|
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 19:23 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 19:18 Grimmyman123 wrote:
Does the UK have capital punishment? If not, I feel that it should. This is just one of those cases where these individuals really should not be a burden to the tax payer spending their life in jail with 3 square and a warm bed. I know this isn't the thread for this discussion, but capital punishment just gives people an easy way out. They never have to face up to their crime and they never need to live with the guilt as you kill them before that point. This story is disgusting, but I worry people are now going to use this to try and discriminate against a certain race/religion or country and I find that even worse. This attack is horrible and an innocent (yes he was a soldier I realise) was killed for little to no reason other than some random madmen with knives/machetes decided to go rogue and kill the guy. I'm just glad this is a rather rare occurance in this country, in others it happens weekly if not daily but with various other weapons.
The issue with these guys is they will never feel remorse for what they did, and having a regimented schedule behind bars and everything provided for them is not a punishment. They are muslim, so they will join the islamic gang in prison, if they are not under isolation their entire stay for 23 hours a day which is likely. They feel justified in what they did, so they will never feel guilty.
They do not deserve UK or modern prison. They deserve Black Dolphin (Russia) or death.
|
Based upon the fact that the brief manifesto he offered blamed policy decisions, demanded political change and offered a policy solution to avoid further attacks I would say that it was very, very explicitly political.
"The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day."
Religious identification.
"We apologize that women had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same."
"Our lands." Muslim lands. The entire idea of "Muslim lands" is a politico-religious idea. Politics as defined and dominatd by religion. "Our women," Muslim women. Not any old type of women. Muslim women.
This isn't exactly a controversial idea except to people who refuse to recognize that to a jihadi politics and religion are the same thing.
|
On May 23 2013 19:42 Grimmyman123 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 19:23 Qikz wrote:On May 23 2013 19:18 Grimmyman123 wrote:
Does the UK have capital punishment? If not, I feel that it should. This is just one of those cases where these individuals really should not be a burden to the tax payer spending their life in jail with 3 square and a warm bed. I know this isn't the thread for this discussion, but capital punishment just gives people an easy way out. They never have to face up to their crime and they never need to live with the guilt as you kill them before that point. This story is disgusting, but I worry people are now going to use this to try and discriminate against a certain race/religion or country and I find that even worse. This attack is horrible and an innocent (yes he was a soldier I realise) was killed for little to no reason other than some random madmen with knives/machetes decided to go rogue and kill the guy. I'm just glad this is a rather rare occurance in this country, in others it happens weekly if not daily but with various other weapons. The issue with these guys is they will never feel remorse for what they did, and having a regimented schedule behind bars and everything provided for them is not a punishment. They are muslim, so they will join the islamic gang in prison, if they are not under isolation their entire stay for 23 hours a day which is likely. They feel justified in what they did, so they will never feel guilty. They do not deserve UK or modern prison. They deserve Black Dolphin (Russia) or death.
I feels like you conveniently ignored my post in order to preserve your ignorant view of prison being a holiday.
|
United States41955 Posts
On May 23 2013 19:34 Asymmetric 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. Perhaps we should wait to see the police inquiry relating to his motives before we reach conclusions. They executed a man in cold blood with the intention of creating media attention. Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 19:34 BeiHuoJingHua wrote:
Zzz 150k people die everyday
And this one was a soldier, aka no big loss
Good thing he wasn't american or we wouldn't hear the end of it, just like boston.. What kind of bizarre reasoning is this. How many people are beheaded when raising money for charity in a western country?
Absolutely the police enquiry will be useful. But we don't currently have the police enquiry, what we do have is the speech that he made with his manifesto. He had obviously planned on doing this and would therefore have put some thought into how he was going to use the spotlight. I find it likely, given the nature of his speech and the pointlessness of killing a single soldier and then hanging around as part of a guerilla campaign, that getting a podium to make his speech from was the entire purpose of it. He deliberately tried to get caught, he tried to get his face out there, what he did not try to do is kill the maximum number of British civilians etc.
So, with that in mind, I think looking at the speech he made is a pretty good way of seeing what motivated him to do it. While I'm sure the police will look at that and other things and come up with a more complete story eventually, for now there is no reason to wait before analysing the information we have. Especially when other people are jumping to conclusions that are directly contradicted by the information we have.
|
Yes, I did ignore it, because UK prison is a holiday for these guys.
|
United States41955 Posts
On May 23 2013 19:43 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Based upon the fact that the brief manifesto he offered blamed policy decisions, demanded political change and offered a policy solution to avoid further attacks I would say that it was very, very explicitly political. "The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day." Religious identification. "We apologize that women had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same." "Our lands." Muslim lands. The entire idea of "Muslim lands" is a politico-religious idea. Politics as defined and dominatd by religion. "Our women," Muslim women. Not any old type of women. Muslim women. This isn't exactly a controversial idea except to people who refuse to recognize that to a jihadi politics and religion are the same thing.
Yeah, he cared about Muslims because he was Muslim. Nobody is arguing that one. But that doesn't make his protest religious, he wasn't talking about beliefs, he wasn't talking about dogma, he wasn't talking about religious practice, he was talking about government policy. A religious person can be motivated to take a political stance by religion. That does not make it a religious stance.
|
On May 23 2013 19:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 19:33 Goozen wrote:On May 23 2013 19:22 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 19:03 Psychobabas wrote:
Some people on this thread actually trying to defend these animals by saying stuff like "oh well they were just crazy", "this shouldn't be classified as a terrorist attack", "this wasn't religiously motivated". It's sickening, even more so if you're British. Based upon the fact that the brief manifesto he offered blamed policy decisions, demanded political change and offered a policy solution to avoid further attacks I would say that it was very, very explicitly political. The guy was religious but what he demanded was British troops withdrawing from Muslim nations rather than everyone converting to Islam. His demands were not religious, he even called for the people not to re-elect David Cameron, they were political statements. What he did was in essence no different than a nutjob member of the Animal Liberation Front who believed with a religious fervour that all living things are an equal in the eyes of Gaia executing a scientist who tested on animals, demanding a government ban on animal testing and calling for the people to oppose their government. You wouldn't classify that as pantheistic terrorism, you'd say it was an animal rights nutter. Likewise this isn't Islamic terrorism, this is an anti military intervention in the Muslim world nutter. Im not so sure, you need to remember that Islam is also a political movement, not just religious. He was motivated with claims that people of his religion was being attacked. The Gurdian even says that he said: "We want to start a war in london tonight". He saw the 2 sides as Muslims and British/ Non Muslims. In this case you can't separate religion and politics as they are entwined. Absolutely, his religious ideology helped shape his world view and supported his feelings of solidarity with the people suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan. He cared about the policies in question because of his religion. But the specifics were strictly political. I think it's kind of interesting in that regard actually because it reflects the British influence on his world view, it wasn't bland "all those who insult Islam must die, Allah is the one true God and we will convert you by the sword" or anything like that, if he felt that he didn't see the need to shout it from his spotlight. He was speaking to people familiar with the politics about the politics, if his hands had been cleaner he could have been down the pub.
Well he did shout: "We want to start a war in london tonight" and that is definitely closer to the "all who insult islam must die" then to the guy down at the pub.
But regardless of that, this is what's scary, he is very much sane and saw it simply as a case of: "You kill my people, i kill yours". He put himself in the same group as the religious extremists when he did this and identified with them instead of the society he grew up in. This is not someone who came from a different country or had a different way of life, he knew both worlds and choose his and tried to use logic to justify his barbarism,
This is without doubt a terror attack with religious motivation for a political goal that he felt was part of his religious duty to achieve. This qualifies as Muslim terrorism, the same way that IRA was Irish-catholic terror and Anarchists that do such things are called Anarchist terrorism.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On May 23 2013 09:33 Leporello wrote:
Where I live, Chicago, children get shot on an almost regular basis, simply from random stray bullets and such. Random killings everyday. Granted there is a political/religious element to this particular killing, but in a major city, it is weird to see a single killing receive this kind of sensational attention.
On May 23 2013 08:03 PVJ wrote:
Just saw this on v too.
wtf.
London really must be a tenser city to live at, than I've remembered it from holidays.
On May 23 2013 16:33 PVJ wrote:
I wasn't judging the city only by this, and I wasn't saying it is in danger of terrorism. I meant what I said, that it (seems to be a) tenser place to live in.
It's more and more dense, it has the biggest number of CCTVs in the world and it's not like crime rates are dropping because of it, everything else (like areas accessible by car) is heavily regulated and there's a growing gap in income, demographics, ect between certain parts of the city.
It just seems to me, and I also know it's pretty off topic from this case, that London is dealing with it's issues badly. Or dealing with them in ways that are leading down a questionable road.
I was there only two times for a week so I'm just saying this based on what I hear on the internet.
London is actually a pretty safe city, especially considering how diverse/multicultural and dense it is. Crime rates are trending downwards, not upwards. Homocide rates in London are at a significant record low as of 2012. One of the reasons this story is so shocking is because of how quite unusual such things actually are in London.
On May 23 2013 14:24 KwarK wrote:
That said obviously crashing planes into buildings was a dick move
Quoting just because I loved the description.
|
On May 23 2013 19:23 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 19:18 Grimmyman123 wrote:
Does the UK have capital punishment? If not, I feel that it should. This is just one of those cases where these individuals really should not be a burden to the tax payer spending their life in jail with 3 square and a warm bed. I know this isn't the thread for this discussion, but capital punishment just gives people an easy way out. They never have to face up to their crime and they never need to live with the guilt as you kill them before that point. This story is disgusting, but I worry people are now going to use this to try and discriminate against a certain race/religion or country and I find that even worse. This attack is horrible and an innocent (yes he was a soldier I realise) was killed for little to no reason other than some random madmen with knives/machetes decided to go rogue and kill the guy. I'm just glad this is a rather rare occurance in this country, in others it happens weekly if not daily but with various other weapons.
What I find worrying is the fact that people like you rush to apologize in every news comment section like this, defending the attackers and saying it was not the religion that did it. The common denominator in all these attacks is islam (this time the murderers yelling allahu ackbar while doing it). And to top it off, to you discrimination against muslims is worse than religious/racial motivated killing and violence committed by muslims. And meanwhile half of Stockholm is burning because of this "tolerant" religion. There is nothing these extremists can do that you wouldn't single out to a single/few madmen. I bet when they come for you and your loved ones, you will apologizing for your prejudices and privileges. You people make me sick.
|
On May 23 2013 19:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 19:43 DeepElemBlues wrote:Based upon the fact that the brief manifesto he offered blamed policy decisions, demanded political change and offered a policy solution to avoid further attacks I would say that it was very, very explicitly political. "The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day." Religious identification. "We apologize that women had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same." "Our lands." Muslim lands. The entire idea of "Muslim lands" is a politico-religious idea. Politics as defined and dominatd by religion. "Our women," Muslim women. Not any old type of women. Muslim women. This isn't exactly a controversial idea except to people who refuse to recognize that to a jihadi politics and religion are the same thing. Yeah, he cared about Muslims because he was Muslim. Nobody is arguing that one. But that doesn't make his protest religious, he wasn't talking about beliefs, he wasn't talking about dogma, he wasn't talking about religious practice, he was talking about government policy. A religious person can be motivated to take a political stance by religion. That does not make it a religious stance.
Doesn't chanting "Allahu Akbar" at the top of your lungs while hacking off a charity workers head mean that you believe you actions are the will of god.
That implies to me his actions were, at least from his perspective, deeply religious.
|
United States41955 Posts
On May 23 2013 20:10 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 19:50 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 19:43 DeepElemBlues wrote:Based upon the fact that the brief manifesto he offered blamed policy decisions, demanded political change and offered a policy solution to avoid further attacks I would say that it was very, very explicitly political. "The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day." Religious identification. "We apologize that women had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same." "Our lands." Muslim lands. The entire idea of "Muslim lands" is a politico-religious idea. Politics as defined and dominatd by religion. "Our women," Muslim women. Not any old type of women. Muslim women. This isn't exactly a controversial idea except to people who refuse to recognize that to a jihadi politics and religion are the same thing. Yeah, he cared about Muslims because he was Muslim. Nobody is arguing that one. But that doesn't make his protest religious, he wasn't talking about beliefs, he wasn't talking about dogma, he wasn't talking about religious practice, he was talking about government policy. A religious person can be motivated to take a political stance by religion. That does not make it a religious stance. Doesn't chanting "Allahu Akbar" at the top of your lungs while hacking off a charity workers head mean that you believe you actions are the will of god. That implies to me his actions were, at least from his perspective, deeply religious.
That's not how Allahu Akbar is used, also please cite it as being chanted as I've not heard that. A chant of Allahu Akbar is quite different from an exclamation of it.
|
On May 23 2013 19:30 KwarK wrote:
A missile is a byword for an object flying through the air. Also COBRA stands for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A, it's not as cool as it sounds.
My goodness that's like the most awesome nomenclature for a necessary, yet for the most part boring bureaucratic meeting.
|
On May 23 2013 20:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 20:10 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 19:50 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 19:43 DeepElemBlues wrote:Based upon the fact that the brief manifesto he offered blamed policy decisions, demanded political change and offered a policy solution to avoid further attacks I would say that it was very, very explicitly political. "The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day." Religious identification. "We apologize that women had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same." "Our lands." Muslim lands. The entire idea of "Muslim lands" is a politico-religious idea. Politics as defined and dominatd by religion. "Our women," Muslim women. Not any old type of women. Muslim women. This isn't exactly a controversial idea except to people who refuse to recognize that to a jihadi politics and religion are the same thing. Yeah, he cared about Muslims because he was Muslim. Nobody is arguing that one. But that doesn't make his protest religious, he wasn't talking about beliefs, he wasn't talking about dogma, he wasn't talking about religious practice, he was talking about government policy. A religious person can be motivated to take a political stance by religion. That does not make it a religious stance. Doesn't chanting "Allahu Akbar" at the top of your lungs while hacking off a charity workers head mean that you believe you actions are the will of god. That implies to me his actions were, at least from his perspective, deeply religious. That's not how Allahu Akbar is used, also please cite it as being chanted as I've not heard that. A chant of Allahu Akbar is quite different from an exclamation of it.
?
It literally means god is great.
They were heard shouting it while the attack was taking place. Source: Washington Post
|
On May 23 2013 20:10 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 19:50 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 19:43 DeepElemBlues wrote:Based upon the fact that the brief manifesto he offered blamed policy decisions, demanded political change and offered a policy solution to avoid further attacks I would say that it was very, very explicitly political. "The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day." Religious identification. "We apologize that women had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same." "Our lands." Muslim lands. The entire idea of "Muslim lands" is a politico-religious idea. Politics as defined and dominatd by religion. "Our women," Muslim women. Not any old type of women. Muslim women. This isn't exactly a controversial idea except to people who refuse to recognize that to a jihadi politics and religion are the same thing. Yeah, he cared about Muslims because he was Muslim. Nobody is arguing that one. But that doesn't make his protest religious, he wasn't talking about beliefs, he wasn't talking about dogma, he wasn't talking about religious practice, he was talking about government policy. A religious person can be motivated to take a political stance by religion. That does not make it a religious stance. Doesn't chanting "Allahu Akbar" at the top of your lungs while hacking off a charity workers head mean that you believe you actions are the will of god. That implies to me his actions were, at least from his perspective, deeply religious.
But the problem doesnt lie in the religious aspect, so whats the relevance? You cant say Breivik did what he did because of religion, he did it because he was messed up. All persons have a moral obligation to know good from wrong.
These people cannot think rationally, and i don't think religion has taken that ability from them.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On May 23 2013 20:17 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 19:30 KwarK wrote:
A missile is a byword for an object flying through the air. Also COBRA stands for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A, it's not as cool as it sounds. My goodness that's like the most awesome nomenclature for a necessary, yet for the most part boring bureaucratic meeting.
The British are very good at sensationalising the mundane, and understating the actual exciting stuff.
|
United States41955 Posts
This is literally his point. You and the murderer would have a lot to talk about if you'd been born to a Muslim family.
On May 23 2013 20:07 Nurmis didn't write:
What I find worrying is the fact that people like you rush to apologize in every news comment section like this, defending the westerners and saying it was not the people that did it but the government. The common denominator in all these attacks is that they are against Islam. And to top it off, to you violence against westerners is worse than religious/racial motivated invasion of the Islamic world. And meanwhile half of Iraq is burning because of this democracy. There is nothing their governments can do that you would blame the people who voted them for. I bet when they come for you and your loved ones, you will apologizing for your prejudices and privileges. You people make me sick.
Post edited to parody the original.
|
On May 23 2013 19:47 Grimmyman123 wrote:
Yes, I did ignore it, because UK prison is a holiday for these guys.
Again, you're being willfully ignorant. You have no source for this claim, nor any personal experience (I presume)
I think this is the blog I was talking about: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=136858
Granted, it won't be that bad in the UK, but that doesn't mean it's a "Holiday"
It's easy to look at Britain from afar and try to dictate what you think we should do when /we/ suffer a presumed terrorist attack, when in reality, it's not the overall feeling of people over here.
Look to Norway? as an example when they had their horrific incident.
|
On May 23 2013 20:18 ICanFlyLow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 20:10 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 19:50 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 19:43 DeepElemBlues wrote:Based upon the fact that the brief manifesto he offered blamed policy decisions, demanded political change and offered a policy solution to avoid further attacks I would say that it was very, very explicitly political. "The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day." Religious identification. "We apologize that women had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same." "Our lands." Muslim lands. The entire idea of "Muslim lands" is a politico-religious idea. Politics as defined and dominatd by religion. "Our women," Muslim women. Not any old type of women. Muslim women. This isn't exactly a controversial idea except to people who refuse to recognize that to a jihadi politics and religion are the same thing. Yeah, he cared about Muslims because he was Muslim. Nobody is arguing that one. But that doesn't make his protest religious, he wasn't talking about beliefs, he wasn't talking about dogma, he wasn't talking about religious practice, he was talking about government policy. A religious person can be motivated to take a political stance by religion. That does not make it a religious stance. Doesn't chanting "Allahu Akbar" at the top of your lungs while hacking off a charity workers head mean that you believe you actions are the will of god. That implies to me his actions were, at least from his perspective, deeply religious. But the problem doesnt lie in the religious aspect, so whats the relevance? You cant say Breivik did what he did because of religion, he did it because he was messed up. All persons have a moral obligation to know good from wrong. These people cannot think rationally, and i don't think religion has taken that ability from them.
Religion rarely encourage's anyone to think rationally.
It's historically been an enabler for much of mankind's stupidity.
|
United States41955 Posts
On May 23 2013 20:18 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 20:14 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 20:10 Asymmetric wrote:On May 23 2013 19:50 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 19:43 DeepElemBlues wrote:Based upon the fact that the brief manifesto he offered blamed policy decisions, demanded political change and offered a policy solution to avoid further attacks I would say that it was very, very explicitly political. "The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day." Religious identification. "We apologize that women had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same." "Our lands." Muslim lands. The entire idea of "Muslim lands" is a politico-religious idea. Politics as defined and dominatd by religion. "Our women," Muslim women. Not any old type of women. Muslim women. This isn't exactly a controversial idea except to people who refuse to recognize that to a jihadi politics and religion are the same thing. Yeah, he cared about Muslims because he was Muslim. Nobody is arguing that one. But that doesn't make his protest religious, he wasn't talking about beliefs, he wasn't talking about dogma, he wasn't talking about religious practice, he was talking about government policy. A religious person can be motivated to take a political stance by religion. That does not make it a religious stance. Doesn't chanting "Allahu Akbar" at the top of your lungs while hacking off a charity workers head mean that you believe you actions are the will of god. That implies to me his actions were, at least from his perspective, deeply religious. That's not how Allahu Akbar is used, also please cite it as being chanted as I've not heard that. A chant of Allahu Akbar is quite different from an exclamation of it. ? It literally means god is great. They were heard shouting it while the attack was taking place. Source: Washington Post
I know what it literally means, I assure you that it is not used exclusively in religious contexts but rather as a general exclamation at moments of high emotional intensity.
|
Ye this is political, nothing to do with religion.
I usually shout "Allahu Akbar" just for the fun of it when I kill people, just so there is no misunderstanding that this is a political act.
Please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
