|
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 19:50 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.
You would have to be blind to say that this is not a religiously motivated attack.
He talks about "OUR LAND", that being Afghanistan, currently being invaded. Except that's not his land because he's a British citizen. So how is it his land? The only connection is that he thinks of Afghanistan as being Muslim land, because he identifies as a Muslim, thus making this a religiously motivated attack.
As DeepElemBlues says there is no difference between religion and politics here. Are the continual attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan also just politically motivated because their land is being invaded? That would be completely absurd, given that they continue to justify these attacks by appealing to Islamic dogma. When people justify their attacks by religion, it's a religiously motivated attack. Religion contributed to the attack. When Argentina invaded the Falklands, they didn't justify their attack by religion, it wasn't a religiously motivated attack.
This sort of liberal cowardice is nothing new. Every time an Islamic act of terror happens, such as the Boston bombing, the torrent of liberal apologists defending Islam is as predictable as the sunrise. Whether it's for political correctness, or some utopian ideal that Islam doesn't ever contribute to evil, the problem here is that you're not even willing to admit the blatantly obvious. This is a religiously motivated attack, the attacker said so himself.
|
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'm sorry, but i'm getting so tired of people saying "but it means god is great, so they're religious terrorists!!!11". It's not what it means or how it's used.
"This phrase is recited by Muslims in many different situations. For example, when they are very happy, to express approval, to praise a speaker, or as a battle cry, during times of extreme stress. In the Islamic world, instead of applause, often someone will shout "takbir" and the crowd will respond "Allahu Akbar" in response."
That doesn't proof anything.
|
United States41946 Posts
On May 23 2013 20:21 Nausea wrote:
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.
When people go "oh my god" during sex it generally isn't seen as prayer. Don't be deliberately dense.
|
On May 23 2013 20:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 20:18 Asymmetric wrote: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.
Hence why I assure you you should wait to police report before doing amateur detective work.
You don't know his motivation. It seems odd for a non-native Arabic speaker raised in England to casually mutter the phrase as an exclamation by happen chance and dismiss it as that.
|
On May 23 2013 20:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 20:21 Nausea wrote:
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. When people go "oh my god" during sex it generally isn't seen as prayer. Don't be deliberately dense.
You're the one being dense. You hear people scream "God almighty!" when they chop of the head of a muslim you would probably be able to say that this is most likely a religious act.
You're trying to compare this to sex. please
|
Well, after reading all the BBC live reports and seeing it on TV, I can only hope they rot for the rest of their days.
|
United States41946 Posts
On May 23 2013 20:22 paralleluniverse 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. You would have to be blind to say that this is not a religiously motivated attack. He talks about "OUR LAND", that being Afghanistan, currently being invaded. Except that's not his land because he's a British citizen. So how is it his land? The only connection is that he thinks of Afghanistan as being Muslim land, because he identifies as a Muslim, thus making this a religiously motivated attack. As DeepElemBlues says there is no difference between religion and politics here. Are the continual attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan also just politically motivated because their land is being invaded? That would be completely absurd, given that they continue to justify these attacks by appealing to Islamic dogma. When people justify their attacks by religion, it's a religiously motivated attack. Religion contributed to the attack. When Argentina invaded the Falklands, they didn't justify their attack by religion, it wasn't a religiously motivated attack. This sort of liberal cowardice is nothing new. Every time an Islamic act of terror happens, such as the Boston bombing, the torrent of liberal apologists defending Islam is as predictable as the sunrise. Whether it's for political correctness, or some utopian ideal that Islam doesn't ever contribute to evil, the problem here is that you're not even willing to admit the blatantly obvious. This is a religiously motivated attack, the attacker said so himself.
You're arguing that he had religious reasons for feeling the way he did. I agree. But that does not change the fact that his objectives were expressly, unequivocably political. He was trying to impact government policy and public political dialogue. He was not trying to convert people or argue a religious case or promote his religion, he was trying to get British soldiers to withdraw from Afghanistan. He was trying to make that happen because he's a Muslim but it is still a political cause.
|
On May 23 2013 19:11 Jetaap wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 19:05 TheToaster wrote:On May 23 2013 17:36 hzflank wrote:On May 23 2013 16:08 TheToaster wrote:On May 23 2013 15:44 hzflank wrote:On May 23 2013 15:20 TheToaster wrote:On May 23 2013 15:04 Uni1987 wrote:On May 23 2013 14:48 TheToaster wrote:
I can't even understand the pedestrian witnesses at all. They clearly see the dead guy and the murderer walking about, so they just keep standing on the sidewalk like a flock of sheep, staring at both the murderer(s) and the body? Wouldn't they either want to call and go get help, run away, or even try to beat up the murderer? Instead they stand around like a flock of sheep.
I'm talking about before the police arrived, during the OP's Youtube video. From watching another interview online, apparently the murderers were even telling witnesses to call the police. What the fuck, did they honestly need to be told to call the police? Yes, let's attack two men that just chopped of a man his head on the streets. The first reason why they do not attack is probably typical group behavior where everybody is expecting someone else to help. Secondly, yeah, let's attack two men covered in blood that just beheaded a man on the streets, armed with a knife and hatchet I guess gun control in the UK would make it very difficult for a pedestrian to do anything in that situation. But that doesn't explain why they would stick around and remain to be the potential next victim. Also, out of curiosity I looked up UK laws on other types of non-lethal weapons like stun guns, night sticks, etc. All are apparently illegal to possess, so I guess you're right. Makes me glad I live in the U.S. where I at least have some sort of self defense at my disposal. The way we see it: one guy died and people having guns would not of prevented that death. What gun control did was stop a second person from dying. As for the sheep thing: it's London. Half the people would of been oblivious to the incident. Of those who noticed, several would of called the police. There is no point in every single person calling the police as they only need to be called once. Why run away from a guy with a gun? By staying calm there was less chance of them being attacked. That's assuming that the murderers didn't decide to kill someone else who was watching. Maybe they decide to get mad at one of the pedestrians trying to help the victim. It was reported they were only allowing women to come near the victim, threatening any other men who tried to help. There could have easily been another incident before the police arrived. The point being that I'd rather not trust someone who just committed murder and started preaching like a madman. Anything could have happened before the police arrived, especially since the murderers probably knew they were the only ones around with lethal weapons. "Why run away from a guy with a gun?". Besides the fact that's just a blatantly stupid question in itself, there were plenty of reasons to run away in that situation. Edit: Now that I think about it, the comparison to sheep was my mistake. At least sheep know how to escape from a deadly threat. Comparing them to the pedestrians would be an insult to sheep. It's not assuming anything. It happened and we know the outcome. One person died and the two attackers were injured. This is fact, not assumption. There were plenty of reasons to calmly distance yourself from the attackers, not to run away. People who have different views to you are not sheep or anything else, just because you cannot understand their views. The problem is your narrow-mindedness and not with other people. There is another thread for gun control yet you deliberately began the argument in this one because you look for any excuse to twist facts to fit your existing beliefs. How does knowing the outcome change the fact that the murderers were still perfectly capable of harming more innocent people, whether by accident or on purpose? Let's keep in mind some basic facts. The murderers were remaining at the scene with weapons in hand, telling witnesses that they intend on "staying and fighting" (read the above updates). Exactly what part of that scenario tells you not to run for safety? I'd really like to know, since you have "plenty of reasons" after all. How does my post in any way entail the gun control debate? Just because I said I'm thankful of my rights as a U.S. citizen? There's no "opinion" involved to debate here. When crazy people with a gun kill someone and start preaching their beliefs, common sense should be the only thing to consider. Are you saying that it was the witnesses "opinion" that they should stick around for a shootout between the murderer and police, for absolutely no reason? I value your ability to troll this forum with unnecessary debates and poor assumptions of me as an individual. But there's simply no fact twisting and no gun control argument that I'm trying to convey. I'm calling the witnesses sheep because of their lack of concern for personal safety during a situation that's dangerous and extreme enough to make international news headlines. I'm curious, do you have example in the US where people in the street were able to stop a planned attack thanks to a concealed weapon?
Nope, I'm not going to post an example because I don't care to argue about gun control. I'll just repeat what I already posted since you either didn't care to read that part or your lack of English didn't pick up on it.
no gun control argument that I'm trying to convey
Please don't quote someone if you didn't read what they said properly.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 23 2013 20:25 Nausea wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 20:23 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 20:21 Nausea wrote:
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. When people go "oh my god" during sex it generally isn't seen as prayer. Don't be deliberately dense. You're the one being dense. You hear people scream "God almighty!" when they chop of the head of a muslim you would probably be able to say that this is most likely a religious act.
Do you consider World War II to have been a religious war? I mean, as I have said before, Goebbels’ infamous speech about forces going into battle "as if they were in for a church service“ and the Red Army singing ‘Свяще́нная война́’ (sacred war) are both explicitly using religious vocabulary...?
|
On May 23 2013 20:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 20:21 Nausea wrote:
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. When people go "oh my god" during sex it generally isn't seen as prayer. Don't be deliberately dense.
Can you tell the difference between "oh my god" during sex, "oh my god" after being told that you have cancer, and "oh my god" look at her butt it's just so big? Yes?
Then you can tell the difference between "Allahu Akbar" after killing a soldier because the UK invaded his Muslim land and "Allahu Akbar" after prayer.
Context is obvious.
|
Its amazing to see people do anything to cast the attention away from him, and the fact that he was chanting alllah Akbar while cutting the head off. First people are islamphobes for pointing it out, and it wont be long before they start chanting holy scripture while bombing your local mall, but that still doesnt prove they are religious.
They are just crazy/ misundertstood and have nothing to do with islam.
|
United States41946 Posts
On May 23 2013 20:24 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 20:20 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 20:18 Asymmetric wrote: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. Hence why I assure you you should wait to police report before doing amateur detective work. You don't know his motivation. It seems odd for a non-native Arabic speaker raised in England to casually mutter the phrase as an exclamation by happen chance and dismiss it as that.
I don't but equally you characterising him as chanting "God is great" as he beheaded the guy is completely different from him exclaiming "Jesus Christ!" at one point during the beheading. It is an exclamation that is often used outside of beheadings. (Jesus Christ used in an attempt to anglicise the context for better understanding, the guy was a Muslim)
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
There seems to be some (a lot) of confusion in this thread between what drove the dudes to do it, and what their goals were.
As Kwark/others have said, what the perpetrators were trying to achieve was clearly political; none of it was really about religion.
What drove him to do it? Maybe (probably?) religion played a part (significant or otherwise), but this thread would do well to distinguish between the goals explicitly stated for the actions, and the probable myriad of reasons they were driven to do something so barbaric (mainly they're probably cray-cray).
edit: i.e. the difference between what they hoped to achieve by doing the action, and what drove them to do the action in the first place.
|
On May 23 2013 20:27 Poffel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 20:25 Nausea wrote:On May 23 2013 20:23 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2013 20:21 Nausea wrote:
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. When people go "oh my god" during sex it generally isn't seen as prayer. Don't be deliberately dense. You're the one being dense. You hear people scream "God almighty!" when they chop of the head of a muslim you would probably be able to say that this is most likely a religious act. Do you consider World War II to have been a religious war? I mean, as I have said before, Goebbels’ infamous speech about forces going into battle "as if they were in for a church service“ and the Red Army singing ‘Свяще́нная война́’ (sacred war) are both explicitly using religious vocabulary...?
The ethnic cleansing is very much motivated by religion and ideology. So yes I would say much of it was based off religion.
|
United States41946 Posts
On May 23 2013 20:30 TheRealArtemis wrote:
Its amazing to see people do anything to cast the attention away from him, and the fact that he was chanting alllah Akbar while cutting the head off. First people are islamphobes for pointing it out, and it wont be long before they start chanting holy scripture while bombing your local mall, but that still doesnt prove they are religious.
They are just crazy/ misundertstood and have nothing to do with islam.
Citation for the chant?
|
"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood."
Muslims once again prove how violent they are. From Morocco to Pakistan. See Copts in Egypt, Kurds in middle east, Libanon, Caucasus, Nigeria, Mali. Every sunni muslim country oppress human rights and freedom. This is a cold blooded murder. The facts are as clear as day, no matter how much you talk about it. In muslim lands religion= politics.
In civilized lands we solve our problems by votes, not by a murder. You people make me feel ashmed to call myself a liberal.
And ftw? Ofcourse I value my life higher then yours. This is how it goes. Stop pretending your are different.
User was banned for this post.
|
On May 23 2013 20:30 TheRealArtemis wrote:
Its amazing to see people do anything to cast the attention away from him, and the fact that he was chanting alllah Akbar while cutting the head off. First people are islamphobes for pointing it out, and it wont be long before they start chanting holy scripture while bombing your local mall, but that still doesnt prove they are religious.
They are just crazy/ misundertstood and have nothing to do with islam.
Since every butt and his brother is pointing out that they were chanting something, i'm sure you have sources for that. Care to share? Maybe i'm wrong, that would clarify.
|
On May 23 2013 20:07 Nurmis 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. 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.
We don't know if these two attackers process it this way or not. But Nurmis has some valid points in there. Is killing people with machete/knife worse than killing people with a drone attack?
Do non-Muslim/Westerners people worth more than Muslim/Middle East/colored people?
Anyway, with these kind of crime, all they want is the attention and thats what they got, with the media nowadays the world know about this in a matter of hours.
I don't believe Muslim people or Muslim as a religion is violent oriented, they above all, fight for the freedom of their countries, of the idea to take the US and its allies out of their lands. The US actually did/do/will do much more killing(innocent people) than those Muslim people can ever do but it seems that it never caught any attention at all.
I myself oppose violent of any kind but this has to come from both side, you can't expect people in those countries to calm down if the US and its allies don't calm down too at the same time.
|
KwarK defending religion? What is this, opposite day?
|
United States41946 Posts
On May 23 2013 20:31 kofolazero wrote:
"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood."
Muslims once again prove how violent they are. From Morocco to Pakistan. See Copts in Egypt, Kurds in middle east, Libanon, Caucasus, Nigeria, Mali. Every sunni muslim country oppress human rights and freedom. This is a cold blooded murder. The facts are as clear as day, no matter how much you talk about it.
In civilized lands we solve our problems by votes, not by a murder. You people make me feel ashmed to call myself a liberal.
I'm no cultural relativist, I find much of the Arab world and its culture abhorrent, backwards and barbaric. This act was barbaric. However it had much more in common with policy motivated terrorism such as that practiced by the IRA, animal rights extremists etc than with things like the riots following the Danish cartoons.
That's one of the reasons it's interesting. It's native British terrorism and it smells like it, he understood how the system worked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
