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 03:28 Asshat wrote: Seems like every criminal act performed by a muslim is called an act of terror these days. From massive attacks with explosives, killing sprees, to isolated assaults/murders performed by random lunatics such as this case. No holds barred.
I don't live in the UK, but I'm pretty sure cutting somebody's head of in public, outside of a military base and putting it on display while screaming Alah Akbar is an act of terror.
On May 23 2013 20:19 KwarK wrote: 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 wrote: 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.
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.
Read my original post and do not quote the post made by Kwark as mine. I would appreciate this.
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.
Is this distinction between political and religious cause meaningful? If somebody wanted to make a political change, such as stores closing down on the Sabbath, because they were jewish, is this a political, non-religious objective?
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?
I can do one even better. Here is the unedited video of the beginning of him mentioning the Qur'an . And yet Again and Again, the media edits it out, trying to portray him as a non religious person.
Listen to the beginning.
"Surat at-Tawba through...ma through...many, many ayat throughout the Qur'an that...we must fight them as they fight us..."
Edit: if this isnt proof enough that this is a religious matter for some of you people, then i dont know what to do...
What did he say to the cameraman right after you stopped quoting him? I can't hear that properly.
edit: nvm, got it. Remove your government, eye for an eye, yaddayadda, yeah.. No. Not convinced, i can distinguish between a religious motivated crime and a crime committed by a religious person. There's a huge difference. Seems to be a rare skill toi have.
Edit: especially apologizing that this woman had to see it, as if an extremist would care. But guess that's just me.
On May 23 2013 20:46 KwarK wrote: TheRealArtemis, literally nobody is arguing that he wasn't a Muslim.
I know. but the murders wasnt still political motivated. He is refering that muslims are being killed in the western wars. Afgahn, irak, etc. So when citing the quran and saying that they must be killed like we are being killed, that is (to me) a clear reference of Us (muslims) vs non muslims.
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.
What's your point?
I fear that we are getting into the realm of semantics. As I had said, this was a religiously motivated attack, and you agreed that religion played a role. So the conclusion here would be that Islam contributes to evil and murder.
But then you say that this attack was done for political reasons, because the attacker wanted the UK to get out of Afghanistan. So what? What's your point? That because you would classify the UK's involvement in Afghanistan as political, that somehow clears the role of religion in this crime?
In Pakistan, Salman Taseer was shot for his opposition to a blasphemy law that punished people with the death penalty. By your argument, this would merely be a political attack. After all, the attacker just begrudged his support for this piece of public policy. But it doesn't change the fact that in both these cases, belief in Islam had motivated and contributed to these acts of terror. And the sooner we all admit this and stop apologizing for Islam, the better.
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.
Although I readily admit that I was trying to convince you that the mere use of religious vocabulary isn't sufficient reason to conclude that the motifs are religious, I now see that you differ - but at least you're consequent. Yet, under this premise, to call violent acts "religious" is quite meaningless, as it distinguishes nothing. Since I'm probably able to dig up some nut that appeals to supernatural forces for every single damn violent conflict in human history since the invention of script, that makes all violent conflicts religious conflicts.
Personally, I still think that a more clear-cut terminology is preferrable, one that is based on more evidence than the mere appeal to a deity, but that's just me. And frankly, I don't see that as a pro forma exculpation of religion, Islam, whatever; I simply doubt that "blinded by religion" is the best and most conclusive explanation for violent crimes like the one we're talking about.
I don't know why Kwark is trying to play it down... but there is video evidence, free to watch, RIGHT NOW on the internet, where the killer goes on a religous tangent verbally.
Fact: The killing was motivated by religous beleifs, though extremist.
The two terror suspects being held under armed guard at hospitals in London were both known to security services, Government sources say.
The men - one of whom has been named as Michael Adeboloja - were arrested following the hacking to death of a serving soldier in the street in Woolwich, southeast London.
Sky's crime correspondent Martin Brunt said Adeboloja is a 28-year-old Londoner of Nigerian descent.
"He was born in Lambeth, grew up in east London. There are still members of his family living in the area.
"He was a student at Greenwich University, but it is not clear what he was studying there. Already on Facebook there are comments from former pupils say that they went to school with him in east London." After it became clear through eyewitness accounts that the attackers had political and religious motives, the Government held a so-called Cobra emergency response meeting, which was followed by another this morning.
Police investigating the attack have been searching an address in Lincolnshire believed to be connected to Adeboloja.
Brunt added: "We believe it is his father's house that is being searched by Lincolnshire Police on behalf of counter-terrorism command at Scotland Yard."
Anjem Choudary, the former leader of banned Islamic group al Muhajiroun, said he knew one of the alleged attackers but had not seen him for about two years.
Counter-terrorism officers are leading the investigation into the "shocking and horrific" murder and the Prime Minister has held talks with his top advisers to address potential security implications.
Relatives of the dead soldier are believed to have been informed and his identity is expected to be released later today.
A Facebook page in honour of the Woolwich victim has received around a million 'likes'.
Two suspected Muslim fanatics attacked the man in the street a short distance from the Royal Artillery Barracks after apparently knocking him down with their car.
Witnesses said they set about the soldier with a number of weapons, which appeared to include knives and a meat cleaver, while shouting the name of "Allah".
They apparently encouraged passers-by to video them. One of the alleged attackers was filmed wielding a bloodied meat cleaver, saying: "We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
"I apologise that wom
en have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you," he said.
In another clip, the man can be heard ad
ding: "You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start bussin' our guns? You think politicians are going to die?
"No it's going to be the average guy, like you, and your children
"So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so you can all live in peace."
Armed officers arrived about 20 after the attack began and shot two suspects, with one in a serious condition. According to sources, one of the suspects is being treated in King's College Hospital, Camberwell.
Scotland Yard said on Thursday that officers were at the scene within nine minutes of receiving that first 999 call.
"Firearms officers were there and dealing with the incident 10 minutes after they were assigned, 14 minutes after the first call to the Met," Assistant Commissioner Simon Byrne said
Scotland Yard's police commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, confirmed that the two men had been arrested.
"We understand concern about the motivation and we will work tirelessly to uncover why this occurred and who was responsible. I understand people want answers, but I must stress we are in the early stages of investigations," he said.
Extra officers were on duty in Woolwich overnight and security has been stepped up at military barracks across the capital.
Forensic officers were still on the scene on Thursday morning and the area remained cordoned off. The car used in the attack was taken away during the night
After it became clear through eyewitness accounts that the attackers had political and religious motives, the Government held a so-called Cobra emergency response meeting, which was followed by another this morning.
Mr Cameron said afterwards: "The people who did this were trying to divide us. They should know something like this will only bring us together and make us stronger.
"One of the best ways of defeating terrorism is to go about our normal lives."
Riot police had to contain an English Defence League demonstration in Woolwich after the murder, while elsewhere two mosques were attacked.
The barracks, also known as the Woolwich station, houses a number of the King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery and independent companies of the Grenadier and Coldstream Guards.
Summary
Both suspects are known to security services
The main suspect who was seen shouting at the camera's was a university student in London
Has a family property in Lincolnshire which was raided by counter terrorism officers this morning
1300 more police have been installed on London today
Government treating it as a terrorist attack
Suspect in serious condition, the other seems to be stable
Prime minister says "they tried to divide us, but they should know they only bring us closer together"
On May 23 2013 20:46 m4inbrain wrote: What did he say to the cameraman right after you stopped quoting him? I can't hear that properly.
edit: nvm, got it. Remove your government, eye for an eye, yaddayadda, yeah.. No. Not convinced, i can distinguish between a religious motivated crime and a crime committed by a religious person. There's a huge difference. Seems to be a rare skill toi have.
Edit: especially apologizing that this woman had to see it, as if an extremist would care. But guess that's just me.
Not sure why an extremist wouldn't be able to do that. It's basically the same thing some people say in threads like this, the kind of posts that go "it sucks but you had it coming."
People like these men are the reason i support death sentence as an option for extreme cases. These men er no better than rabid animals, and should be treated as such.
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.
What's your point?
I fear that we are getting into the realm of semantics. As I had said, this was a religiously motivated attack, and you agreed that religion played a role. So the conclusion here would be that Islam contributes to evil and murder.
But then you say that this attack was done for political reasons, because the attacker wanted to the UK to get out of Afghanistan. So what? What's your point? That because you would classify the UK's involvement in Afghanistan as a political, that somehow clears the role of religion in this crime?
In Pakistan, Salman Taseer was shot for his opposition to a blasphemy law that punished people with the death penalty. By your argument, this would merely be a political attack. After all, the attacker just begrudged his support for this piece of public policy. But it doesn't change the fact that in both these cases, belief in Islam have motivated and contributed to these acts of terror. And the sooner, the sooner we all admit this and stop apologizing for Islam, the better.
I guess why I think this matters is because we are fooling ourselves and doing ourselves a great disservice if we simply go "fucking Muslims, what barbarians" and ignore what he actually said. What he said wasn't that we must convert or that we must avoid insulting Allah or any other arcane religious point, what he said was that British foreign policy was causing violence on the streets of the Muslim world and that he wanted it to stop, he wanted the troops to come home, he wanted the British voting public to understand what their government was doing on their behalf. This forms part of a wider blurring between religious identity and cultural identity that has many of the hallmarks of a nationalist struggle against an invading power. If we dismiss it being purely religious or use it to condemn Islam then we're doing nothing but feeding our own preconceptions in the same way that using the IRA to condemn Catholics would miss the point about tragedies such as Bloody Sunday. What he said was that there were real political issues here that needed addressing, if you turn it into his invisible man not liking our invisible man then you can dismiss the entire issue as invisible when in this case it's not. It's easy to not believe in his God but if we pretend that his God is the issue and ignore his complaints about real things that the British government did then we're not getting anywhere. That doesn't mean we have to appease them, we could go the opposite route and say "sure, we're killing a load of Muslim civilians but we think it's okay to do that so fuck you" but either way we ought to acknowledge that our foreign policy, our political actions, are pissing people off and treat it with the seriousness it deserves.
American posters may not get the British context of a religious dismissal either but basically we don't take religion very seriously anymore. The churchgoing population is maybe a tenth of what you guys have. Characterising the act as religious matters because if it's a religious act then it's the act of a lunatic and can be ignored because reason stopped mattering when he involved the sky father, the guy issued a political manifesto (albeit a somewhat excited one) and that should be acknowledged.
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.
What's your point?
I fear that we are getting into the realm of semantics. As I had said, this was a religiously motivated attack, and you agreed that religion played a role. So the conclusion here would be that Islam contributes to evil and murder.
But then you say that this attack was done for political reasons, because the attacker wanted the UK to get out of Afghanistan. So what? What's your point? That because you would classify the UK's involvement in Afghanistan as political, that somehow clears the role of religion in this crime?
In Pakistan, Salman Taseer was shot for his opposition to a blasphemy law that punished people with the death penalty. By your argument, this would merely be a political attack. After all, the attacker just begrudged his support for this piece of public policy. But it doesn't change the fact that in both these cases, belief in Islam had motivated and contributed to these acts of terror. And the sooner we all admit this and stop apologizing for Islam, the better.
The belief in Islam has also throughout history motivated and contributed to religious tolerance as well as the prevention of mass killings. The belief in Christianity has certainly contributed to both good and bad acts as well.
Was this particular incident based solely on religious conviction? No, its quite clear politics were the main motivation.
Did religion play a part? Yes, and it always will when the perpetrator is religious.
On May 23 2013 20:58 adwodon wrote: Facebook is a cesspool today. People of my lovely hometown of Nottingham are really showing their colours.
Horrible incident, horrible reaction by a disturbingly large portion of a supposedly civilised society.
This is what frightens me most.
Whenever there is a public violent crime, everyone loses their minds.
Everyone cries for the death penalty, some are quick to offer themselves as hangmen and they forget their upbringing in a civilised world that doesn't carry out the death sentence. It's sickening to see how quickly people go from rational human beings to retarded apes. "Ugh ugh brown man kills white man, white man must kill brown man."
Makes me sick to my stomach and I get really depressed...
EPT
