromise. We could withdraw all troops from the Middle East today and it still wouldn’t satisfy them, because they are fundamentally at odds with our way of life and will not stop until either they are subdued, or we are subdued under sharia law.

Hence why we need to take the gloves off and can’t just adopt a one size fits all policy for terrorists. They are a very different animal to any other group that carried out terror attacks in the UK and we need brutal tactics to defeat them.

Put it this way. Can you imagine an ISIS political party along the lines of Sinn Fein or the DUP? Not a chance in hell because literally all they want is infidel bloodshed.

The Puzzler wrote:Didge. The Good Friday Agreement ended the troubles as we all know, we were able to broker that peace treaty because the aims of the IRA and UVF etc were political, not motivated by religious fanaticism. Neither side wanted a barbaric theocracy in NI. We simply can’t negotiate the same way with ISIS and Al Qaeda, because they don’t want any sort of compromise. We could withdraw all troops from the Middle East today and it still wouldn’t satisfy them, because they are fundamentally at odds with our way of life and will not stop until either they are subdued, or we are subdued under sharia law. Hence why we need to take the gloves off and can’t just adopt a one size fits all policy for terrorists. They are a very different animal to any other group that carried out terror attacks in the UK and we need brutal tactics to defeat them.

We can defeat them through education, its that simple and we have seen this actually work

Take Maajid for example

They are no different from any other terrorist organisation, as their methods are terror itself

All have ideological beliefs

All can and some have been defeated by taking on the ideology

Its why for example Nazism has never reared its ugly head again

Its why in the main in the west Communism has not risen and rightly so

Its about challenging poor beliefs and helping people to challenge their own beliefs. That opens the door to defeating extreme ideologies

At the end of the day troops on the ground in the Middle East is the first line of defense

This is so much so, that US troops have never left South Korea since the Korean war in the 1950's

That is over 60 years of being there

Anyway, the tables are now turning in the Middle East. Israel is now gaining Arab friends in nations, that have a common enemy.

Iran

The Puzzler wrote:Put it this way. Can you imagine an ISIS political party along the lines of Sinn Fein or the DUP? Not a chance in hell because literally all they want is infidel bloodshed.

There already is one

Its called the Muslim Bortherhood

Another is called Hamas

Another is called Hezbollah

I agree, if we want to win, no quarter to be given.
Beat them at their own game ! [sorry Didge, but rules of engagement go out of the window when some one is trying to kill you ". Just my opinion mind !

nicko wrote:I agree, if we want to win,  no quarter to be given.
Beat them at their own game !    [sorry Didge, but rules of engagement go out of the window when some one is trying to kill you ". Just my opinion mind !

That is because you fail to see its actually a war of ideas

How did your concept of no quarter work in Vietnam?

The US failed, because they failed in the war of ideas and failed because they never used hearts and minds

The British did in Malaysia and that actually worked. As it brough more people on board with the British to defeat the terrorists. The terrorists were starved of support and places to hide.

You need to look at examples of military success stories against terrorism.

They were all won based on a winning strategy on w ar of ideas

Thor wrote:

The Puzzler wrote:Put it this way. Can you imagine an ISIS political party along the lines of Sinn Fein or the DUP? Not a chance in hell because literally all they want is infidel bloodshed.

There already is one

Its called the Muslim Bortherhood

Another is called Hamas

Another is called Hezbollah

I mean in the UK. And for all Hezbollahs faults, they nor any other Shia group have attacked the UK.

The Puzzler wrote:

Thor wrote:


There already is one

Its called the Muslim Bortherhood

Another is called Hamas

Another is called Hezbollah

I mean in the UK. And for all Hezbollahs faults, they nor any other Shia group have attacked the UK.

Yet called for the death of a writter, called Salman Rushdie

They certainly attack Jews and call for their destruction and Israel is an ally of ours

They help prevent terrorist attacks in the west, with intelligence

Also Puzzler, you might like to read mate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

I tried "hearts and Minds" I really did, and I stuck with it for two Tours. I never killed a Baby,[ despite Quills
accusing me of] . When a man points a Gun at me I'm supposed to shout "put down your gun", get as far as PUT, and he's shot you , I can not take that chance , surely you can see that ?

nicko wrote:I tried "hearts and Minds" I really did, and I stuck with it for two Tours. I never killed a Baby,[ despite Quills
accusing me of] .   When a man points a Gun at me I'm supposed to shout "put down your gun", get as far as PUT, and he's shot you , I can not take that chance , surely you can see that ?

Its never going to work properly if only the Australian units did so and the US did not

I know you never killed any babies and in combat you have to seek out the enemy

Not saying you should not hunt to kill the enemy. That is war, but if they seek to surrender, quarter should be given

So if a man is pointing a gun at you mate, I would expct you to take him down and no doubt you did, being as you are alive to tell the tale thank goodness

My view is not when facing an enemy in combat, but when they surrender

Like I say hearts and minds worked in many British operations overseas

Its worked so well, its been adpated by others mate

Again its a battle of ideas, one the Muslim world is losing against extremism

As they never challenge their own beliefs

I've already said its not a good idea but why the intense outrage? As already said other peoples image has been used, to suggest that this is going to give consent to people to go out and shoot women in burkhas is frankly daft, its suggesting the majority of the public including people using the shooting facility are all pychos, generally most people understand the difference between real life and fantasy.

Vintage wrote:I've already said its not a good idea but why the intense outrage? As already said other peoples image has been used, to suggest that this is going to give consent to people to go out and shoot women in burkhas is frankly daft, its suggesting the majority of the public including people using the shooting facility are all pychos, generally most people understand the difference between real life and fantasy.    

Because if someone used a picture of Margaret Thatcher or Corbyn I would say the same. That its wrong

Its not outrage but basic common sense

I bet it leads to people beating up women in Burkas, which has and does happen

Will you only be satisfied when one is shot in Burka for then the point to hit home?

I think the Burka, is a misogynistic symbol and such poor ideas need to be challenged.

Yet this is about placing the face of a girl, that we have rightly stripped of her citizenship, as target practice

What on earth does that achieve?

Nobody is suggesting that anyone is pychos, your words and not anyone else

What we are saying is this is what seperates morally from ISIS. That we dont use the picture of young women as target practice, due to hate.

It shows we are that much better than them

So just maybe, some people are in disagreement with you, because they think your views on this are at best, very poor

If you cannot accept, people have different views and think  poorly of yours on this, then you are the one with the problem here

I suggest you learn to take criticism on your views

Vintage wrote:I've already said its not a good idea but why the intense outrage? As already said other peoples image has been used, to suggest that this is going to give consent to people to go out and shoot women in burkhas is frankly daft, its suggesting the majority of the public including people using the shooting facility are all pychos, generally most people understand the difference between real life and fantasy.    

I just think it's tasteless and that if you find yourself wanting to shoot at an image of a real person, you need to take a hard look at yourself and how Matthew McConaughey you actually are, because you're probably not very.

You can disagree with me all you like, you usually have over the years, as can anyone else and I can acknowledge that people disagree with me, then I usually shut up after I've had my say. In this case its not the fact that people, including me, may I remind you, that finds this tasteless, its the intensity of offence that some have expressed that I find hard to swallow for something that is tasteless if it was anyone's face, and to talk about it as if its going to have major consequences of public safety by the public is weird.
I doubt anyone who may have used that particular target thought of actually shooting her or someone in a burkha, if they did they certainly shouldn't have access to any gun.

Vintage wrote:You can disagree with me all you like, you usually have over the years, as can anyone else and I can acknowledge that people disagree with me, then I usually shut up after I've had my say. In this case its not the fact that people, including me, may I remind you, that finds this tasteless, its the intensity of offence that some have expressed that I find hard to swallow for something that is tasteless if it was anyone's face, and to talk about it as if its going to have major consequences of public safety by the public is weird.
I doubt anyone who may have used that particular target thought of actually shooting her or someone in a burkha, if they did they certainly shouldn't have access to any gun.

So your issue here, is over how people would actually feel aghast that a womans face would be used as target practice?

You then claim that anyone that use this as a target, when it was clearly contrived with a view to view her as a target. Would not view her as a target to be seen as hate

Sorry, but that is about as ridiculous an argument I have ever heard

So you doubt it, based on what?

If people linned up to shoot that, then they did so for a reason, based on viewing her as s ymbol of hate through ISIS

There is plenty of shooting targets. So I am sorry, your once again really poorly contrived defense, is based on what i can only describe, as complete babble

As explain why her face was placed up as a target in the first place?

In your own time

Lord Foul wrote:

Thor wrote:


How about this terrorist then?



At he timke he was in prison he was unrependant

Stop using timescales as an argument and actually starting seeing the reality she was groomed

Does that mean I excuse her hateful views?

No, but I understand she has been groomed

Its targeting an unarmed woman plain and simple and you have condemned her based on her beliefs and views to be seen as a target. to then justify this

You have no moral ground on this and I do not even support her what so ever on her views

You just tried to justify her being seen as a legitimate target

I guess smelly would shit a brick, when she was carrying the unborn child

the above is all irrelevant didge

I doubt people even think of her as "an unarmed woman" in this context, they see an evil isis terrorist.....if it was a male the same would happen. and didge...even if she was and is unarmed that does NOT relieve her of being a combatant in this particular war.....since she was doubtless a "facilitator" the only thing that now relieves her of combatant status is her "prisoner " status as she should be treated as a prisoner of war.

she was just shy of 16 when she left to join a terrorist organisation, she fooled police officers that she was not a threat so obviously was competent enough to plan that, she then travelled 2 1/2 thousand miles and got herself smuggled across a border. she was no wide eyed innocent. the women of isis are as big a threat as the men who have largely been killed

The Puzzler wrote:Didge. The Good Friday Agreement ended the troubles as we all know, we were able to broker that peace treaty because the aims of the IRA and UVF etc were political, not motivated by religious fanaticism.

Neither side wanted a barbaric theocracy in NI. We simply can’t negotiate the same way with ISIS and Al Qaeda, because they don’t want any sort of compromise. We could withdraw all troops from the Middle East today and it still wouldn’t satisfy them, because they are fundamentally at odds with our way of life and will not stop until either they are subdued, or we are subdued under sharia law.

Hence why we need to take the gloves off and can’t just adopt a one size fits all policy for terrorists. They are a very different animal to any other group that carried out terror attacks in the UK and we need brutal tactics to defeat them.

Also lets not forget their war has been going on for 1400 years now without any change

Thor wrote:

nicko wrote:I agree, if we want to win,  no quarter to be given.
Beat them at their own game !    [sorry Didge, but rules of engagement go out of the window when some one is trying to kill you ". Just my opinion mind !

That is because you fail to see its actually a war of ideas

How did your concept of no quarter work in Vietnam?

The US failed, because they failed in the war of ideas and failed because they never used hearts and minds

The British did in Malaysia and that actually worked. As it brough more people on board with the British to defeat the terrorists. The terrorists were starved of support and places to hide.

You need to look at examples of military success stories against terrorism.

They were all won based on a winning strategy on w ar of ideas

they failed because the north Vietnamese did not care how many people died. When life is cheap it is easier to win.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

the above is all irrelevant didge

I doubt people even think of her as "an unarmed woman" in this context, they see an evil isis terrorist.....if it was a male the same would happen. and didge...even if she was and is unarmed that does NOT relieve her of being a combatant in this particular war.....since she was doubtless a "facilitator" the only thing that now relieves her of combatant status is her "prisoner " status as she should be treated as a prisoner of war.

she was just shy of 16 when she left to join a terrorist organisation, she fooled police officers that she was not a threat so obviously was competent enough to plan that, she then travelled 2 1/2 thousand miles and got herself smuggled across a border. she was no wide eyed innocent. the women of isis are as big a threat as the men who have largely been killed

You sound like the reasoning made by the Rotherham council on victims of grooming gangs

They also in many cases jumped into bed with child abusers, mainly as they were groomed

Many police claimed they were fooling them, about Pakistanis grooming then

Its astounding how the argument made before, now turns on its head when it comes to youngsters

The only real threat is people like you promoting the same fear based propaganda

Oh and here is something to really get the racists and xenophobes silent

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6746615/Britain-one-racist-countries-Europe-says-new-study.html

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:


That is because you fail to see its actually a war of ideas

How did your concept of no quarter work in Vietnam?

The US failed, because they failed in the war of ideas and failed because they never used hearts and minds

The British did in Malaysia and that actually worked. As it brough more people on board with the British to defeat the terrorists. The terrorists were starved of support and places to hide.

You need to look at examples of military success stories against terrorism.

They were all won based on a winning strategy on w ar of ideas

they failed because the north Vietnamese did not care how many people died. When life is cheap it is easier to win.

Well that shows an ignorance of history

The American goverment never cared how many Americans died 

Hence why that was never the winning factor, was it?

Its easy to see how you have not a clue what you are talking about, because you only see what you want to see

So, how did we win in Malaysia?

the left would never sink to anything that low would they

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&biw=1386&bih=708&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=iBF4XIGCMvadjLsP0O2UqAc&q=%22margaret%2Bthatcher%2Bdartboard%22&oq=%22margaret%2Bthatcher%2Bdartboard%22&gs_l=img.12...6797.9131..10733...0.0..0.185.362.0j2......1....1..gws-wiz-img.mBgRpVuymRA

The Devil, You Know wrote:the left would never sink to anything that low would they

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&biw=1386&bih=708&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=iBF4XIGCMvadjLsP0O2UqAc&q=%22margaret%2Bthatcher%2Bdartboard%22&oq=%22margaret%2Bthatcher%2Bdartboard%22&gs_l=img.12...6797.9131..10733...0.0..0.185.362.0j2......1....1..gws-wiz-img.mBgRpVuymRA

So if they are wrong to do this, which I agree, how is this right here?

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
they failed because the north Vietnamese did not care how many people died. When life is cheap it is easier to win.

Well that shows an ignorance of history

The American goverment never cared how many Americans died 

Hence why that was never the winning factor, was it?

Its easy to see how you have not a clue what you are talking about, because you only see what you want to see

So, how did we win in Malaysia?

america pulled out precisely because too many americans were getting killed.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:


Well that shows an ignorance of history

The American goverment never cared how many Americans died 

Hence why that was never the winning factor, was it?

Its easy to see how you have not a clue what you are talking about, because you only see what you want to see

So, how did we win in Malaysia?

america pulled out precisely because too many americans were getting killed.

Really?

After 12 years?

You know for a fact that is bullshit

If the view was on casulaties

What year did he US pull out of Vietnam?

Thor wrote:

Vintage wrote:You can disagree with me all you like, you usually have over the years, as can anyone else and I can acknowledge that people disagree with me, then I usually shut up after I've had my say. In this case its not the fact that people, including me, may I remind you, that finds this tasteless, its the intensity of offence that some have expressed that I find hard to swallow for something that is tasteless if it was anyone's face, and to talk about it as if its going to have major consequences of public safety by the public is weird.
I doubt anyone who may have used that particular target thought of actually shooting her or someone in a burkha, if they did they certainly shouldn't have access to any gun.

So your issue here, is over how people would actually feel aghast that a womans face would be used as target practice?

You then claim that anyone that use this as a target, when it was clearly contrived with a view to view her as a target. Would not view her as a target to be seen as hate

Sorry, but that is about as ridiculous an argument I have ever heard

So you doubt it, based on what?

If people linned up to shoot that, then they did so for a reason, based on viewing her as s ymbol of hate through ISIS

There is plenty of shooting targets. So I am sorry, your once again really poorly contrived defense, is based on what i can only describe, as complete babble

As explain why her face was placed up as a target in the first place?

In your own time

I have no idea why or who decided to use her face, others have been used and its just as wrong, yet here we get a practical melt down because of who she happens to be.
As for the people lining up to shoot at the image that's a far step from the majority of people wanting to actually shoot her or anyone who happens to look like her. You said the word - 'symbol'.

I'm not making a defence by the way, this is not a court and you aren't Rumpole of the Bailey.

Vintage wrote:

Thor wrote:


So your issue here, is over how people would actually feel aghast that a womans face would be used as target practice?

You then claim that anyone that use this as a target, when it was clearly contrived with a view to view her as a target. Would not view her as a target to be seen as hate

Sorry, but that is about as ridiculous an argument I have ever heard

So you doubt it, based on what?

If people linned up to shoot that, then they did so for a reason, based on viewing her as s ymbol of hate through ISIS

There is plenty of shooting targets. So I am sorry, your once again really poorly contrived defense, is based on what i can only describe, as complete babble

As explain why her face was placed up as a target in the first place?

In your own time

I have no idea why or who decided to use her face, others have been used and its just as wrong, yet here we get a practical melt down because of who she happens to be.
As for the people lining up to shoot at the image that's a far step from the majority of people wanting to actually shoot her or anyone who happens to look like her. You said the word - 'symbol'.

Again what melt down?

How is people expressing an opinion against your view now a melt down?

That is really condescending to say the least

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:the left would never sink to anything that low would they

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&biw=1386&bih=708&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=iBF4XIGCMvadjLsP0O2UqAc&q=%22margaret%2Bthatcher%2Bdartboard%22&oq=%22margaret%2Bthatcher%2Bdartboard%22&gs_l=img.12...6797.9131..10733...0.0..0.185.362.0j2......1....1..gws-wiz-img.mBgRpVuymRA

So if they are wrong to do this, which I agree, how is this right here?

who says it is right or wrong. I just pointed out the left are not able to get on their moral high horse over this.

during the war there were loads of items sold that mocked hitler for instance, It's what you do with an enemy. Mock and belittle him to keep up moral.

Thor wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
america pulled out precisely because too many americans were getting killed.

Really?

After 12 years?

You know for a fact that is bullshit

If the view was on casulaties

What year did he US pull out of Vietnam?

they pulled out because the casualties caused the american people to lose faith in the war. ie too many americans had been killed. 60000 or so I believe from memory.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thor wrote:


So if they are wrong to do this, which I agree, how is this right here?

who says it is right or wrong. I just pointed out the left are not able to get on their moral high horse over this.

during the war there were loads of items sold that mocked hitler for instance, It's what you do with an enemy. Mock and belittle him to keep up moral.

Oh, so you want to use this as another bashing stick I see

Boring, its already been condemned by whoever does this

Is that clear enough for you?

HoratioTarr wrote:
A shooting range is using an image of ISIS bride Shamima Begum as a target after receiving a 'record number' of requests from customers.

The Ultimate Airsoft Range in Wallasey, Merseyside, has defended using a picture of the teenager's face for shooting practice after facing a fierce backlash.

Owners of the attraction, which is used by children as young as six, said the move was in response to her 'lack of remorse and empathy' in television interviews.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6751329/Merseyside-shooting-range-defends-using-images-ISIS-bride.html

I wonder why this was red stripped as it was a report in a paper and as far as I can see you made no comment on it either way

Well it kind of depends on how worked up someone gets about the issue, whether it is measured or just over the top, then how worked up they get because someone doesn't agree with them I suppose.
I happen not to agree with the intensity of some points, I am allowed to do that and say that I don't, am I not?
This is a discussion forum after all not a lecture, anyway I'll let you have the last word and leave it at that, no need to bore anyone rigid.

Vintage wrote:Well it kind of depends on how worked up someone gets about the issue, whether it is measured or just over the top, then how worked up they get because someone doesn't agree with them I suppose.
I happen not to agree with the intensity of some points, I am allowed to do that and say that I don't, am I not?
This is a discussion forum after all not a lecture, anyway I'll let you have the last word and leave it at that, no need to bore anyone rigid.

is that you saying you red stripped the original poster? I could understand why you might do it if they had either supported or rejected the article, but I cant see why you would stripe a person over an article posted without comment .

Vintage wrote:Well it kind of depends on how worked up someone gets about the issue, whether it is measured or just over the top, then how worked up they get because someone doesn't agree with them I suppose.
I happen not to agree with the intensity of some points, I am allowed to do that and say that I don't, am I not?
This is a discussion forum after all not a lecture, anyway I'll let you have the last word and leave it at that, no need to bore anyone rigid.

It is a dicussion, so why are you interjecting views based on your own subjective views based around melting down?

As far as i can see this discussion has continued over a couple of days, has it not?