|
Please attempt to distinguish between extremists and non extremists to avoid starting the inevitable waste of time that is "can Islam be judged by its believers?" - KwarK |
On May 23 2013 13:34 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 13:33 PrinceXizor wrote:
You know Religion is almost never a reason for any of the islamist terrorist attacks. correlation is not causation. Because the west has been waging war against islamic countries for a thousand years, they are a bit defensive when we keep occupying their countries and controlling their govts. religion is a justification, not a motivation. No one decides to commit these acts "because of islam" its ALWAYS a political reason islamic nations and people haven't killed for religious reasons for almost the entirety of islams existence. The only people using religion to justify anything have been christians and predominantly christian nations. they belittle the middle east because of their religion, and have done so for a thousand years. Ridiculous post.
http://library.thinkquest.org/3526/facts/timeline.html
Every single war in the middle east has been politically motivated, except in part, the crusades, where were waged by the christian nations against islamic nations. but even those were politically motivated, in that the area in which the wars were fought were a primary trade route and the key to economic superiority.
The only time that religion was a basis for violence in the middle east was islam vs islam purges of different sects. there was never a war against christian nations or christianity for non political motives.
|
On May 23 2013 13:35 koreasilver wrote:
I like how you guys talk as if Western secularism isn't Protestant and that the politics of the Islamic nations are specially religious in such a way that is utterly different from the West. That's a mirage.
I don't think UK politics is especially rooted in Protestantism. I can't imagine Martin Luther would be too please with our religious tolerance, the fact most of us never set foot in a church or the fact we're free to blaspheme to our hearts content with no reprisal. He already fell out with the anabaptists because they were too communal so I don't think he'd view democracy too fondly either.
Not to mention all the other non Protestant exclusive Christian stuff we don't follow (eye for an eye punishments among many other things).
|
On May 23 2013 13:39 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 13:34 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 13:33 PrinceXizor wrote:
You know Religion is almost never a reason for any of the islamist terrorist attacks. correlation is not causation. Because the west has been waging war against islamic countries for a thousand years, they are a bit defensive when we keep occupying their countries and controlling their govts. religion is a justification, not a motivation. No one decides to commit these acts "because of islam" its ALWAYS a political reason islamic nations and people haven't killed for religious reasons for almost the entirety of islams existence. The only people using religion to justify anything have been christians and predominantly christian nations. they belittle the middle east because of their religion, and have done so for a thousand years. Ridiculous post. http://library.thinkquest.org/3526/facts/timeline.htmlEvery single war in the middle east has been politically motivated, except in part, the crusades, where were waged by the christian nations against islamic nations. but even those were politically motivated, in that the area in which the wars were fought were a primary trade route and the key to economic superiority.
Here's a small hint: there are just a few facts and events left out in the descriptions of what happened between 661 and 750 AD.
EDIT: And I could go on pointing out all of the shit that's left out that doesn't reflect so well on Muslims.
|
On May 23 2013 13:24 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 13:13 LittleRedBoy wrote:On May 23 2013 13:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 13:08 LittleRedBoy wrote:On May 23 2013 13:04 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 13:02 LittleRedBoy wrote:On May 23 2013 12:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 12:43 LittleRedBoy wrote:
This attack has nothing to do with Islam or religion. The attacker himself said that he wanted David Cameron to call back British troops from Muslim countries like Afganistan. Further, he said that women in Muslim countries see attacks like those every day so it makes sense that he would be angry and want to get revenge. On May 23 2013 12:45 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 12:32 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
Because if you think that then you'll support and demand wars in a whole manner of Muslim countries and then they can really get their Islam vs the West World War 3 show on the road that they're just waiting to kick off. I really don't think you watched the video at all. He was clearly frustrated at the indifference and even apathy of the British voting public to the ongoing conflicts that their government is involved in globally. If he wanted to make people afraid he could have killed a civilian, he didn't, he picked a soldier. A soldier dying isn't important, soldiers are supposed to die, it's the news equivalent of dog licks balls. This wasn't about fear, that was about getting a pedestal to shout his rant from. Watch the video of his rant. He's trying to stir up a debate about the morality of our involvement in those countries by using an act of inhumane violence as a parallel. It's a horrific act but one with a clear and singular purpose which I think you've completely missed. “We swear by Almighty Allah, we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. The only reasons we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily. This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We apologize that woman had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Yep, nothing to do with religion. It has more to do with people's family members being killed than it has to do with anything else. You seem to have left out the part where he says "tell [the British government] to bring our troops back so you can all live in peace." He explicitly says that if they remove their troops then these attacks won't happen. That doesn't stop this being about religion for the reasons I've explained above. It is beyond ridiculous to talk about the secular policies of Islamic fundamentalism. You can argue that this guy's world view has been shaped by Islam. But the motivation for this attack was political, first and foremost. He doesn't say "we killed this man because we hate Western values and we want to impose our religion on the rest of the world" or anything close to that. When Hitler invaded Russia, was it political or racial? What does Hitler have to do with this attack? Some attacks are political and some are racial. Because Hitler invaded Russia because he saw race and social darwinism in everything. You cannot ever seperate Hitler's political acts from his racial world view because his racism was the driving force behind everything he did. He invaded Russia because he saw the Slavs as a weaker race (racism) and believed the Germans needed the living space in the east and resources in Russia to assert their dominance in Europe as the master race (racism), there was nothing at all wrong to this in his mind because it was natural and the right of superior races to assert their dominance over weaker races (racism/social darwinism). Any attempt to remove Hitler's policies from that racism/social darwinistic context are absolutely beyond absurdity because those world views pervaded everything he did and he saw race and a survival in the fittest in every aspect of global and domestic politics from his handling of international affairs, to the way he ran his party at all levels to the way he conducted his private life. This analogy is perfect for Islamic fundamentalists because much like you can't ever seperate Hitler from his racism/social Darwinism you can't seperate an Islamic fundamentalist from Islam. There are no seperate spheres in their life, secularism does not exist in their world view. Religion is a part of everything they do and they see Islam in everything. There is no distinction between religion and politics to these people/groups. It is insane to talk about the non religious side of people who's every world view is directly and near solely based on their interpretation of the Koran.
This is all very well and good. I will agree with you that some people have have dual motives for certain things that they do, but in the case of the London attack this simply isn't the case. You can argue all you want that Islamic Fundamentalists can't separate their political and religious views but that doesn't change the fact that the attacker gave only one reason for why he did what he did, and that reason was political. Please don't try to tell me that you can read this guy's mind and that you know why he took these actions better than he knew himself.
|
On May 23 2013 13:41 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 13:35 koreasilver wrote:
I like how you guys talk as if Western secularism isn't Protestant and that the politics of the Islamic nations are specially religious in such a way that is utterly different from the West. That's a mirage. I don't think UK politics is especially rooted in Protestantism. I can't imagine Martin Luther would be too please with our religious tolerance, the fact most of us never set foot in a church or the fact we're free to blaspheme to our hearts content with no reprisal. He already fell out with the anabaptists because they were too communal so I don't think he'd view democracy too fondly either. Not to mention all the other non Protestant exclusive Christian stuff we don't follow (eye for an eye punishments among many other things).
And you are also comparing a religion that is 2000 years old to a religion that is 1500 years old. 500 years ago, how much of europe was dominated by religious thinking?
On May 23 2013 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Here's a small hint: there are just a few facts and events left out in the descriptions of what happened between 661 and 750 AD.
Here's another hint. the invasions into europe were politically and economically motivated.
it's also pretty ridiculous that you are presuming that roughly 90 years of unrest justify the remaining 1300 years of persecution.
|
On May 23 2013 13:39 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 13:34 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 13:33 PrinceXizor wrote:
You know Religion is almost never a reason for any of the islamist terrorist attacks. correlation is not causation. Because the west has been waging war against islamic countries for a thousand years, they are a bit defensive when we keep occupying their countries and controlling their govts. religion is a justification, not a motivation. No one decides to commit these acts "because of islam" its ALWAYS a political reason islamic nations and people haven't killed for religious reasons for almost the entirety of islams existence. The only people using religion to justify anything have been christians and predominantly christian nations. they belittle the middle east because of their religion, and have done so for a thousand years. Ridiculous post. http://library.thinkquest.org/3526/facts/timeline.htmlEvery single war in the middle east has been politically motivated, except in part, the crusades, where were waged by the christian nations against islamic nations. but even those were politically motivated, in that the area in which the wars were fought were a primary trade route and the key to economic superiority. The only time that religion was a basis for violence in the middle east was islam vs islam purges of different sects. there was never a war against christian nations or christianity for non political motives.
You're a real funny guy.
Would you be able to draw me a chart listing the wars in history and tell me whether they were 100% about politics, 100% about religion, 100% about money or 100% about sex?
I wonder how Osama would have felt about you telling him he was doing things for non religious reasons? I can't imagine he'd agree.
|
On May 23 2013 13:42 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 13:41 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 13:35 koreasilver wrote:
I like how you guys talk as if Western secularism isn't Protestant and that the politics of the Islamic nations are specially religious in such a way that is utterly different from the West. That's a mirage. I don't think UK politics is especially rooted in Protestantism. I can't imagine Martin Luther would be too please with our religious tolerance, the fact most of us never set foot in a church or the fact we're free to blaspheme to our hearts content with no reprisal. He already fell out with the anabaptists because they were too communal so I don't think he'd view democracy too fondly either. Not to mention all the other non Protestant exclusive Christian stuff we don't follow (eye for an eye punishments among many other things). And you are also comparing a religion that is 2000 years old to a religion that is 1500 years old. 500 years ago, how much of europe was dominated by religious thinking?
So you agree that UK society doesn't really correlate with Protestant dogma?
|
On May 23 2013 13:46 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
You're a real funny guy.
Would you be able to draw me a chart listing the wars in history and tell me whether they were 100% about politics, 100% about religion, 100% about money or 100% about sex?
I wonder how Osama would have felt about you telling him he was doing things for non religious reasons? I can't imagine he'd agree.
Let's ask him
Even as you enter the fourth year after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush is still misleading and deluding you and hiding the real reason from you.
Osama bin Laden
We did not find it difficult to deal with Bush and his administration, because it is similar to regimes in our countries - both types include many who are full of arrogance and greed.
Osama bin Laden
We treat them in the same way. Those who kill our women and innocent, we kill their women and innocent, until they refrain.
Osama bin Laden
|
On May 23 2013 13:42 LittleRedBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 13:24 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 13:13 LittleRedBoy wrote:On May 23 2013 13:11 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 13:08 LittleRedBoy wrote:On May 23 2013 13:04 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 13:02 LittleRedBoy wrote:On May 23 2013 12:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 12:43 LittleRedBoy wrote:
This attack has nothing to do with Islam or religion. The attacker himself said that he wanted David Cameron to call back British troops from Muslim countries like Afganistan. Further, he said that women in Muslim countries see attacks like those every day so it makes sense that he would be angry and want to get revenge. On May 23 2013 12:45 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 12:32 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
Because if you think that then you'll support and demand wars in a whole manner of Muslim countries and then they can really get their Islam vs the West World War 3 show on the road that they're just waiting to kick off. I really don't think you watched the video at all. He was clearly frustrated at the indifference and even apathy of the British voting public to the ongoing conflicts that their government is involved in globally. If he wanted to make people afraid he could have killed a civilian, he didn't, he picked a soldier. A soldier dying isn't important, soldiers are supposed to die, it's the news equivalent of dog licks balls. This wasn't about fear, that was about getting a pedestal to shout his rant from. Watch the video of his rant. He's trying to stir up a debate about the morality of our involvement in those countries by using an act of inhumane violence as a parallel. It's a horrific act but one with a clear and singular purpose which I think you've completely missed. “We swear by Almighty Allah, we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. The only reasons we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily. This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We apologize that woman had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Yep, nothing to do with religion. It has more to do with people's family members being killed than it has to do with anything else. You seem to have left out the part where he says "tell [the British government] to bring our troops back so you can all live in peace." He explicitly says that if they remove their troops then these attacks won't happen. That doesn't stop this being about religion for the reasons I've explained above. It is beyond ridiculous to talk about the secular policies of Islamic fundamentalism. You can argue that this guy's world view has been shaped by Islam. But the motivation for this attack was political, first and foremost. He doesn't say "we killed this man because we hate Western values and we want to impose our religion on the rest of the world" or anything close to that. When Hitler invaded Russia, was it political or racial? What does Hitler have to do with this attack? Some attacks are political and some are racial. Because Hitler invaded Russia because he saw race and social darwinism in everything. You cannot ever seperate Hitler's political acts from his racial world view because his racism was the driving force behind everything he did. He invaded Russia because he saw the Slavs as a weaker race (racism) and believed the Germans needed the living space in the east and resources in Russia to assert their dominance in Europe as the master race (racism), there was nothing at all wrong to this in his mind because it was natural and the right of superior races to assert their dominance over weaker races (racism/social darwinism). Any attempt to remove Hitler's policies from that racism/social darwinistic context are absolutely beyond absurdity because those world views pervaded everything he did and he saw race and a survival in the fittest in every aspect of global and domestic politics from his handling of international affairs, to the way he ran his party at all levels to the way he conducted his private life. This analogy is perfect for Islamic fundamentalists because much like you can't ever seperate Hitler from his racism/social Darwinism you can't seperate an Islamic fundamentalist from Islam. There are no seperate spheres in their life, secularism does not exist in their world view. Religion is a part of everything they do and they see Islam in everything. There is no distinction between religion and politics to these people/groups. It is insane to talk about the non religious side of people who's every world view is directly and near solely based on their interpretation of the Koran. This is all very well and good. I will agree with you that some people have have dual motives for certain things that they do, but in the case of the London attack this simply isn't the case. You can argue all you want that Islamic Fundamentalists can't separate their political and religious views but that doesn't change the fact that the attacker gave only one reason for why he did what he did, and that reason was political. Please don't try to tell me that you can read this guy's mind and that you know why he took these actions better than he knew himself.
Okay, clearly you don't understand this extremely simple concept.
|
On May 23 2013 13:49 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 13:46 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
You're a real funny guy.
Would you be able to draw me a chart listing the wars in history and tell me whether they were 100% about politics, 100% about religion, 100% about money or 100% about sex?
I wonder how Osama would have felt about you telling him he was doing things for non religious reasons? I can't imagine he'd agree. Let's ask him Show nested quote +Even as you enter the fourth year after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush is still misleading and deluding you and hiding the real reason from you.
Osama bin Laden
Show nested quote +We did not find it difficult to deal with Bush and his administration, because it is similar to regimes in our countries - both types include many who are full of arrogance and greed.
Osama bin Laden Show nested quote +We treat them in the same way. Those who kill our women and innocent, we kill their women and innocent, until they refrain.
Osama bin Laden
That has nothing at all to do with anything. What the fuck are you talking about?
|
On May 23 2013 13:46 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 13:39 PrinceXizor wrote:On May 23 2013 13:34 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 13:33 PrinceXizor wrote:
You know Religion is almost never a reason for any of the islamist terrorist attacks. correlation is not causation. Because the west has been waging war against islamic countries for a thousand years, they are a bit defensive when we keep occupying their countries and controlling their govts. religion is a justification, not a motivation. No one decides to commit these acts "because of islam" its ALWAYS a political reason islamic nations and people haven't killed for religious reasons for almost the entirety of islams existence. The only people using religion to justify anything have been christians and predominantly christian nations. they belittle the middle east because of their religion, and have done so for a thousand years. Ridiculous post. http://library.thinkquest.org/3526/facts/timeline.htmlEvery single war in the middle east has been politically motivated, except in part, the crusades, where were waged by the christian nations against islamic nations. but even those were politically motivated, in that the area in which the wars were fought were a primary trade route and the key to economic superiority. The only time that religion was a basis for violence in the middle east was islam vs islam purges of different sects. there was never a war against christian nations or christianity for non political motives. You're a real funny guy. Would you be able to draw me a chart listing the wars in history and tell me whether they were 100% about politics, 100% about religion, 100% about money or 100% about sex? I wonder how Osama would have felt about you telling him he was doing things for non religious reasons? I can't imagine he'd agree.
Bin Laden did what he did because the West had troops in the Middle East in countries like Saudi Arabia. He said so himself.
|
On May 23 2013 13:50 LittleRedBoy wrote:
Bin Laden did what he did because the West had troops in the Middle East in countries like Saudi Arabia. He said so himself.
IN pretty much every video of him too.
Even better is he gained followers and power over them because the US was intefering in the political regimes of the area, and supporting osama's desire to change his country politically.
On May 23 2013 13:46 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
Would you be able to draw me a chart listing the wars in history and tell me whether they were 100% about politics, 100% about religion, 100% about money or 100% about sex?
Countries don't fight wars for religious reasons. People become soldiers for religious reasons to fight in political causes.
|
United States43510 Posts
On May 23 2013 13:16 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 13:10 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 13:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 23 2013 13:02 LittleRedBoy wrote:On May 23 2013 12:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 12:43 LittleRedBoy wrote:
This attack has nothing to do with Islam or religion. The attacker himself said that he wanted David Cameron to call back British troops from Muslim countries like Afganistan. Further, he said that women in Muslim countries see attacks like those every day so it makes sense that he would be angry and want to get revenge. On May 23 2013 12:45 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 12:32 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
Because if you think that then you'll support and demand wars in a whole manner of Muslim countries and then they can really get their Islam vs the West World War 3 show on the road that they're just waiting to kick off. I really don't think you watched the video at all. He was clearly frustrated at the indifference and even apathy of the British voting public to the ongoing conflicts that their government is involved in globally. If he wanted to make people afraid he could have killed a civilian, he didn't, he picked a soldier. A soldier dying isn't important, soldiers are supposed to die, it's the news equivalent of dog licks balls. This wasn't about fear, that was about getting a pedestal to shout his rant from. Watch the video of his rant. He's trying to stir up a debate about the morality of our involvement in those countries by using an act of inhumane violence as a parallel. It's a horrific act but one with a clear and singular purpose which I think you've completely missed. “We swear by Almighty Allah, we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. The only reasons we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily. This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We apologize that woman had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Yep, nothing to do with religion. It has more to do with people's family members being killed than it has to do with anything else. You seem to have left out the part where he says "tell [the British government] to bring our troops back so you can all live in peace." He explicitly says that if they remove their troops then these attacks won't happen. Too bad that's a lie isn't it. Well yes, obviously he's not in charge of all political and religious disputes everywhere, he doesn't have the power to go "it's alright now dudes on both sides, everyone calm down, we found a way to give the same land to both Palestinians and Israelis and to reconcile free speech with religious protection". However, while religion clearly influenced his decision and pervades his world view the points he were making were political. There is no denying there is a link but equally dismissing it as religious ignores the fact that everything he said was about politics. There is no distinction between politics and religion to an Islamic Fundamentalist. Religion and politics are not different spheres to this guy and people like them. There's no crossover, no overlap at work here, they are one and the same. You are completely missing them point here and applying a western world view to someone who doesn't at all see the world the way the west does.
Nothing he said was related to religious fundamentalism. There was a degree of pan-Islamism in his Muslim brothers vs the west but he didn't suggest he wanted Sharia law, either over there or over here, or complain about insults to Islam or anything else. It was literally "stop killing Muslims", "I'm killing this soldier because it's an eye for an eye", "protest your government".
He didn't even do a "the western non Muslim government is illegitimate because it's not Muslim" speech. He just objected to government policy foreign policy and called on the people to object to it. That's really, really non fundie. Probably the least zealous terrorist ever.
|
On May 23 2013 13:50 LittleRedBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 13:46 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 13:39 PrinceXizor wrote:On May 23 2013 13:34 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 13:33 PrinceXizor wrote:
You know Religion is almost never a reason for any of the islamist terrorist attacks. correlation is not causation. Because the west has been waging war against islamic countries for a thousand years, they are a bit defensive when we keep occupying their countries and controlling their govts. religion is a justification, not a motivation. No one decides to commit these acts "because of islam" its ALWAYS a political reason islamic nations and people haven't killed for religious reasons for almost the entirety of islams existence. The only people using religion to justify anything have been christians and predominantly christian nations. they belittle the middle east because of their religion, and have done so for a thousand years. Ridiculous post. http://library.thinkquest.org/3526/facts/timeline.htmlEvery single war in the middle east has been politically motivated, except in part, the crusades, where were waged by the christian nations against islamic nations. but even those were politically motivated, in that the area in which the wars were fought were a primary trade route and the key to economic superiority. The only time that religion was a basis for violence in the middle east was islam vs islam purges of different sects. there was never a war against christian nations or christianity for non political motives. You're a real funny guy. Would you be able to draw me a chart listing the wars in history and tell me whether they were 100% about politics, 100% about religion, 100% about money or 100% about sex? I wonder how Osama would have felt about you telling him he was doing things for non religious reasons? I can't imagine he'd agree. Bin Laden did what he did because the West had troops in the Middle East in countries like Saudi Arabia. He said so himself.
How can you still not understand this?
The reason he even see's this as an issue is because the Christian west have troops in the Muslim middle east. You can't see the wood for the trees here.
The entire divide between the middle east and the west exists in the mind of Osama Bin Laden because he does not see people as people he sees people as being either Muslims or non Muslims (and of course 'Muslims' who don't belong to his brand of Islam). That is not an empiracle division, it is a division based on his world view based on his interpretation of Islam. The middle east contains people from many different countries, speaking many languages coming from many races and cultures. Is he mad because Arabs are ruling Africans in east Africa? No of course not because they're all Muslims anyway.
What matters to him about this is that it's non Muslims exerting poltical influence over Muslims, that is why this is an issue to him.
So yes religion is a pretty massive part of why he wanted to fly planes into those towers on 9/11.
|
On May 23 2013 13:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 13:16 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 13:10 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 13:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 23 2013 13:02 LittleRedBoy wrote:On May 23 2013 12:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 12:43 LittleRedBoy wrote:
This attack has nothing to do with Islam or religion. The attacker himself said that he wanted David Cameron to call back British troops from Muslim countries like Afganistan. Further, he said that women in Muslim countries see attacks like those every day so it makes sense that he would be angry and want to get revenge. On May 23 2013 12:45 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 12:32 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
Because if you think that then you'll support and demand wars in a whole manner of Muslim countries and then they can really get their Islam vs the West World War 3 show on the road that they're just waiting to kick off. I really don't think you watched the video at all. He was clearly frustrated at the indifference and even apathy of the British voting public to the ongoing conflicts that their government is involved in globally. If he wanted to make people afraid he could have killed a civilian, he didn't, he picked a soldier. A soldier dying isn't important, soldiers are supposed to die, it's the news equivalent of dog licks balls. This wasn't about fear, that was about getting a pedestal to shout his rant from. Watch the video of his rant. He's trying to stir up a debate about the morality of our involvement in those countries by using an act of inhumane violence as a parallel. It's a horrific act but one with a clear and singular purpose which I think you've completely missed. “We swear by Almighty Allah, we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. The only reasons we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily. This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We apologize that woman had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Yep, nothing to do with religion. It has more to do with people's family members being killed than it has to do with anything else. You seem to have left out the part where he says "tell [the British government] to bring our troops back so you can all live in peace." He explicitly says that if they remove their troops then these attacks won't happen. Too bad that's a lie isn't it. Well yes, obviously he's not in charge of all political and religious disputes everywhere, he doesn't have the power to go "it's alright now dudes on both sides, everyone calm down, we found a way to give the same land to both Palestinians and Israelis and to reconcile free speech with religious protection". However, while religion clearly influenced his decision and pervades his world view the points he were making were political. There is no denying there is a link but equally dismissing it as religious ignores the fact that everything he said was about politics. There is no distinction between politics and religion to an Islamic Fundamentalist. Religion and politics are not different spheres to this guy and people like them. There's no crossover, no overlap at work here, they are one and the same. You are completely missing them point here and applying a western world view to someone who doesn't at all see the world the way the west does. Nothing he said was related to religious fundamentalism. There was a degree of pan-Islamism in his Muslim brothers vs the west but he didn't suggest he wanted Sharia law, either over there or over here, or complain about insults to Islam or anything else. It was literally "stop killing Muslims", "I'm killing this soldier because it's an eye for an eye", "protest your government". He didn't even do a "the western non Muslim government is illegitimate because it's not Muslim" speech. He just objected to government policy foreign policy and called on the people to object to it. That's really, really non fundie. Probably the least zealous terrorist ever.
You're really clutching at straws here.
It was a short interview after he'd just butchered a man, he didn't exactly have time for his April Theses.
If the offer was made for England to become a Muslim country based on the teachings of the Koran or stay as a secular, liberal democracy what do you think he would choose?
|
So is there really even any point in discussing with this guy? he claims to know more about various people around the world (including every islamic person who has ever commited a violent act in the world), than ANY of them have ever said publicly.
|
On May 23 2013 14:06 PrinceXizor wrote:
So is there really even any point in discussing with this guy? he claims to know more about various people around the world (including every islamic person who has ever commited a violent act in the world), than ANY of them have ever said publicly.
You just said that Islamic people have never killed anyone because of religion. I'm fairly certain you have nothing to add to any topic ever with that kind of madness.
|
On May 23 2013 14:08 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 14:06 PrinceXizor wrote:
So is there really even any point in discussing with this guy? he claims to know more about various people around the world (including every islamic person who has ever commited a violent act in the world), than ANY of them have ever said publicly. You just said that Islamic people have never killed anyone because of religion. I'm fairly certain you have nothing to add to any topic ever with that kind of madness.
I said almost never, and we have DIRECT QUOTES from bin laden stating that he did what he did for political reasons and your response was "no what he said doesn't matter i know he did it for religious reasons".
This whole conversation is a big joke that you keep running around in circles because you don't have anything to add.
|
United States43510 Posts
On May 23 2013 14:06 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 13:58 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 13:16 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 13:10 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 13:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 23 2013 13:02 LittleRedBoy wrote:On May 23 2013 12:52 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On May 23 2013 12:43 LittleRedBoy wrote:
This attack has nothing to do with Islam or religion. The attacker himself said that he wanted David Cameron to call back British troops from Muslim countries like Afganistan. Further, he said that women in Muslim countries see attacks like those every day so it makes sense that he would be angry and want to get revenge. On May 23 2013 12:45 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 12:32 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
Because if you think that then you'll support and demand wars in a whole manner of Muslim countries and then they can really get their Islam vs the West World War 3 show on the road that they're just waiting to kick off. I really don't think you watched the video at all. He was clearly frustrated at the indifference and even apathy of the British voting public to the ongoing conflicts that their government is involved in globally. If he wanted to make people afraid he could have killed a civilian, he didn't, he picked a soldier. A soldier dying isn't important, soldiers are supposed to die, it's the news equivalent of dog licks balls. This wasn't about fear, that was about getting a pedestal to shout his rant from. Watch the video of his rant. He's trying to stir up a debate about the morality of our involvement in those countries by using an act of inhumane violence as a parallel. It's a horrific act but one with a clear and singular purpose which I think you've completely missed. “We swear by Almighty Allah, we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. The only reasons we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily. This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We apologize that woman had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Yep, nothing to do with religion. It has more to do with people's family members being killed than it has to do with anything else. You seem to have left out the part where he says "tell [the British government] to bring our troops back so you can all live in peace." He explicitly says that if they remove their troops then these attacks won't happen. Too bad that's a lie isn't it. Well yes, obviously he's not in charge of all political and religious disputes everywhere, he doesn't have the power to go "it's alright now dudes on both sides, everyone calm down, we found a way to give the same land to both Palestinians and Israelis and to reconcile free speech with religious protection". However, while religion clearly influenced his decision and pervades his world view the points he were making were political. There is no denying there is a link but equally dismissing it as religious ignores the fact that everything he said was about politics. There is no distinction between politics and religion to an Islamic Fundamentalist. Religion and politics are not different spheres to this guy and people like them. There's no crossover, no overlap at work here, they are one and the same. You are completely missing them point here and applying a western world view to someone who doesn't at all see the world the way the west does. Nothing he said was related to religious fundamentalism. There was a degree of pan-Islamism in his Muslim brothers vs the west but he didn't suggest he wanted Sharia law, either over there or over here, or complain about insults to Islam or anything else. It was literally "stop killing Muslims", "I'm killing this soldier because it's an eye for an eye", "protest your government". He didn't even do a "the western non Muslim government is illegitimate because it's not Muslim" speech. He just objected to government policy foreign policy and called on the people to object to it. That's really, really non fundie. Probably the least zealous terrorist ever. You're really clutching at straws here. It was a short interview after he'd just butchered a man, he didn't exactly have time for his April Theses. If the offer was made for England to become a Muslim country based on the teachings of the Koran or stay as a secular, liberal democracy what do you think he would choose?
I'm clutching at straws by basing my argument about his motives upon the speech he made in his once in a lifetime opportunity to talk and be heard around the world which was the entire point of the terrorist attack he has thrown away his life for as opposed to you who is basing it on other stuff that you reckon?
Are you serious?
The speech he made was the point of the attack. He has a message and he wanted to get it out there. That message wasn't "convert or die", it wasn't "Allah is the one true God", it was "the policies of your government are killing Muslims, I have killed an instrument of your government visibly to make you aware of what you are doing to Muslims, oppose your government". You cannot dismiss that, it is the heart of it.
|
When I hear about this kind of crap I'm afraid we're creating a world where our children will truly hate Islam and all who follow it. I'm 25 now and I can't even recall the last time I heard Islam being associated with anything positive... it's always killings or something that is painted as bad by the media or certain politicians. Sometimes I catch myself hating all this Islam stuff even while I've been raised to be very open minded and even have Muslim family and friends. I can only imagine what it does to the kids...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
